Bitcoin Forum

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/09/how-libertarianism-helps-the-poor/

but it TRUE !!
taxation is way to steal from poor and give to rich.
in most cases/countries - literally !!

"The single most effective way that we can help the vulnerable is to stop hurting them."

I like this idea.  There are may philosophical models for maximization of liberty and the understanding of reality has advanced since the days of Ayn Rand thereby evolving libertarian philosophy.  Other philosophies and knowledge of the human psyche have advanced as well.

Hardly. They have practically failed to acknowledge any history of wu wei and Lao Tzu.

No I pretty sure modern psych has recognized the contribution of Taoism.

If you don't think the state is good for the poor, well, your overseers (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/5-more-arrested-accused-of-feeding-homeless-in-1528523.html) would like to have a talk with you.

Why anyone MUST care about the poor? Only those who want to care about the poor, should care. Otherwise where is freedom of choice here? :)

Right, but two things:

1. I dont know why, but I just dont like seeing people suffering, specially if its by some random shit out of their control. So helping the less fortunate is something that comes out naturally. I know we like to joke around, act tought and stuff, but usually 99.9% of the people is this way.

2. Humans are social animals. And the rules of society are social contructs, social conventions. We can agree that respecting individual rights is the best way to organize society because it creates maximum wellfare and progress. But if some part of society suffers big poverty, they are not going to accept the social conventions, they wont see the reason why they should. So helping the less fortunate get their shit together again and become self-reliable is in your own interest.

PS: I hate welfare that just makes people addicted to more welfare. Help should always be directed at getting people out of the whole.

There is no contradiction to what I said. If you or I feel that we should care in a specific case than we should. But we are not obliged to.
Right, but currently not only those who agree are obliged to pay up, everyone forced to (via taxes) and in every case [govt. deems to be worth caring about].

But paying taxes is not about welfare. Government is about power, not welfare. Welfare is just the excuse the government uses to get your money.

Thats actually one of the points of the article.

What's your point? I'd say welfare system is about power to redistribute money.
So welfare is about power too. For the government.
For the taxpayer it is about government taking money from them.

So just how much %age of your tax dollars goes on welfare? In my country it's about a quarter. The largest segment of social welfare spending is in paying government guaranteed superannuation. They paid tax all their lives so I guess they deserve it. The next largest sector is students: for loans and allowances combined. Following that is a benefit paid to solo parents....
How does your country compare?

I think we agree, just using somehow different language.

We've already seen the results of unregulated capitalism in this country at the beginning of the 20th century - with workers earning just barely enough to survive, paid in company scrip that could only be redeemed on overpriced items at the company store.

I don't see how anyone could argue in good conscience that we should go back to that unless the only things they've ever read on the subject were highly-biased works by stuffy economists with a vested interest in ignoring or discounting the suffering of regular people. You owe it to yourself to read books from more diverse points of view. I'd recommend you check out The Jungle by Upton Sinclair. It's old enough to be in the public domain, so you can read it for free: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/140

How do you explain that in the same period you are criticizing the wages of the workers went up more than in any ohter society, including Europe that was already implementing social-democracy?

And the system back then was not perfect, but comparing this period with the technological advances to that period is not honest. Compare that system with systems in the same period when they all had the same technology (or access to it) and you will see that the aproximation to a free market that was the USA increased the wages of the workers a lot more than the european socialdemocracies and any other system in the world. If you dont believe me please check the data and see by yourself.

MAJOR FAIL!

Research what you are arguing against next time so you don't look like a fool with your nonsense strawman argument.

How was there "unregulated capitalism in this country at the beginning of the 20th century" when the govt ran schools, collected numerous taxes and tarrifs, monopolized justice, police, military all paid for by unwilling tax-victims.

As long as the rule you apply to me in the name of helping the poor can be applied back on you it's cool with me.

Oh, you need to choose some amount of my money to take? Fine, now I choose some amount of yours. Almost any rule system will work. Just apply it to everyone in the same way and the bizarre parts will cancel.

You cut the cake, and I choose which slice is mine, eh?

I'm talking about corporate regulation. In fact, the conditions described in the book I mentioned horrified people so much that it inspired the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906. Because when profit was their only motive, corporations obviously couldn't be trusted to regulate themselves. And they still can't, if the actions of international corporations in less regulated modern countries are examined.

Arguing that corporations couldn't plainly see that they were working their people to death because "it was a different time!" is just silly. Seriously, read "The Jungle" and other books written around that time. People were being horribly exploited and they were angry as hell.


There was no social democracy in Europe in 1900, and social democracy as we know it didn't really start to take hold over there until after WWII. Now, if we compare the situation of the lower classes in modern Europe with modern America, things start to look pretty bad for the U.S. The poor here have no health care, lower social mobility, lower life expectancy, fewer educational opportunities, far less paid vacation (most European countries require 4-6 weeks paid vacation, U.S. requires zero), etc, etc.

There was a great article in Inc. Magazine (of all places) earlier this year called "In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism"
http://www.inc.com/magazine/20110201/in-norway-start-ups-say-ja-to-socialism.html

It's several pages long, but here's just one of the points it raises:

I have literally no idea what any of this is supposed to mean.

Rainingbitcoins, Corporations are themselves government creations. The limited liability allowed by the regulations which create corporations is what caused (and continues to cause) the problems you associate with 'lack of regulations'

So the solution to corporations not following the rules is to abolish the rules?

I don't quite follow that logic.

At any rate, the libertarian viewpoints are unquestionably worse for the poor. If everything once provided by the government is privatized, you'll not only have these people struggling to pay for health care, which they do now, but they'll have to pay a toll on every road, pay to go to the park, and get nickled and dimed for every convenience that we take for granted - all on LESS than the current minimum wage - because libertarians don't like that, either. Have you ever tried to live on minimum wage as it is? It's damn near impossible. Apparently the same companies who worked our great-grandparents to death and currently pay workers in other countries as little as they possibly can will suddenly turn super generous and pay us more even though they don't have to! Does that really sound like something that would happen?

Even as tax rates have dropped over the last 30 years and corporate productivity has increased drastically, worker wages, adjusted for inflation, have remained completely stagnant. CEO salaries have increased exponentially over the same time period. In Europe and the entire rest of the world, CEOs make 10-30 times the rate of the average worker. In the U.S., they make 500-700 times what we make.

If you trust the companies that hire you to look out for your well-being (which you would pretty much have to under libertarianism, because who's going to tell them otherwise?), I don't even know what to tell you.

The rules had no merit begin with. They only made an unequal playing field for business. Once everybody can play by the same rules, everybody gets a better experience. No longer is the new guy entering the game subject to trying to catch up with the big corporations that have played and had gained government approval for years.

Nope, I would have many jobs open for me if there weren't tons of government regulation on my labor (under 18). I would be able to work my way up from jobs that wouldn't otherwise exist because of the minimum wage. The poor would be able to gain more skills and eventually more pay and employment overall if there was little regulation on how THEY can sell their labor. It's not a matter of corporations giving people a decent life but each individual in the transaction bringing equal benefit to the value they recieve. If conditions are bad enough, in a free market, unhindered nor overpowered Unions would be able to stand for those who are being taken advantage.

Anyways, if a job can only exist on a pay no larger than 5 dollars an hour and a minimum wage is set to $8, the pay doesn't rise. The job is eliminated. You just end up putting more people on the streets over working for some money in their pocket.

No, what you would see is a passionate team of entrepreneurs building everything up again and probably for competitive prices and with far better and efficient infrastructure. The government wouldn't have a monopoly anymore. There would be a lot more innovation.

Yes, I've budgeted it out and I could live very sustainably on it, albeit no iPhone 4s and cable television, the 'needs' that seem to hold so many 'impoverished' back.

Welcome to corporatism enabled by the government's monopoly on force. These are only signs of an uneven playing field because the smaller guys have to pay huge taxes and they don't.

I trust that my fellow man has some basic instincts of human empathy and that we are inherently rational and can choose what is best for ourselves. Anyways, companies are no more powerful than the people selling their labor. They need each other. It inherently has to be a zero-sum game until people mess with the balance. That's what we wish to avoid.

Your position is one often held by those who haven't yet learned the whole story.

I don't deny that corporations are evil. I don't deny that they're doing their best to screw us. Where we disagree is the cause.

A corporation is a fictional person created by the government. This fictional person acts as a shield for the CEO. Further, there is a limit on the liability that the fictional person can incur, so no matter what the CEO tells this fictional person to do, the worst that can happen is the fictional person dies.

Removing this fictional person from the equation exposes the CEO to the liability of his actions. So if you want more corporate accountability, all you have to do is abolish the concept of 'corporation'.

A similar situation has resulted in the spiraling health care costs. Government subsidized insurance covers more and more things, which, because the customer doesn't have to pay, the Doctors naturally increase the prices to the level the market will bear. This causes premiums to rise, which in turn causes the customers to demand more services for their money... See where I'm going there? When you add in the fact that the AMA restricts the number of doctors available, supply/demand kicks in, and prices are further increased.

Minimum Wages! The worst thing to happen to the American worker, ever. Ask yourself, Which is more pay, $2.50/hour, or $0.00/hour? If you have more than two brain cells to rub together (Which I assume you do), you've come up with the same answer I did: $2.50/hour. When the minimum wage is increased, it drives up costs to employers, who are forced to cut back. And guess who's the first to go? That's right... The worker who was getting the previous minimum wage. Every minimum wage increase puts more people out of work.

Add all these together, and you get this: Without the government protecting the employer from liability and enforcing a minimum wage, the worker is free to negotiate with the employer for whatever his skills are worth.

I tried to post this earlier, but the site wasn't responding at all:

With a completely powerless small government, how could you ever expect everyone to play by the same rules... or even do anything but laugh at those rules? Anyone with any familiarity with the last several hundred years of capitalism - from the brutal, murderous colonialism of the 17th through 20th centuries, to the wage slavery and Third World exploitation of today, would find such an idea hopelessly naive.


Look, no offense, but you're a kid. You may think you could live on less than minimum wage, but you've never had to. You've never had to live on your own at all. There are plenty of places in the U.S. where you can't even find a studio apartment for less than $700 a month. Add in electric bills, gas bills, food, phone (you need at least some kind of phone for your employer to contact you), transportation to your job, and you're looking at another $500 at the very least. Minimum wage without any taxes is barely over $1000 a month. Even if you could barely manage to scrape by, what happens when an emergency comes up? There's no way you'd actually be able to save any money to pay for it.

You know, if the private sector is so much better than the public, why have so many of the most important inventions of the 20th century come from the public sector - space travel, the Internet. Even some of the ones that didn't (the transistor, the microprocessor) wouldn't have been possible without the companies involved receiving massive government grants. And even today, so much of the important research in medicine and technology comes out of public universities, and then is later sold by private companies.

Competition isn't as big a factor as you think it is. Our screwed-up private insurance-based health care system should tell you that much. We pay 2-3 times what any other country does for health care per capita,  yet we still have 50 million people with no insurance, and millions more with terrible insurance because it's all they can afford. Europeans are so used to their quality nationalized health care that the situation here shocks and appalls them. Wouldn't you rather live in a country where "medical bankruptcy" is a term that doesn't even exist? And hell, 75% of the people who do end up filing for medical bankruptcy here had insurance to begin with, but either the insurance didn't cover needed procedures or it dropped them because they were too expensive. When it's more profitable to deny claims and profit is all you care about, you end up with the situation we have here.

One thing you'll see conservatives do again and again to "prove" that public services don't work is to starve the beast - that is they keep defunding public agencies more and more, and then when these agencies are so broke that they can barely operate and their efficiency goes down, conservatives point to that as an inherent failure of the very concept of public service. Neat trick, huh?

See, you seem to think that the government owns the corporations instead of vice versa.  Like the people who blame the Community Reivestment Act for the subprime crisis instead of placing the blame on the banks where it belongs ( http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09/community_reinvestment_act_had_nothing_to_do_with_subprime_crisis.html ).

I would ask that you become more familiar with the history of this country, especially the last hundred years. Our armed forces and intelligence agencies have had a hand in toppling literally dozens of democratically elected governments around the world, all for the sake of American business interests.

Check out this list and start reading around 1900:
http://www.history.navy.mil/wars/foabroad.htm

Every time the reason given for the military operation was "protecting American interests", that means they did it for big business.

Here is one of the best known examples, though there are so many others, it would take me hours to list them all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Fruit_Company#History_in_Central_America

(The United Fruit Company is what's now known as Chiquita Banana)


With all due respect, I believe your trust is severely misplaced. Look at... well, look at all of human history. People are horrible, and the ones who strive for riches above all else don't give a damn about empathy. What would have ever made you think they did? Their PR departments?

If nobody respects life to begin with, everything falls apart. It's in everybodys best interest to follow the rules. If people in general can't respect life, I don't know how the people in power can either.

The 17th through 20th centuries were not pinnacle points of free-market capitalism. Heh, far from it. There was very much a tyrannical reign during those times. The third world exploitation we have today is very much caused by large bodies of force. The closest we have had to a voluntary market was America's industrial revolution and contrary to popular belief, people were thriving. They may have had cramped quarters and tough jobs but it was far better opportunity than what they previously had. It was the precipice of American development and fortunately it wasn't hindered fully until later by the progressive new deal policies. If left alone, I believe things would be far more prosperous today.

 

The reason apartment living and housing in general costs so much is because of excessive government regulation in the first place. That's why homelessness and debt is so much of a problem. You can no longer find small, minimalist houses because pompous liberals think everybody should be too good for them.

In addition, I could easily budget that out to less than $500 a month. I'll shoot a deer and keep it in my freezer if I have to. There won't be starbucks or overpriced niche foods but I will survive. If there was less regulation, I bet things would be much cheaper.

I would just have to save a little at a time. What do you recommend? Enslaving people to give me a higher wage? Fuck you.

We may not of seen identical innovations in a non-public environment but you cannot say innovation would cease to exist in a free, voluntary environment. I don't think a micropressor or a trip to the moon justifies slavery. In addition, medicine is mostly hindered today by big pharma granted monopoly powers by the government. Technology as of now is doing just fine without the government.

We don't have private healthcare. It's very much limited by government. If you look back at the 1920s, you will see we had the pinnacle of healthcare before the doctors started lobbying everything up. Healthcare was just fine before the government stepped in.



If people are inherently horrible, then I can only imagine how horrible governments are.

That's adorable that you think companies aren't hiring because they can't afford it, but the fact is, corporate profits are sky high and they still aren't hiring.

Our minimum wage is about $14k a year and we have 9.1% unemployment. Really, due to the screwy way we calculate that number, it's closer to 20%. Norway's minimum wage is $48k a year and they have 3.5% unemployment. How would you explain that?

That's great that you think a single person has any leverage at all in negotiating with multi-billion-dollar transnational corporations, but they really don't.

Fuck you. i lost my shit job at McDonalds to the minimum wage hike, So I think I know a thing or two about this.

You see, he perceives his whole doctrine as helping the impoverished and if you question that, it can only create severe cognitive dissonance. My family on both sides came from 'poverty' by the liberal's standards, yet they felt very wealthy in their lives. Sure they had to reuse bathwater and never had many luxuries but they were god damn happy people and it seems most cannot imagine it.

By "small, minimalist houses", I can only assume you mean tin-roofed shacks.


Oh, good lord.


Taxes are not slavery, guy who never had to pay any.



Of course health care was cheap in the 1920s! There was no radiation treatment for cancer, no bypasses for heart disease, none of the stuff we have today. If you avoided every advancement made in the last 90 years, health care today would be affordable, too. That doesn't mean it would be good.

Again, I have to ask, if government interference in health care is what drives the prices up, why does every country with government-provided health care pay a fraction of what we do to cover a higher portion of the population with a better standard of care?  By your logic, they'd be paying several times more than we do for terrible care.

And you believed them when they told you that? That's pretty gullible.

Look, if I could make my workers work harder, rather than kill my profit margin by keeping another person hired, I rather fire the person. In addition, if I was hiring someone to scrape gum off the sidewalk for 2 dollars an hour and then a minimum wage came up, I'd fire them. It's that simple. Businesses don't hire just for the sake of hiring. They hire for benefit and need. When the job overshadows the benefit, it goes away.

Yeah dude, you're really blowing my mind with these awesome new ideas that you got from reading blogs written by other high school kids on Von Mises's site.

The thing is, they only work in reality if you have a very loose definition of that word and make up facts as you go along.

Is that McDonald's still in business? If so, I guess they didn't need you and picked the most convenient excuse they could think of to let you go!

e: whoops, I thought you were the other guy

You're an idiot. There's no use trying to pound sense into granite. I give up.

...and there is not a god damn thing wrong with living in a tin-roofed shack. It seems you are too proud to settle for what is sustainable.  

Also, check these out: www.tumbleweedhouses.com/

Regulations and overzealous zoning commissions have phased housing like this out only to the detriment of people.


Too proud to hunt it seems. It's what most of our ancestors did.


It's a part of MY labor that's taken from me. That is slavery.





Still, that doesn't excuse the high wage mandates, the destruction of the healthcare groups that were managed by the poor and for the poor and the dismantlement of charity hospitals.


Corporatism is more rampant here and our quality of care happens to be higher for the people who have better means. We have the highest quality of care but not for people who aren't upper middle class. Also, their care sucks when it comes to urgent surgeries. Long waitlists. My mother would of probably died of her rare lung collapse if she was elsewhere.

They have never worked in reality because they have never been achieved. Civilization has always been mostly tied to a ball and chain.

Still waiting for someone to tell me why Norway has such a low unemployment rate and high minimum wage compared to us if these universal truths you guys are laying down on me are, indeed, universal. Or true.


This is a myth. Wait times in UHC countries are comparable to our own - some slightly higher, some slightly lower. You know that thing about people from Canada coming here for health care? It doesn't actually happen.

And you don't get to pretend that corporations aren't part and parcel of capitalism, and are some horrible government experiment run amok. That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard. What, exactly, would replace them with in your libertopia?


This sounds a lot like a Marxist who claims that the reason communism never worked is that no country ever had pure, true communism.

Oh yeah, and good luck hunting those deer when two hundred million other Americans with below-minimum-wage jobs get the same idea.

I don't care about Norway. It offers me little opportunity and freedom. It looks like a hostile place to start a business.

Companies do not become supermen just by having huge profit-margins. Their life support is solely in their consumers. A company only becomes a corporation when it becomes exempt from liability and can be bailed out by its government benefactor on a whim. Businesses are on a equal playing field with individuals in a free environment; subject to the same liability and failure.

They would be replaced by many competitive companies without unfair restrictions on how they can serve their consumers.

Also, we have lived off hunting animals for most of our history. I doubt we would throw the ecosystem off that much. We are not above nature.

Also, you negate the fact that Norway is puny. Of course whatever they do works for them. They probably import most of their working-class labor.

In other words, you didn't read the article I posted, or even the two lousy paragraphs of the article I pasted here.


Again, with the obvious incentive of huge profits to be gained from exploiting their workers, who would ensure things stay this way? Or do you just somehow trust the businessman to do what's right, despite the evidence of all of recorded history ("they worked their people to death for their own high profits because of GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS! Don't you get it????" lol).

Yeah, I don't think you've spent much time researching the population density of hunter/gatherer societies versus modern industrialized societies. I'd also love to hear how some guy in the inner city with a low-wage job is supposed to just go hunting when he has no transportation and there isn't a deer within 40 miles of his apartment.

Look, you seem like a smart kid, but maybe you should try reading more diverse sources if you want to be fully informed about the world.

Ah, so social democracy works great if you only have 10 million people, but somewhere there's a magical line where it stops working. Gotcha. Is Germany (population 70 million, strongest economy in Europe), above or below that line?

Look, I haven't been fair to you. I apologize. I will continue this discussion when I am willing to put in just as much effort as you are.

I think the fact that you have FTC people going to work for the companies they allowed to merge, and Net Neutrality politicians bait and switching to prop up dying traditional media, that fact negates most pro state arguments.

People don't need government. They need governance.

Well said.

You can subjectively cherry pick your dates, but the reality is that Bismark was the one who started the government programs to keep the poor in line, that we understand by social-democracy. This is a historic fact accepted by all historias.

And the facts are that the psuedo-free market of the USA gave better conditions to the workers thatn the european proto-social-democracies.


Why you do this? You are dishonest, you dont want to help people. We are discussing late XIX century, not the present. In the present the USA is a sort of social-democracy and therefore screews the workers.

You are not going to get away that easy. I would like to know your answer to the fact that the USA pseudo-free-market benefited more the workers than the european proto-social-democracies.


Let me remind you that Norway has a lower corporate tax rate than the USA and a higher tax rate for workers. How is that socialism? You want to be more like Norway so I assume you want to lower taxes for corporations and raise taxes for workers? Defenders of neoliberalism say the northern european countries are an example of neoliberalism.

[/quote]

Right, if a magazine says it, it must be true. As I said northern european countries are far from socialism. European socialist renegue of them just so you know.

Also, do you know that the northen countries have been moving away from regulations and welfare since the 80's-90's? During that time the socialists were in the government and basically increased welfare driving the countries towards stagnation. People started voting the conservatives and they scale back in welfare and the countries started to grow again. But hey, it must be the welfare that is producing growth if a magazine says it!

And Norway is not a good example since they have lots of petrol. Its easy to do things when you have petrol.

Seriously? No, really, seriously? Over the last thirty years, taxes have gone down, union membership has become a thing of the past, and legislators fight tooth and nail to defund any social program they can, and we're "a sort of social democracy".  I saw another thread right here in this forum where Atlas called the U.S. one of the most libertarian countries on Earth.

Because it didn't. And they weren't. And working conditions in America were so bad that it was literally killing people left and right. That you can hold up the early 20th century as some sort of golden age for American workers shows that the only knowledge of the subject you have at all comes from revisionist historians who love nothing more than to whitewash the sins of big business. Go ahead, read The Jungle. What's the worst that could happen? You have to entertain an alternative viewpoint? You're stuck reading one of the most famous books of the 20th century? I could think of worse punishments.


Here you deliberately confuse the stated corporate tax rates with the actual, effective corporate tax rates. Many corporations are making billions and not paying a penny:
http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20110612/BUSINESS/106120371/DuPont-pays-no-tax-3B-profit-s-legal
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110325/ts_yblog_thelookout/g-e-paid-no-taxes-on-5-1-billion-in-profits

And corporate taxes as a share of the GDP decreased from 7.2% in 1945 to 1.3% in 2011:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2011/06/11/us-a-low-tax-country-and-getting-lower/?cxntfid=blogs_jay_bookman_blog

Inc. Magazine - truly one of the most pervasive spreaders of socialist propaganda in our times. Also, you know, they do cite two sources in just that one little snippet I provided.

Socialism is often used as shorthand for "social democracy" in modern America because apparently Americans find these things confusing. Actual socialism involves workers controlling the means of production, which clearly isn't the case anywhere in Europe.

You are doing it again. The discussion was about the late XIX century and you are changing it. Its dishonest. But Ill answer anyway:

First, its normal that government unions are going down. Workers are realizing that government unions answer to the ones that pay them: the government, and not to the workers. During the industrialization some workers started to organize and protest, sometimes in very creative ways, to punish the industrialists that were exploiting them by not paying them the free market wage. Some industrialists and their government cronies realized this so they started to organize government unions so they could manage the anger of the workers in a way that was useful to them. That is why they organized government unions, financed by governments and therfore that answer to the politicians and not to the workers.

Its a law of life that the one paying is the one in control. If you have government unions, they will answer to the government. If you have workers unions, they will answer to the workers. Workers are realizing this.

Second, this is the graph of the spending of the USA as a percentage of the GDP. Look at this and tell me the USA is not becoming a social-democracy:

http://img607.imageshack.us/img607/3230/usgovspendingvsgdp19032.jpg

Its almost at european levels.


So now you are denying reality. Check the data. The USA pseudo free market increased wages more than the european proto-social democracies. That is a fact, whether you like it or not.


Bla, bla, you are brainwashed, bla, bla, you dont understand my enlightment, bla, bla...

I have already said this but here goes again: Yes, during the XIX century conditions were worse than they are today, technology and production has improved. And you know what? During the X century conditions were even worse than during the XIX century. You are being dishonest by trying to compare periods with different technology and conditions. You can not compare them, unless you want to be dishonest.

The fact of the matter is that given the conditions of that time, the USA pseudo free market increased the wages of the workers way more than the european proto social democracies. That is a fact, no matter how hard you try to ignore it so you can keep going on thinking the way you do.


This happens in Norway too. Its what social democracies do: screew the poor while benefiting the rich. Its political darwinism.


Do you realize Im not anti-socialist, but in fact regard the socialist ideals as a good thing? Im not a marxian.

This isn't Rome, you know.

I wasn't referring to public sector unions, which have actually increased. Private sector unions are what has drastically decreased. If that's even what you mean by "government unions".


Hey, great. So let's compare the situation of the poor in modern Europe with how they're doing in modern America, because nowadays we actually have reams of stats and figures to prove who has it better rather than accepting one or the other's interpretation of history. I suggested that on the last page. And I think it's pretty clear who has a better lot.

Honestly, I don't know what the hell you are. But this thread is about libertarianism supposedly benefitting the poor. Which it clearly does not. Actual socialism would be preferable, IMHO, but hey, you take what's realistic. Leftist ideologies are so demonized and propagandized against in the U.S. that they have no hope of succeeding. And if you're trying to appeal to people who think free markets are some kind of benevolent God, you sure as hell don't come out of the gate quoting Marx!

We are the market. Premise blown.

And you compalin when I say that you are not being honest? Is this a proper answer for you?

Anyway, Im not interested in discussing with you anymore (as long as you are going to keep deflecting and not really answering).


By government unions I mean government regulated and/or financed unions.


Again, what this has to do with what I said or with the fact that the USA pseudo-free market of the late XIX century increased the wages of the workers more than the european proto-social democracies? You are being dishonest.


This is the funniest part. The authoritarian left receives more corporate money than anyone else and you are complaining that its demonized? Get real please.

Anyway, as I said, Im done until you want to have an honest discussion.

people have what they need. and need what they have.
among other things, thats important too. much more than rich sick alienated fucks can admit/accept/tolerate.

This is a silly argument-- government actions can have consequences that are unintended-- my wanting to help the rich could in the end, help the poor.

Intentionality is impossible to prove, and quite frankly a stupid thing to critique somebody over.

What the regulation affects is completely irrelevant to why the regulation is in existence-- the notion that it is for the benefit of businesses is crap.  Once again, to prove what they are doing it for is impossible, and furthermore, it isn't for the benefit of business, free or corporate-- explain to me how government saying that it isn't OK to dump chemicals into the groundwater is beneficial to business: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anderson_v._Cryovac

Lastly, while politicians are willing to cater to the economically powerful, and while corporatism is awful, this entire argument is premised on the idea that under the free market, this sort of thing wouldn't happen. Otherwise, the libertarian system isn't a viable one.

Also, why wouldn't corporations exist in a free market? Given all that we have, minus the subsidies, does anybody honestly think that corporations could continue to exist, quite easily, merely through monopoly?

This paragraph is basically a call to inaction -- "since we can't be sure of the outcomes of our actions, we should merely not act at all" is a logical consequence of this line of thought.

Individuals do pay for good decisions and suffer for poor ones, and while corporations do the same, corporations' actions harm others and themselves(the point isn't to reward good and punish bad, the point is to get away from harmful actions with innocent victims). Once again, libertarianism doesn't offer a viable alternative theory, but this time concerning the law, and what we should consider illegal and legal.

This ignores the fact that the majority of people will not be free from wage slavery. The vast majority of people do not make 100k+ a year, and a huge amount of people are screwed over by free market and corporatist systems.

Greater economic freedom applies only to those who aren't living paycheck to paycheck. Choices don't exist for the majority of people who are poor-- McDonalds or BK isn't free choice.

This is the funniest thing I've read in awhile-- libertarians, if helping the poor is to be a litmus test by which to judge your system, you have no viable alternative.
Liberty will not help to feed those who are hungry, nor will it house those who are homeless. If we're talking in pure utilitarian terms, there is no ethical way to justify libertarianism.

The article, like your system, is a joke.

O.o

Actions? What actions? We're talking about the flow of money. Actions are a sales pitch.

The intention is to not help the poor but to fill their pockets with the product of your good will and gullibility.



Your sir are a rhetorical pedantic fleecing opportunity. There is no such thing as why. There is only how. The why is your job and mine to take care of. Only when we the people act, does any action manifest.


It wouldn't happen in a market where a guy with $5 in his pocket could participate to a serious degree of influence.


Because people would be offering their own wares and ignoring them. It's not a question of controls. It's a question of the willingness of communities to put up a fight. Corporations exist because we want someone else to deal with the problem.


Government is not action. People forming discussion groups and agreeing on their interests is action.


So um... step up to the... plate.


Systems do not help people. People help people.

There is no difference between helping them, and giving them money. All cases of responsibly giving them money is a case of helping them.

And policies are actions. This isn't that difficult to comprehend.


For the 1st sentence to be true, we'd have to be philosophical zombies. Even if you are, there is no doubt in my mind that I have "why"s. Also, calling me a name and insisting that what I'm talking about doesn't exist isn't a good argumentative strategy-- you've proven nothing.

Except he can't, and wouldn't be able to, even under a libertarian system. One Vote =One person is all well and good, but not good policymaking when people fetishize money and those who have it.
They exist in our current system because of subsidies, but would exist in a libertarian system because of monopolies. The causal relationship you put forward  doesn't make sense. "If only they would fight against corporations" is nice, but not actually going to happen-- if the majority of people are more concerned about their own pocketbook(as libertarianism would encourage), then there is no point in any other calculus besides "what is the best deal?" Once again, libertarianism doesn't provide a viable solution.


People forming a discussion group, and agreeing on their interests is a form of governance.

Also, what you just said, once again, isn't responsive.
My point was the following-- libertarianism isn't a viable alternative.

can you please go ahead and defend libertarianism? I've given concrete examples wherein it would fail, and you've done pretty much nothing to refute them

Btw, the systems not needing people is nonsense-- political systems don't exist w/o people.

This is ridiculous on its face.


Getting skilled people is helping. Giving money to flood victims is not helping.


Policies are pieces of paper. Offering someone room and board is action.


Why is vaporware. How is actual delivered product.


I'll take him there and represent my fellow man's interests.


As opposed to sitting on your ass fetishizing systems?


Subsidies come from the system. The only usefulness of a system to the people is to prevent a power vacuum.

As for communities standing up. Operation Empire State Rebellion.


Who the hell cares what a bunch of lazy couch monkeys would or wouldn't do? A bitcoin has no value until you trade it. The inaction of those who won't act is only an inconvenience. And determined individuals can make up for lacking in numbers by working harder.


People forming ad hoc groups is not governance. It's problem solving. People forming permanent groups is somewhat like governance. There's not really that big of a need for permanent groups just seasonal councils convened and dissolved.


No system is. Roll up your sleeves.


I don't need to defend anything. I'm promoting self-reliance and autonomous convergence of individuals. Your arguments against libertarianism are based in spending too much time behind a desk.


Did you actually read what I said?

Systems don't help people. I never said systems don't need people. Hell, I'd say the fact that they need people makes the system redundant. You're so fixated on a particular mode of problem solving you can't even read what people say.

In This Post: Ad hom attacks, nothing constructive, relevant, responsive, or important.

any relationship between people is inherently a system by definition.

Also, I'm beginning to think you're either high, drunk, stupid, troll, or mentally disabled. I can't figure out which(But I'm going with troll for the pure unresponsiveness of your post).

I highly recommend a read through Kevin  Carson's "Organization Theory", especially for those of you claiming that free-market = corporatism

I'd rather not buy the book of an anarcho-capitalist hack(redundant)? Just summarize the argument(s) here and I'll show why you're wrong.

Btw, if this is the same guy that is an anarcho-capitalist while simultaneously misusing the word capitalist, I will literally laugh out loud. Anarcho-capitalism is, at best, a misunderstanding.

No need to buy it, It's free (http://www.mutualist.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/otkc11.pdf). (30 second google search, 3rd link.)

Fine, I misworded that. Buy should've been buy/read.

I'm not going to read ~650+ pages on a subject which I think I already know the answer to: free markets want efficiency, corporations aren't efficient, corporations will cease to exist.

Two good reasons why this is nonsense-- if government is totally inefficient, and only efficient systems will survive, why does government survive?
I'll answer my own question-- it is because humans aren't rational actors, and there are other competing, and sometimes winning factors besides efficiency.

Other reason: The entire argument is structured around corporations/monopolies ONLY existing if government subsidies them. So to win this argument, I only need one example to prove that a monopoly/corporation came into existence without a subsidy.

Microsoft.

Anything else?

Yes, god forbid you might actually *gasp* change your mind!

Or spend precious moments not soaking in a bath of your own ideology. I mean... other people's opinions... Eww!

Several notes here
1) I said think-- I am fallible, but if the argumentation can be digested into several main points, I'd be happy to argue against them.
2) This isn't responsive, nor does it give your ideology any ground to stand on
3) Masturbating to your ideology is the exact same thing that you've done in your post here-- I just happened to have done it without mocking somebody else.
4) And finally, I'm willing to change my mind, but I know that it won't be changed by whatever your argument is. I've read more libertarian, anarcho-capitalist, and objectivist nonsense than I care to(and probably more than you have as well). None of it claims to be utilitarian, and none of it claims to maximize the good. They either do it because jerking off to the constitution is fun for them, or because they have a poorly constructed system of onotology and values, because they know capitalism will benefit them the most.

Thumbs up.  :D

You make good points, and I apologize for being a dick. It offends me, though, when I see someone say, "I don't feel like it. Why don't YOU do all the work?"

I have never claimed, nor have I seen anyone in here claim, that libertarianism maximizes the good. Rather, I claim, and I believe the others do as well, that it minimizes the harm. A minor distinction, to be sure, but an important one.

Here are some facts:
Taxation hurts the poor the most.
Giving tax breaks to the poor and taxing the rich until they are poor just drives the rich out of your country.
Public charity (ie, welfare) is inefficient, and often corrupt.
Private charity does a much better job of taking care of people.
With less taxation, the economy does much better.
With a better economy, there are more jobs.
With lower (or no) minimum wage, there are more jobs.

I'll leave it up to you to make your conclusion from those facts.

I'll dispute that either later in this post, or in another post. I'll go line by line at the moment.

Relevant to the thread, not to my interests. One poor person has the same value as a rich person, in terms of ethical calculus. The decision, then, should be, does taxing e'rebody benefit more people than it harms, or does it maximize the good?

Empirically denied(at least on the state level : http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/04/20/millionaire-tax-didnt-chase-the-rich-from-new-jersey-study-says/

Right, that's indisputable, but those are solvency limitations, not solvency deficits or negation-- in other words, good can still be affected by these programs, even if they are mismanaged.

Several points here:
1) The people who end up donating money to these charities do so out of the goodness of their heart. Under a libertarian system, there would be a fetishization of greed, and there would be no rational reason to donate to a charity.
2) Empirically denied-- most private charities have an agenda to pursue as well, and will execute social justice programs more effectively, but not evenly: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chibrknews-catholic-charities-suspends-foster-care-licensing-20110603,0,6555435.story
3) Private charities are plagued by the same ineffectiveness and corruption that gov. is plagued by: http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBZQ4B0ABE.html

Undeniable, but a rising tide does not raise all boats, economically speaking.

[quote
With a better economy, there are more jobs.[/quote]
Job growth does expand. But that's not really relevant, b/c we should be looking at good jobs(any idiot can work at McDonalds', but those aren't the ones that will bring somebody out of poverty, or do actual good for society.

I disagree with this-- just because a company can hire more doesn't mean they would. Rather, it would mean they would pocket the money they could spend on raising wages-- unless there is a necessity for more workers, I would doubt they'd hire more.

Also, even if your claim is nominally true(that is, if it does make more jobs), these aren't desirable jobs that begin to affect any sort of good for the position holder, or for society.

Getting back to the utilitarian calculus, and if libertarianism maximizes utility, I'd have to say no-- even if it causes the least harm(not what we're looking at, in abstraction(we need to look at the good it causes minus the bad it causes, and use that as a method to judge the systems)), I highly doubt it is the system that creates the greatest good. I think there are other systems to work towards that, even while potentially causing more harm, still winds out on top via all the good it produces.

Honestly, I've had many debates with anarcho-capitalists, libertarians, and objectivists. The only way I've seen the 1st two defend themselves effectively is on a deontological platform-- rights have primacy, and they can't be violated.

As for the objectivists, well, their ontology/values are laughable. I haven't seen one defend their ideas effectively yet.

There is no evidence that corporations would exist without government granted privilege because there are no examples of corporations existing without government granted privilege.


Intellectual property law is a subsidy for Microsoft's business model of selling copies of a non-scarce resource.

This is of course on top of the government's recognition of Microsoft as some special entity that can do things individuals or groups of unrecognized individuals cannot.

Well said. Now watch as they turn religious.

Ugh, this is just poor argumentation for several reasons:
1) Intellectual property laws(along with corporations as being people(which isn't responsive either, cause it was a monopoly and corporation long before that court ruling)) aren't a subsidy for microsoft, as many different companies, corporations, and entities receive it.
2) Intellectual property laws aren't subsidies because it isn't a form of favoritism(see 1(this also decapitates your offense on the subject-- if it applied to all software companies equally, then why did microsoft pull ahead?)), but also because it isn't a form of financial assistance.
3) As for the
The government granted privilege makes no sense for the reasons above-- privilege implies favoritism, and unless the law was applied unequally, to microsoft's harm, then the issue is closed-- they weren't subsidized, and turned into a monopoly.
4) Last ditch defense-- just because there are no examples yet doesn't mean that there won't be any in the future. Scientific method ftw.

Taxation has, as it's stated goal, to help the poor, via welfare and other social programs. 'Wealth redistribution'. What they end up doing is robbing Peter, pocketing some, and then giving back to Peter, after he jumps through some hoops. Granted, they also rob Paul, but we're suggesting not taking from Peter in the first place.

Granted... to a point. There is a point where it will become cheaper to leave than to stay. At that point, they will move.

Agreed, but harm is still being done to pay for these programs. The question we ask is, "Is the harm outweighed by the good?" And the answer we come up with, time and again, is 'No.'


1.People are still people, and will still give out of the goodness of their own heart. I don't fetishize greed, and I'm as AnCap as they come. People will still give to charity because it makes them feel good about themselves. You underestimate the power of self-esteem.
2. People will give to those charities which pursue the agendas they themselves support. Contrast this to enforced 'donation' to an organization whose major pass-time seems to be bombing brown people, and I think you'll see my point.
3. But people aren't forced to donate to that charity. When a scandal like that comes out, people will switch charities.


Go into a McDonalds at 6:30 PM and tell me that more people behind the counter wouldn't 'help society' Also, as I've stated before, even $2.50 an hour is better than $0.00 an hour.


Who are you to say which jobs are 'desirable'? Who are you to say which jobs 'benefit society' or more importantly, which ones benefit the job holder? Let the person seeking employment make that decision for him or herself, thank you.


If you can point to me some harm that libertarianism/AnCap directly causes, and it outweighs the harm which I can point to that Government directly causes, I will concede the point.

Eh, intellectual property is favoritism. By claiming Microsoft is entitled to only being able to shape bits and bytes a certain way is denying everybody else to do the same with their property. It is an infringement on property rights inevitably.

That's not true on any level, actually-- I don't think terribly many politicians or liberals view it as such, taxes are a way to benefit everybody, but I don't think any of them have used the words "wealth redistribution".

Also, for the 3rd sentence-- what's wrong with that? If it does more good for the majority of people than it harms, then what's the problem(this is what I meant that you'll probably have to retreat back to deontology)

Nobody's suggesting getting them to that point-- it would be a self-defeating system.

Taxation isn't a harm. In the same way that other, seemingly mandatory parts of existence in western civ isn't a harm. My not being able to murder somebody isn't a harm on me-- it is a reasonable expectation to give back and to not harm.

1) But a fundamental part of laissez-faire capitalism is that people act in their own rational self-interest. Donating to charities isn't in their self-interest. So either they aren't rationally self interested, destroying the possibility of AnCap, or they won't donate, and your system is viable, but you have to concede the point.
2) Agreed, but social contractualism will, time and time again, show how peoples' tax dollars go to things that they don't want. I don't want my money to bomb a 3rd world country. But by the same token, I don't support having a sustained army either, so I don't entirely see why I would ever have to defend military spending.
3) But there's no difference. If you go with option two, that people won't donate cause they're rational, then your claim surrounding alternative solvency through charities makes no sense. Alternatively, if you go with one, then people will donate to charities, but the problem of corruption and incompetence will remain-- no charity, like no government, will be perfect.



Helping society comes from techonological, sociological, intellectual, developments that people who work at McDonalds will not make or do. Alternatively, good for society and good for the individual aren't mutually exclusive-- the professor who could be working at McDonalds not only benefits himself by not working there, but also the society. And 2.50 isn't any better than 0. At the point in time wherein you have to choose between medicine, food, or housing, 2.50 isn't different from 0 in terms of actual utilitarian calculus. Both are unacceptable.
There are some jobs, which, logically speaking, will benefit people more than others. The people working on clean cars, are, for example, in a better job for both themselves and society than the people working at BK.

And also, there is a clear calculus of good versus harm in most jobs. A job mining asbestos is objectively worse than an office job.

See the post above yours-- if I win that AnCap = corporations, and corporations = bad shizzle(which I will, only need to look at Nigeria for that), then this debate is over. Alternatively, I don't need to prove negative impacts on your side, I just need a competitive, viable, and better alternative to AnCap.

Right, but that protection isn't unique to microsoft. It also applies to apple and other companies.  This isn't an offensive argument in any way, precisely because everybody could've had this.

Furthermore, this isn't targeted favoritism. Why are ideas any different from physical property, or patents? I'd say they weren't unfairly favoring anybody, but rather protecting property rights.

Finally, the alternative(unrelated to the debate if IP= subsidy) is much worse-- artists could have their masterpieces photocopied and sold if there were no copyright, IP rights.

But yeah, I don't think that Ip could be a subsidy in any meaningful way. And if it is true that this specific type of subsidy made microsoft into a corporation, then you'd have no problem citing other examples wherein copyright laws/IP gave a monopoly on an industry that was meaningful in some way(IE, direct casual relationship).

Think about this for a second... what does the libertarian-ideal, business friendly utopia look like?  Low taxes on the rich, no regulation of business, no minimum wage, no workers' right, no collective bargaining for workers, no environmental controls...

So it looks something like this:

http://nadinesopinion.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/trash-on-the-street-1024x8271.jpg



Here are some relevant posts I wrote in a argument about unions on another board:

"And btw, since it was mentioned, Osha isn't "economically efficient" either, nor is the EPA, FDA, USDA, or any other governmental regulatory agency that exists for the good of society, since Kevin is obviously a subscriber to Friedman's fan...tasy economics. No, unions are not "economically efficient" and neither are a host of other things that make life in the REAL world tolerable. If it's economic efficiency you want, move to Cambodia or some other third world slum that has zero worker safety standards, no evironmental regulations, no regulatory agencies, no government oversight, and... omg... no evil unions to hurt profit. You can beat the workers that you pay $1/year to dump raw sewage into the nearest river that you also sell bottled water from. If they complain, just fire them - better yet, kill them and make their kids substitute. A real capitalist paradise of economic efficiency it is."


"This isn't a third world country because we pulled ourselves up out of those type of working conditions during the industrial revolution in large part due to... omg... unions. Nothing has changed that makes unions suddenly irrelevant. Corpo...rations haven't magically turned benevolent, loving, and unwilling to slit throats for profit. Americans have a fifteen minute memory, so they now want to deregulate and deunionize us back into the stone age.

All this BS about "omg company not staying here" is just that... BS. Like I said, deregulating us into oblivion is GREAT for business. Do you know why companies leave? Because they can pay workers in Vietnam $1/month, make them work in their own shit and piss, and dump industrial waste into the nearest lake. That's GREAT for business because it saves all kinds of money. That's why companies relocate. Is that they type of business environment you want to compete with to keep companies here? What we should be doing instead is pushing these third-world countries to adopt similar regulations to ours... but we wouldn't do that because it's bad for profit and our cheap goods.

The bottom line is that by being anti-union, you're automatically pro worker inequality. You fully support the situation of greedy, powerful corporations doing as they please with weak, helpless employees that are legally restricted from organizing. On the flip side, the pro-union crowd would rather see greedy, powerful corporations met with greedy, powerful unions. That's equality. Corruption and greed are all part of the capitalist game, but it makes no sense to only allow power on one side of the equation... unless corporate profit is the only thing you care about. Also, as previously mentioned, non-union employees enjoy increased benefits because of the existence of union employees. Increased benefits for union workers force non-union jobs to increase benefits to compete, otherwise we'd all be looking for union jobs. Get rid of the union's benefits and yours disappear shortly thereafter.

The most amazing accomplishment of the American business machine has been making blue collar employees/the under class not just embrace, but violently defend policies that cripple them and push them closer to the poor house on the daily, all for the benefit of the upper class."

Excellent goal post shift! Seven points!


You've only showed that government subsidizes all content industries equally (though, those with more political clout get better treatment). You have not shown that Microsoft would have existed in any meaningful way if there were no subsidization at all. Would you like to try again?

I stopped reading when you said we advocated no unions. Unions are absolutely necessary and are inherent in a free market. I don't feel like addressing the rest.

Here. Right here is the root of our disagreement. Tax is harmful. It's been economically proven that an increased tax harms the industry it taxes, and an income tax hurts the economy by taking money out of people's pockets. If you don't think taxation is a harm, I can give you a PO box to send all of your 'Extra' cash to, or, better yet, buy bitcoins and send them to the address at the bottom of this post. You clearly have more money than you know what to do with, and I can use it better.


1. You seem to have skipped the last half of the point I made. People donate now to charity. Not because some governemt put a gun to their head and said 'Do it!', but because it makes them feel good. this wouldn't change.
2. You are arguing my point. Thank you.
3. People will donate to a cause which espouses values that they want to see spread. When a charity has a scandal, some portion (up to and including 100%) of those people will stop donating to that charity, instead picking one they do prefer. When a Government agency has a corruption scandal, you can not choose to stop supporting that agency, without risking life, liberty, or property. (stop paying taxes, and they'll come and shoot you or put you in a cage)


Agreed. A Job at McDonalds is not as socially beneficial than, say... an Astrophysicist. Thankfully, the Market has already made that calculation for you, and that is why a job at McDonalds will earn you less money than one as an Astrophysicist. More dangerous or 'undesirable' jobs will earn you more money. This is known as 'Hazard pay'


Firstly, AnCap != Corporations. In fact, AnCaps are against corporations. Corporations fictional people made up by the State. See my other debate regarding that.

Secondly, I've yet to see you present such an alternative. Feel free. If it is, in fact, better, I'll switch in a heartbeat.

Nice arrogance and douchbaggery! 3 points!

Anyways, if you look at what Atlas said, I responded it couldn't be a subsidy if it wasn't favorting microsoft. This is simple definitions.

Uh, you need to learn to read better. I'm not yet admitting that it got a IP subsidy(as I think the definition on that is schizophrenic, at best). I was saying that, and see my last paragraph of my last post for this, A) I don't  believe it constitutes a subsidy, and B) If it counts as a subsidy, you should have no trouble at all naming other examples of corporations/companies that came into existence exclusively because of this IP subsidy. That is, if you are unable to show how a company who had this subsidy that became a corporation exclusively because of this one subsidy, then the IP wasn't a subsidy at all to begin with. But once again, that's a hypothetical-- even if you prove B, I'll contest A and negate B by examining and finding other circumstances that led to it becoming a corporation.

This is a caricature of what I'm saying-- taxes within reason aren't just non-harmful they are also necessary for the public interest. Your argument would assume several things, as an extention of this:
1) Charity harms yourself
2) Giving excess material goods/finances is also a harm
3) Taxing $1 means you will tax somebody into oblivion(Nobody's proposing that)
4) For the industry it taxes, I'd be much more in favor of slashing the subsidies that we give to big oil, for example. That being said, under your seemingly contradictory logic, we have a contradiction, yet again-- subsidies help industries by being profitable. But subsidies can only be paid for by taxes. What do?


It totally would. I'd argue that the reason they give money in the 1st place is because of western style liberalism, and the society that they grew up in which prizes helping other people-- if your argument about redistribution of wealth is to be believed, then people are giving money primarily due to the government's example of wealth-redistribution. Give it a few generations, and under your system, that impulse to donate will be gone.

We're in agreement, and it wasn't your point exclusively-- you'd assumed I was in favor of military spending. I'm not.

But once again, to say that all charities will always be corruption and poor management free is a pipe-dream. They will all be infected by it eventually, and as new ones come up, similar to new government agencies, there will be less incompetence and corruption, but it is a matter of time in both systems for it to fail.




That is literally nonsense. A coal miner's median income is $59,495, and it is well documented how bad their health can be.  Capitalists don't care if they harm employees, because there is a shortage of jobs-- the employers can be selective about their hirings.



See the debate going on up above. I don't think they have any definitional basis on which to challenge me.

Also, my alternative is utilitarian anarchism, based on Levinasian ethics.

Reading comprehension > you.

I said those posts were from a debate regarding unions.  My bottom line point is that deregulation benefits the wealthy at the expense of the populace and turns nations into third-world slums (or keeps them in that condition).  Basically, I'm saying that the quote in the OP is right on the money.  Libertarians' ideals are disconnected from the real world.

Excellent. Some of my best debates have been with anarchists of other 'stripes'. I'll read up on him after this post.


Yes, charity harms yourself. People still do it, because they value the good feeling they get from dropping the dollar (quarter, whatever) into the bucket, more than they do the money itself, or, by extension, anything they could have bought with that money. In economic terms, it is an experiential purchase, similar to going to a movie or riding a thrill ride. Same goes for giving away excess goods.

I'm not saying that a $1 tax is equal to taxing someone (or some business) into oblivion. I'm saying both are harm. A pinch and a gunshot are not equal, either. They're both harmful, though.


See my point above re: experiential purchase. Note that most charitable agencies today are run by churches. For all the harms done by the church in the past, today's churches are mostly benign, A fact I would attribute to competition. Since I don't see those going away anytime soon (now that they've figured out killing each other isn't the way to solve disputes, at least for the most part), I see no reason why the enjoyment of donating would fade.

Also, to say that all charities will be corrupt and poorly managed is nihilism. A sewer-pipe dream, if you will. I feel that more charities will be corruption free, well-managed, or both than will be neither, at any given time.



A McDonalds employee's median income is $15,000, and I'm being generous. I'd say 4x as much pay per year is pretty good, considering the worst danger you're likely to see at Mccy-dee's is a burn on your hand (on day shift anyway - there's a reason the Night shift gets paid more...) You also fall into the trap of assuming there would be a shortage of jobs. In a thriving economy, it's actually the opposite. A shortage of workers
 will allow those workers to be selective of what jobs they take.


I've seen that debate, and no offense, but you're not making any good points. I'll leave that debate to them.

Charity doesn't hurt at all. If it feels good, it's not a sacrifice. Gain does not have to be monetary.

Reading comprehension > you, hurr hurr.
 Do, try and remember what you post.

It all depends what flavor of Libertarian you are.  The arguments in here are based on typical Chicago School, "leave the market alone and it'll figure everything out," "all power to the company and no power to the worker" economics and that brand of "Libertarian" is generally anti-union.

1. I saw your little trick. You lost the idea battle so you choose to debate semantics. I guess Agricultural subsidies are not subsidies because they go to all agri-business?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy

Subsidy/gift/favoritism it's still the same thing. Without IP laws and publicly funded police and other govt agencies acting as enforcers for Microsoft and other IP based corporations, their business model as it exists today will no longer exist. It is favoritism. Maybe not to Microsoft specifically but to the software industry as a whole at the expense of everyone else. This gives said industry more power than it ought to have.

2. MS pulled ahead because of the firms receiving said benefits from govt they were best (relatively) at satisfying consumers.

3. Again, govt favors corporations over the people. Corporations proceed to abuse people with legal protection from govt (e.g. Deepwater horizon, BPs liability is capped at ~$100m BY LAW!. Socialists decry the corporations abuses and "faliures" of the "free market." Govt proposes new regulation. Corporations lobby hard and get legislation watered down/new bill that is nominally populist but pro-corporation. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff28.html

You are confusing (or possibly conflating) Labor Unions and Trade Unions. Labor Unions allow workers to collectively bargain with the company. This is (usually) a good thing, because getting together gives them more equivalent resources to the company. Trade unions force workers to comply with a set of regulations, mandate education levels, and otherwise restrict entry to a field. Trade unions are what we're against. That's where the confusion comes from.

people, retaining piece of humanity inside, having beating heart don't need advocacy to be/stay humans. after all/against anything.
but evil creatures don't need advocacy too, trying smokescreen by "efficiency" benefits or other Nazi "reasons" lack of humanity.
they just different kind of creatures. like cat and dog. [they groundlessly favorite]usual Nietzsche or Confucian references, Nietzsche-ans can reject portray/accept/understand their guru as "differently-speaking/explaining-Jesus re-incarnation", in terms of love of humanity for humanity itself and save with Confucian references to Tao roots.

But wait, refer back to It is a dilemma, a double-bind in the best sense. I think you chose the option that people aren't rational agents, and thus will donate.

I'm ok with that decision on your part. What I'd like you to do is explain how a non-rational agents(one who does things to harm themselves economically, like donate to charity(a good feeding doesn't outweigh harming yourself through donations)) could function within lassez-faire capitalism. If I understand the premises of this system, the invisible hand of capitalism only really works if people are rationally self-interested. But as the charity example demonstrates, that isn't the case.


Oh, I expected you to say as much. But the problem with taking small tax = small harm is a principle in ethics which is significance-- the action under consideration has to be significant(and philosophers disagree on what it means), but most agree that a pinch or $1 tax isn't significant. For that reason, the ethical question of $1 taxation shouldn't be considered.

But to contest another point. If somebody has $100 million in the bank, do you honestly think that taxing them $1 million harms them that much? If I had $100 dollars, the $1 would be a pinch, and proportionately so to the millionaire-- 1 million isn't that much to him/her. What I'd like you to address is the possibility that a flat percentage tax(of total net-value, or income) as an ethical tax.

But my point concerning non-rational agents applies here too-- I'm willing to concede that they'd donate in the AnCap system, but the logical outcome of what them donating money means in an AnCap system is far more damning for the possibility of capitalistic regulation by the market.

Well, I admit it is pessimistic, but the simple fact of the matter is that as time goes along, similar to government agencies, the chances of corruption or stupidity occurring goes up-- the longer around it is, the more likely something will go wrong.

True on these points-- but to put it in computer terms, let's say the median income of a mcdonalds employee is equivalent to a 1st generation Sony Vaio, in today's times. Having 4 of those doesn't adequately compensate anybody... being king of a shitpile is awful, but being king of a shitpile 4 times as large as a mcdonald's employee isn't much comfort to the man who will likely die of lung related illnesses.

And this isn't even getting into the fact that 15,000 is pathetic. I challenge you to find a place, food, utilities, and the very basics for anywhere with a mcdonalds for that much. It is a pipe dream to pay them that little and expect them to survive. I expect the coal miner's job isn't that much better either.

And I know what you'll say, that the company isn't under an obligation to pay him anything more, but once again, looking at harm to the company versus benefit to the employee,  the proportions are completely off- a slight increase in pay would be less than thousandths of a percentile, but could make several percentile differences to him/her.
I don't know if even having a health economy -> shortage of workers. I don't know the unemployment stats for other countries, so I really can't comment. I'd just be surprised if there was ever a situation wherein there was a shortage of workers, as the population is growing at quite a rate...
It comes down to definitions. W/e-- should they actually argue this well, I suspect I'll resort to marxist analyses of production, and prove cap = bad that way. /sigh. I was hoping it wouldn't come down to that.

/sigh. This is standard debating process. To know the terms in which you debate, and debate over them is natural, and to not do that means you really are only a surface debater. So yeah, no tricks here.

Except IP isn't IP for Software companies, and that's where your argumentation breaks down-- agricultural subsidies are subsidies because they target an industry-- IP doesn't. It is generalized for the entirety of all businesses and individuals.

So your equation is subsidy = gift/favoritism -- tell me where in any IP law, there is specific, specific reference to Microsoft, any of their competitors, or any business sector as a whole.

Also, you know you're merely a talking head when you advocate for private police. But more to the point, the debate, which you're trying very cleverly to shift, is about subsidies, not about private police or gov. agencies.

Question for you-- do any other businesses, private entities, or others benefit from these IPs?

And lastly, it doesn't give them any more power than they ought to have. This is on the same basis of protecting one's body from a murderer-- police need to take care of that as a preventative measure, and this needs to be in place as a breach in IP would cause damage to these businesses that wouldn't be fixable.

But I digress. Please tell me why this is a subsidy, cause nothing in the wikipedia article said anything that would back you up, and I read it twice.

But isn't that the invisible hand of capitalism? If they were the "best (relatively) at satisfying consumers", that would make consumers want to come back and buy more-- so why isn't this a case of an incredibly successful business model?  And once again, you've taken that this is a benefit specific to MS as a given, which has yet to be proven, and perhaps has been disproven-- didn't we just talk about how many software companies would have logically gotten that "benefit" extended to them?


This isn't responsive to the debate of whether or not IP = subsidy. Quite frankly, you can bitch and moan about corporations all you want, I'm in agreement with you-- but for the purposes of this, I'm only interested in that question-- does IP = subsidy?


Not relevant, see previous response.

Ahh, but they are rational agents, and they are making a rational decision to enjoy an experience (the joy of donating something charity) as opposed to buying a sandwich, or a cup of coffee. Just exactly the same as a movie or an amusement ride. When you're done, you have nothing physical to show for it, but you have had an experience.


No, no tax is ethical, because they are all enforced with violence, be it $1 or $100,000,000.00.


Did it on $12,000. Not easily, not in luxury, but I did it.


Population growth itself creates jobs: Babysitting. ;)

This thread brings the lulz, hardcore.

The current system is not helping the poor! It's making the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This has been shown by numerous studies.

The less centralized a society is, the more egaliatarian it is, and thus the levels of wealth are more evenly distributed.

Also, almost all people *like* to help each other if it's on a voluntary basis.

That period was corporatist.  The workers did not have the support of the government,  the corporate bosses did.

Without the government interfereing the workers are stronger, in fact even with the government interfereing the unions and the labor movement were able to achieve huge concessions from the corporations.

Corporations are a legal construct.  Without limited liability laws they couldn't exist.  Giving them a framework to allow their existence certainly counts as a subsidy.

You seem to be missing the fact ALL corporations are government subsidized. You reiterate it here, as if it somehow disproves itself.  Saying Microsoft is not subsidized because their competitors are supported in the same way.  That's right, all corporations are supported by government subsidies, and the fact that all the others are as well doesn't mean that Microsoft is not.

As to why the pulled ahead, because they have a corporate model that does well in the environment that they exist in, plain and simple.  Not because they received more subsidies than anyone else, but that doesn't change the fact that they, like all other corporations, are able to exist only because Government makes it possible.

No,  Taxation has, as it's stated goal, the funding of government.

WELFARE has as it's stated goal the helping of the poor.

I had some resounding debates about labor unions with the libertarian capitalists on this board when it was first starting.  You and Atlas may not be opposed to labor unions, but a large portion of libertarian capitalists are.

Point.

If you are a Chicago school free market disciple I suggest you read Voltaire's Bastards by John Ralston Saul for a kick right in the balls.

"The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinvention of the World" by JRS is also a good read, especially if you want to see what corporatism and currency speculation has done to destroy countries

You can also add this book to that list, for a real-world, in-depth examination of how well Chicago School economic policies worked out in post-revolution Chile.

http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine