Liberals please read

[nostrum]

Charity used to mean love, left used to refer to those seated on the left of the French house, liberal used to mean quite libertarian, unfortunately it happens. Semantics aside, where do you stand on the issue of the basis of having wealth as a reason to be taxed more?

Why do you think some people are trying to change the meaning of the word liberal? And why do you support it?

Give me a specific example. It is hard to answer such a broad and open question clearly, but I can try; I support a system that can maintain a balanced distribution of power and secure the freedom of its people. If taxing the wealthy more is for the greater good and has general support I would not have an issue with that. It is not unusual having taxes that benefits the wealthy, be that politicians, businesses or organized crime for example.

[1715087175]

1715087175

[1715087175]

1715087175

[1715087175]

1715087175

[1715087175]

1715087175

[Anonymous]

Why do you think some people are trying to change the meaning of the word liberal? And why do you support it?

Pedantry.

I support a system that can maintain a balanced distribution of power and secure the freedom of its people.

Impossible and your idea of liberty is laughable and disgusting.

If taxing the wealthy more is for the greater good and has general support I would not have an issue with that.

You hate humanity. You hate the idea of a man having a right to his labor and being able to sustain himself how he wishes. You hate life.

It is not unusual having taxes that benefits the wealthy, be that politicians, businesses or organized crime for example.

...and -- believe it or not -- you support these things.

[Sjalq]

I don't support or oppose it, I'm just trying to have a functional conversation about the practical effects of proportional taxation.

We both want a " better world" we just disagree once the dynamics of getting there. I believe and can argue that taxing the rich and misspending on behalf of the poor hampers both the rich and the poor due to unavoidable natural economic consequences.

[Anonymous]

I don't support or oppose it, I'm just trying to have a functional conversation about the practical effects of proportional taxation.

We both want a " better world" we just disagree once the dynamics of getting there. I believe and can argue that taxing the rich and misspending on behalf of the poor hampers both the rich and the poor due to unavoidable natural economic consequences.

One or even a few perspectives cannot simply define a better world for life at large.

[Sjalq]

Atlas, YouTube "Mozart was a red"

[Anonymous]

Atlas, YouTube "Mozart was a red"

I don't like Rand either.

[nostrum]

I don't support or oppose it, I'm just trying to have a functional conversation about the practical effects of proportional taxation.

We both want a " better world" we just disagree once the dynamics of getting there. I believe and can argue that taxing the rich and misspending on behalf of the poor hampers both the rich and the poor due to unavoidable natural economic consequences.

I honestly think our views are very similar, if not identical, on many areas. But we communicate about it in a different way and we might care more strongly about different things or methods.
As opposed to Atlas I find it to be useful to be able to communicate clearly and make our ideas to be understood by each other.
Most times there are no right or wrong answer, just different approaches for different situations (that are often understood differently as well).

I would absolutely be for a tax free system under the right conditions, but I have to say these condition would be rare to find in the world we live in today.
A tax free system seems to me to be more of a luxurious benefit for a wealthy society rather than a solution to get rid of poverty.

[Anonymous]

I honestly think our views are very similar, if not identical, on many areas. But we communicate about it in a different way and we might care more strongly about different things or methods. As opposed to Atlas I find it to be useful to be able to communicate clearly and make our ideas to be understood by each other.

I will admit I am failing to benefit anybody in my emotional expasms due to a lack of elaboration or otherwise. I will attempt to be more constructive.

Most times there are no right or wrong answer, just different approaches for different situations (that are often understood differently as well).

You can never compromise with a thief. You either deny the right to yourself or claim your birthright.

I would absolutely be for a tax free system under the right conditions, but I have to say these condition would be rare to find in the world we live in today.
A tax free system seems to me to be more of a luxurious benefit for a wealthy society rather than a solution to get rid of poverty.

I feel that my labor and its fruits will always be mine regardless of anybodys whims. It should not be up for argument. When it comes to my views, I feel every individual should be empowered in terms of his right to himself and true wealth will flourish. To centralize a monopoly on force in the name of universal pleasure and steal in its name is not a righteous nor effective solution. It has yet to be shown through all the life that has been lost in government rises and falls.

[cointrepreneur]

I live in the United States and for much of my life I enjoyed the belief that my country was relatively free and stood behind the values of a free market. I have long since been disabused of this myth but now and again something happens to hammer home just how false it is.

I now see -- very clearly -- that all the talk about a 'free market' is strictly intended for the common man. When an ordinary person has fallen on hard times they really need to learn the value of taking responsibility for their actions, show some initiative, pull themselves up by their bootstraps, and other platitudes. Being disciplined by the market is good for ordinary people.

But not for the wealthy. When the wealthy and powerful fell on hard times, responsibility for  their actions was out of the question. Not a single one of them has ever been held accountable. All have received their bailouts. Socialism was good enough for them.

I own a small business and I believe in genuine capitalism. I believe in actual free markets. I just don't believe you can find any in the United States (or elsewhere?). The process of starting up an off line business revealed a lot to me about how the 'system works'. My research into possible opportunities with bitcoins has been similarly educational. In both cases what I have found is a system where those who make the rules do so primarily for the benefit of those who have already broken them, in order to make it very difficult for anyone else to succeed.  Above all else our government exists to make sure those who have everything, always will.

But I am an optimist.   When problems have no solution they can sometimes be transcended. Bitcoins are a wonderful example of that, and they give me a lot of hope. I will do all I can to be a part of the success that is to come.

[nostrum]

I agree with your view of "individual should be empowered in terms of his right to himself and true wealth will flourish" but I cant help to think that a lot of the words and scenarios you use are overly exaggerated.
I understand that some people would benefit (or even want) to be controlled by a government, as well as the opposite. Being that you are born where you are born it is not unusual to end up in a society that does not appeal to you. This usually leaves you with three options: submit, rebel or escape.

Ultimately you are the one that can determine how much power you want to have over yourself. If someone steals from you it is your choice how you deal with it. And unless we see some form of miracle there will always be theft, force, violence and corruption no matter where you go or what you do or what you call what. As long as some people can have more money, power or fame than others, these things will happen on both ends of the scale.

What I am trying to say, I think, is that getting rid of government is not the issue here as a government has no one true form and always will exist in one form or another within a society. It could anything from anarchistic government, theocratic government, communistic government to privatized government. Every idea you might have regarding how to organize a group of people includes the term government.

I do not mind paying my taxes. If I felt that my government were stealing from me I probably would not be in it as it would be equally bad harvesting the benefits (if any) without any or minimum contribution.

I would be intrigued learning more about your views on a less emotional level. I have no problem seeing that you have lot of passion for it

[Anonymous]

I agree with your view of "individual should be empowered in terms of his right to himself and true wealth will flourish" but I cant help to think that a lot of the words and scenarios you use are overly exaggerated.

There is no exaggeration when people are not recognized to the right to their own life anywhere.

I understand that some people would benefit (or even want) to be controlled by a government, as well as the opposite. Being that you are born where you are born it is not unusual to end up in a society that does not appeal to you. This usually leaves you with three options: submit, rebel or escape.

Here we go with the social contract theory rubbish. The truth is we are enslaved by the same people: the central bankers. There is no escape unless you deny yourself the right to voluntarily trade with people.

Ultimately you are the one that can determine how much power you want to have over yourself. If someone steals from you it is your choice how you deal with it. And unless we see some form of miracle there will always be theft, force, violence and corruption no matter where you go or what you do or what you call what. As long as some people can have more money, power or fame than others, these things will happen on both ends of the scale.

This is where Bitcoin comes in.

What I am trying to say, I think, is that getting rid of government is not the issue here as a government has no one true form and always will exist in one form or another within a society. It could anything from anarchistic government, theocratic government, communistic government to privatized government. Every idea you might have regarding how to organize a group of people includes the term government.

So, you're essentially avoiding the argument at hand by bending words to your will. Yeah, nice illusion.

I do not mind paying my taxes. If I felt that my government were stealing from me I probably would not be in it as it would be equally bad harvesting the benefits (if any) without any or minimum contribution.

I would be intrigued learning more about your views on a less emotional level. I have no problem seeing that you have lot of passion for it

Yes.

[Findeton]

It always pains me to see the logic that somehow connects Bill Gates' wealth with a squatter camp's squalor.

"Bill is richer than them all, they are all poor, the connection is obvious!"

There is undoubtedly an exploiter class but I think liberals have taken an unduly simplistic view of this.

Corporations are not a feature of a truly free society. Corporations provide limited liabilities to the individuals who run them. Limited liabilities are rights granted by government, it is not inherent in free-market capitalism. It is in fact opposed to it. So please stop referring to the evils corporations commit due to limited liability and calling it the results of the free market. Libertarians HATE the idea that a corporation can be let off the hook by a government judge or legislation for damage to the property, lives and health of others.

Agorism has a useful model on this. They divide capitalists into three catagories.
Good => Venture capitalists, entrepreneurs, risk takes (Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg)
Neutral => Holders of capital, no real ideology
Bad => Those who use government power, fraud or violence to raid the public

Both liberals and libertarians agree that the rich who are obviously rich because of government help need to have their privileges removed. Unfortunately liberals attempt to do this by introducing taxes and regulations on all the capitalist classes indiscriminately. Libertarians also do not make enough of a point that there is a dangerous kind of capitalist, the ones who are willing to manipulate legislation to their benefit.

Communists think that every dollar a capitalist earns is a steal from those workers who get paid by the capitalist.

[Sjalq]

@nostrum

One thing we libertarians do have a strong definition of is a state or government. It is any group of people who are willing to initiate violence, either directly through guns, knifes, fists, wmds, planes, etc. to achieve their goals and now hold a monopoly on the enforcement of violence. Others who initiate violence in spite of the monopoly can be thought of aspirant rulers.  

Oligarchs are those who exploit the current monopoly to enact laws that benefit them. Think established banking sector. These people are often "rich" but are not true industrialists, they control markets, they do not create or improve them. Recently the son of the former CEO of a local cellphone company gave a speech about "What the optimum amount of competition is in a market" Essentially what he was saying was that he could not conduct business efficiently without a government guarantee that he can do it with a captive market and willing fellow monopolists.

In these protected environments politicians often attempt to enact restraints on the protected parties to attempt to mitigate the unavoidable abuses that come with such a privileged position. These are the regulations touted to protect us from the "evil" rich. The oligarchs very often get the regulations written in their favour or removed, which for a while leads to the further unleashing of the chaos their protected positions guarantee. Then people turn around and blame the "free market" and "deregulation". If there were true deregulation then the protections would have been lifted and the pampered cats would have to fend for themselves among far leaner, meaner and more plentiful competitors.

There people's wealth need to be taken away from them, not by force but by simply removing the unnatural protections they have enacted for themselves.

A comment from Barack Obama's inauguration speech sticks in my mind as I read your posts "It is no longer an issue of whether government is too big or too small, but whether or not it works." Entertain with us for a moment that this question of "Is government too big?" is still on the table, because it can lead to solutions to very much of what we see happening today.

If government is too big; it will be spread to thinly.
If government is too big; it will have resources in one place, while needing them in another.
If government is too big; it will meddle in that which worked fine.
If government is too big; it will need more money than necessary.
If government is too big; it will take too much of your money.
If government is too big; and your money is not enough, they will borrow to much
If government is too big; and your money is not enough and no body wants to loan them money any more, then they will print the difference (IE "loan" from the central bank)

[Findeton]

If government is too big; it will be spread to thinly.
If government is too big; it will have resources in one place, while needing them in another.
If government is too big; it will meddle in that which worked fine.
If government is too big; it will need more money than necessary.
If government is too big; it will take too much of your money.
If government is too big; and your money is not enough, they will borrow to much
If government is too big; and your money is not enough and no body wants to loan them money any more, then they will print the difference (IE "loan" from the central bank)

A medium-sized government is needed for enforcing the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is why we need medium-sized governments:

- Universal/socialized Health Care.
- Worker's regulation, minimum wage, vacations, workers' rights.
- Police, firemen, administration, public schools, roads.
- Judges and free public servant lawyers for the defense.

[Sjalq]

A medium-sized government is needed for enforcing the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is why we need medium-sized governments:

- Universal/socialized Health Care.
- Worker's regulation, minimum wage, vacations, workers' rights.
- Police, firemen, administration, public schools, roads.
- Judges and free public servant lawyers for the defense.

- Universal/socialized Health Care.
The implications for the future of medicine are absolutely shocking. There is no mechanism for creating timely, tested and needed new medicines through socialized health care. IE who decides what resources to throw at which diseases? The free market (truly free) can do this very efficiently by ensuring that there is always a big reward for producing cheap effective medications. Most of what we see today in medicine is the result of profit seeking, not of altruistic concern for the well-being of others. If you think today's system is somehow abusive, compare it to what was available a 100 years ago and at what costs.

- Worker's regulation, minimum wage, vacations, workers' rights.
Abuses under the so called "robber barons" are often used to defend this point, a much misunderstood period of history. I live in a country that has some of the most progressive labour protections on earth. The result? 19 years of economic growth in conjunction with 19 years of unemployment at higher numbers than that of the USA during the great depression. People literally cannot get hired in a booming economy and live in poverty because of it. Here you have to ask yourself something about a person who working in what you consider to be terrible conditions; if he is not being threatened by violence to be there, what were his other choices?

- Police, firemen, administration, public schools, roads.
Maybe, no, no, no never ever no! and no.

- Judges and free public servant lawyers for the defense.
Independent arbitrators, pro-bono work from qualified and motivated lawyers will more than make up for this. You would also have far less legal messes if there were far fewer laws.

[Findeton]

- Universal/socialized Health Care.
The implications for the future of medicine are absolutely shocking. There is no mechanism for creating timely, tested and needed new medicines through socialized health care. IE who decides what resources to throw at which diseases? The free market (truly free) can do this very efficiently by ensuring that there is always a big reward for producing cheap effective medications. Most of what we see today in medicine is the result of profit seeking, not of altruistic concern for the well-being of others. If you think today's system is somehow abusive, compare it to what was available a 100 years ago and at what costs.

You don't need the State to investigate medicine to have a Universal Health Care (UHC). I mean, the UHC means that the State pays the doctors and the medicines, but the State can buy medicines to private companies!

Anyways, I think that the State should also fund investigations. Who decides what resources to throw at which diseases? Well, you should let university professors decide their investigative branches.

- Worker's regulation, minimum wage, vacations, workers' rights.
Abuses under the so called "robber barons" are often used to defend this point, a much misunderstood period of history. I live in a country that has some of the most progressive labour protections on earth. The result? 19 years of economic growth in conjunction with 19 years of unemployment at higher numbers than that of the USA during the great depression. People literally cannot get hired in a booming economy and live in poverty because of it. Here you have to ask yourself something about a person who working in what you consider to be terrible conditions; if he is not being threatened by violence to be there, what were his other choices?

Free market supporters do not understand that a man is not free to do anything if his life depends on it.

You'll do ANYTHING to survive. But once your basic needs are covered, AND ONLY THEN, you are a free man and you can freely decide to do whatever you want. And only free men can create a free market.

So there are markets that need to be regulated or at least intervened by the Government in order to create other free markets. The end should be to have a free society, meaning a society of free men: the economy is just the means to that end.

Violence? Violence is getting paid 600 € for a 40h/week job even having a university degree (which means that you can be more productive). That thing IS violence. He's being threatened by the fact that if he doesn't take his slave job he'll be hungry and he won't be able to feed his children.

Truth is the rich people are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, but the rich people actually need the poor people to get richer... so the poor people must be clever enough to make laws that benefit them so they don't get poorer.

- Police, firemen, administration, public schools, roads.
Maybe, no, no, no never ever no! and no.

Whatever.

- Judges and free public servant lawyers for the defense.
Independent arbitrators, pro-bono work from qualified and motivated lawyers will more than make up for this. You would also have far less legal messes if there were far fewer laws.

Yeah, laws should be simpler, that's true. You can also try finding a pro-bono lawyers now.

[Anonymous]

Who decides what resources to throw at which diseases? Well, you should let university professors decide their investigative branches.

No, you should let the individuals decide and form their own research groups.

Free market supporters do not understand that a man is not free to do anything if his life depends on it.

You are coerced by your body to sustain it. Live with it. Welcome to nature, parasite.

Violence? Violence is getting paid 600 € for a 40h/week job even having a university degree (which means that you can be more productive). That thing IS violence. He's being threatened by the fact that if he doesn't take his slave job he'll be hungry and he won't be able to feed his children.

That overpriced degree was forced upon you by a state monopoly on education. The poor wages are also a related side effect.

Truth is the rich people are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, but the rich people actually need the poor people to get richer... so the poor people must be clever enough to make laws that benefit them so they don't get poorer.

This is due to corporatism and an overly involved government. Everybody would on an equal playing field if others weren't given a grant on government force. So, yes, it is a matter of law.

[Basiley]

regardless system/principles/ideology you bring into [intolerable/scientifially-questionable]extremes, result are same:facism[of any kind].
but thats the poin and main reason to value thing, named "common sense".
look at EU, for few ages employed mild form of socialism with great success.
and then read "Manifesto" of K.Marx[or derivatives].
if domination/unification/unity is so useful as advertised, why, do you think, biosphere is dominated by multi-cell organisms, not gigantic amoebas ?
same on social/country/worldwide -level.
use common sense and not "fix" things, that's not broken.

[Sjalq]

The poor have gotten much, much, much rucher over the last 200 years. The rich get richer AND the poor get richer, just not as fast. Envy is a horrible thing.

@Atlas, come on dude, you will only incite people to reject your premises if you call them parasites. He might be a very productive, supportive individual with an ideology me and you don't agree with.

[Anonymous]

The poor have gotten much, much, much rucher over the last 200 years. The rich get richer AND the poor get richer, just not as fast. Envy is a horrible thing.

@Atlas, come on dude, you will only incite people to reject your premises if you call them parasites. He might be a very productive, supportive individual with an ideology me and you don't agree with.

Well, he apparently supports the idea of people being obligated to the whims of others.