Food for Thought: Nature of Justice & Why nations were formed

[Dalkore]

But the rules you would like to see happen would discourage the economy from creating a quality environment.  You'd have fewer people attempting to start up small businesses, less innovation (equates to fewer products improving our lives), less jobs available (fewer people who want to invest in a larger labor force when the risk vs reward ratio is lower and their loans cost more?), etc.

I disagree.  First off, my tax rates over all would be less than our current system.   Around 10-19% seem to be a range I feel would be acceptable and would meet the needs of basic services. 

You can't compare our current system to a new system in a 1 to 1 manner.   There are many other laws that would be changed or thrown out.  Overall it would be a much more vibrant environment and it would encourage new business.  What it would focus on is established businesses that continue to trying and monopolize or corner any industry.   Usually other business are the biggest deterrent for new entrants, not the tax code.   

Again I state, I would want to discourage large concentrations of wealth in rent-seeking and interest gather operations.

So in your system, you get to arbitrarily pay the taxes you want, arbitrarily tax whatever companies you want (under the pretext that they are "trying to monopolize or corner any industry", which is naturally a subjective observation), and somehow this is supposed to encourage new businesses and a more vibrant environment?

If I am an investor, and an entrepreneur comes to me for capital to build a housing complex (thus reducing rental costs for the area, as more housing is available), I might look at my potential gains (profit of $100k on a $1M investment), your 60% capital gains tax (or whatever it is you wish to raise the capital gains tax rate to), and say, meh, tying up $1M for a $400k return over 10 years isn't worth it.  Whereas I might look at the current capital gains tax rate (what is it, 25%?), and say, wow, $750k over a 10 year span for a $1M investment sounds like a great deal!

Meanwhile, because I've decided not to invest in a housing complex, the housing complex doesn't get built, people struggle to find a place to live, and housing rental prices rise until the calculated return on investment is worth it for some investor somewhere.

What am I missing here?  How would a capital gains tax NOT discourage investment?

Sgt. if you want to actually discuss this, then you need to read what I wrote.  I never mentioned or support a 60% capital gains rate.  I wrote a range of 10-19% is an acceptable tax range depending on the nature of the income. 

If you are going to just make up number and then do equations, I guess then you can make any example to make my statements seem unreasonable.   I would like to address what I am actually saying and not wild speculation or assumptions.  Agreeable?

Dalkore

[1714008129]

1714008129

[1714008129]

1714008129

[justusranvier]

Wrong question.

No, it's the only question that matters.

Obviously if someone wants to be part of a nation that has this tax rate and policies then they agreed to be subject to those laws.  If not then they would not be part of the nation, they would be part of some other nation where they agreed with their laws and taxes or lack there of.

Now I understand why you didn't want to answer the question.

[Dalkore]

Wrong question.

No, it's the only question that matters.

Obviously if someone wants to be part of a nation that has this tax rate and policies then they agreed to be subject to those laws.  If not then they would not be part of the nation, they would be part of some other nation where they agreed with their laws and taxes or lack there of.

Now I understand why you didn't want to answer the question.

I'll answer you so you understand.   Yes, people are free to disagree with me or anyone else. 

But what is interesting when this statement is made is that somehow that logic is applied to where you are currently located.   The only solution for that is to start and complete a revolution so you can have this environment.   Because you like me are in a nation and those have laws that were around before we came into existence so our only option is either reform or revolt.   I choose reform at this point.

[myrkul]

Wrong question.

No, it's the only question that matters.

Obviously if someone wants to be part of a nation that has this tax rate and policies then they agreed to be subject to those laws.  If not then they would not be part of the nation, they would be part of some other nation where they agreed with their laws and taxes or lack there of.

Now I understand why you didn't want to answer the question.

I'll answer you so you understand.   Yes, people are free to disagree with me or anyone else. 

But what is interesting when this statement is made is that somehow that logic is applied to where you are currently located.   The only solution for that is to start and complete a revolution so you can have this environment. 

I think he finally gets it.

[Dalkore]

Wrong question.

No, it's the only question that matters.

Obviously if someone wants to be part of a nation that has this tax rate and policies then they agreed to be subject to those laws.  If not then they would not be part of the nation, they would be part of some other nation where they agreed with their laws and taxes or lack there of.

Now I understand why you didn't want to answer the question.

I'll answer you so you understand.   Yes, people are free to disagree with me or anyone else. 

But what is interesting when this statement is made is that somehow that logic is applied to where you are currently located.   The only solution for that is to start and complete a revolution so you can have this environment. 

I think he finally gets it.

All I will say is good luck.

[myrkul]

Wrong question.

No, it's the only question that matters.

Obviously if someone wants to be part of a nation that has this tax rate and policies then they agreed to be subject to those laws.  If not then they would not be part of the nation, they would be part of some other nation where they agreed with their laws and taxes or lack there of.

Now I understand why you didn't want to answer the question.

I'll answer you so you understand.   Yes, people are free to disagree with me or anyone else. 

But what is interesting when this statement is made is that somehow that logic is applied to where you are currently located.   The only solution for that is to start and complete a revolution so you can have this environment. 

I think he finally gets it.

All I will say is good luck.

Luck is not necessary. The State's collapse is inevitable. All we have to do is be there to pick up the pieces.

[SgtSpike]

But the rules you would like to see happen would discourage the economy from creating a quality environment.  You'd have fewer people attempting to start up small businesses, less innovation (equates to fewer products improving our lives), less jobs available (fewer people who want to invest in a larger labor force when the risk vs reward ratio is lower and their loans cost more?), etc.

I disagree.  First off, my tax rates over all would be less than our current system.   Around 10-19% seem to be a range I feel would be acceptable and would meet the needs of basic services. 

You can't compare our current system to a new system in a 1 to 1 manner.   There are many other laws that would be changed or thrown out.  Overall it would be a much more vibrant environment and it would encourage new business.  What it would focus on is established businesses that continue to trying and monopolize or corner any industry.   Usually other business are the biggest deterrent for new entrants, not the tax code.   

Again I state, I would want to discourage large concentrations of wealth in rent-seeking and interest gather operations.

So in your system, you get to arbitrarily pay the taxes you want, arbitrarily tax whatever companies you want (under the pretext that they are "trying to monopolize or corner any industry", which is naturally a subjective observation), and somehow this is supposed to encourage new businesses and a more vibrant environment?

If I am an investor, and an entrepreneur comes to me for capital to build a housing complex (thus reducing rental costs for the area, as more housing is available), I might look at my potential gains (profit of $100k on a $1M investment), your 60% capital gains tax (or whatever it is you wish to raise the capital gains tax rate to), and say, meh, tying up $1M for a $400k return over 10 years isn't worth it.  Whereas I might look at the current capital gains tax rate (what is it, 25%?), and say, wow, $750k over a 10 year span for a $1M investment sounds like a great deal!

Meanwhile, because I've decided not to invest in a housing complex, the housing complex doesn't get built, people struggle to find a place to live, and housing rental prices rise until the calculated return on investment is worth it for some investor somewhere.

What am I missing here?  How would a capital gains tax NOT discourage investment?

Sgt. if you want to actually discuss this, then you need to read what I wrote.  I never mentioned or support a 60% capital gains rate.  I wrote a range of 10-19% is an acceptable tax range depending on the nature of the income. 

If you are going to just make up number and then do equations, I guess then you can make any example to make my statements seem unreasonable.   I would like to address what I am actually saying and not wild speculation or assumptions.  Agreeable?

Dalkore

Ok, so you want to reduce current capital gains taxes, and further reduce or eliminate all other taxes?  I am all for smaller government, and any decrease in investor level taxes would certainly increase economic activity.

I suppose the only remaining point of contention might lie along these lines: I would argue that a 5% tax rate on all would stimulate the economy more than a 10% tax only on capital gains.

[Dalkore]

So in your system, you get to arbitrarily pay the taxes you want, arbitrarily tax whatever companies you want (under the pretext that they are "trying to monopolize or corner any industry", which is naturally a subjective observation), and somehow this is supposed to encourage new businesses and a more vibrant environment?

If I am an investor, and an entrepreneur comes to me for capital to build a housing complex (thus reducing rental costs for the area, as more housing is available), I might look at my potential gains (profit of $100k on a $1M investment), your 60% capital gains tax (or whatever it is you wish to raise the capital gains tax rate to), and say, meh, tying up $1M for a $400k return over 10 years isn't worth it.  Whereas I might look at the current capital gains tax rate (what is it, 25%?), and say, wow, $750k over a 10 year span for a $1M investment sounds like a great deal!

Meanwhile, because I've decided not to invest in a housing complex, the housing complex doesn't get built, people struggle to find a place to live, and housing rental prices rise until the calculated return on investment is worth it for some investor somewhere.

What am I missing here?  How would a capital gains tax NOT discourage investment?


Sgt. if you want to actually discuss this, then you need to read what I wrote.  I never mentioned or support a 60% capital gains rate.  I wrote a range of 10-19% is an acceptable tax range depending on the nature of the income.  

If you are going to just make up number and then do equations, I guess then you can make any example to make my statements seem unreasonable.   I would like to address what I am actually saying and not wild speculation or assumptions.  Agreeable?

Dalkore

Ok, so you want to reduce current capital gains taxes, and further reduce or eliminate all other taxes?  I am all for smaller government, and any decrease in investor level taxes would certainly increase economic activity.

I suppose the only remaining point of contention might lie along these lines: I would argue that a 5% tax rate on all would stimulate the economy more than a 10% tax only on capital gains.

That may be the case but my point is certain types of activity I think, should not be encouraged compared to other business activity.  Namely, rent-seeking and usury.  On top of that, I would want policies in place that make it difficult to concentrate capital at a certain point (this can be debated).   Concentration of capital at a certain level causes societal problems and the people who control this said capital tend to use it to gain undue influence and shape politics (yes there are even politics on AnCap, just not in a formal sense) and policies.  

A system where most people are well off is better than a system where a small handful are doing wonderful and rest are running around for crumbs.  Finding a balance is your goal, it is not just one way or the other.    Pure unbridled capitalism doesn't work nor does absolute socialism or communism.  

[myrkul]

That may be the case but my point is certain types of activity I think, should not be encouraged compared to other business activity.  Namely, rent-seeking and usury.  On top of that, I would want policies in place that make it difficult to concentrate capital at a certain point (this can be debated).   Concentration of capital at a certain level causes societal problems and the people who control this said capital tend to use it to gain undue influence and shape politics (yes there are even politics on AnCap, just not in a formal sense) and policies.   

A system where most people are well off is better than a system where a small handful are doing wonderful and rest are running around for crumbs.  Finding a balance is your goal, it is not just one way or the other.    Pure unbridled capitalism doesn't work nor does absolute socialism or communism.   

What makes you think that a straight free market would not result in most people being well off? And what proof do you have that pure capitalism doesn't work?

It seems to me like you're just repeating what you've been taught in school.

[Dalkore]

That may be the case but my point is certain types of activity I think, should not be encouraged compared to other business activity.  Namely, rent-seeking and usury.  On top of that, I would want policies in place that make it difficult to concentrate capital at a certain point (this can be debated).   Concentration of capital at a certain level causes societal problems and the people who control this said capital tend to use it to gain undue influence and shape politics (yes there are even politics on AnCap, just not in a formal sense) and policies.   

A system where most people are well off is better than a system where a small handful are doing wonderful and rest are running around for crumbs.  Finding a balance is your goal, it is not just one way or the other.    Pure unbridled capitalism doesn't work nor does absolute socialism or communism.   

What makes you think that a straight free market would not result in most people being well off? And what proof do you have that pure capitalism doesn't work?

It seems to me like you're just repeating what you've been taught in school.

Because humans have many different interests and perspectives on what is ok to do and not.  You seem to advocate a system where it is just fine and dandy that people can be taken advantage of at anytime.  I don't, have fair and clear rules so people can operate and compete is for everyone well being.

Pure capitalism doesn't work because we are on a finite planet.  And I don't advocate a system where over time, a relative few of the population owns and or controls all the resources. 

First off, I have not taken a micro or macro economics course.   Second, I have personally put together an impressive library of banking, money, economics, politics, history and philosophy books and have read over 200 of them and counting, so if what you saying is after putting this much time in to understand something about the world we live in and form a view on human nature and stating what I feel, then yes, I guess that is what I am doing.     Have you even read Wealth of Nations from your hero Adam Smith?  Even he says you can't have purely free markets.   

   

[myrkul]

That may be the case but my point is certain types of activity I think, should not be encouraged compared to other business activity.  Namely, rent-seeking and usury.  On top of that, I would want policies in place that make it difficult to concentrate capital at a certain point (this can be debated).   Concentration of capital at a certain level causes societal problems and the people who control this said capital tend to use it to gain undue influence and shape politics (yes there are even politics on AnCap, just not in a formal sense) and policies.   

A system where most people are well off is better than a system where a small handful are doing wonderful and rest are running around for crumbs.  Finding a balance is your goal, it is not just one way or the other.    Pure unbridled capitalism doesn't work nor does absolute socialism or communism.   

What makes you think that a straight free market would not result in most people being well off? And what proof do you have that pure capitalism doesn't work?

It seems to me like you're just repeating what you've been taught in school.

Because humans have many different interests and perspectives on what is ok to do and not.  You seem to advocate a system where it is just fine and dandy that people can be taken advantage of at anytime.  I don't, have fair and clear rules so people can operate and compete is for everyone well being.

I don't think you actually know what I advocate. Have you read anything about AnCap, or Voluntaryism?

Pure capitalism doesn't work because we are on a finite planet.  And I don't advocate a system where over time, a relative few of the population owns and or controls all the resources. 

You advocate government, which is by definition a relative few controlling everything else.

First off, I have not taken a micro or macro economics course.   Second, I have personally put together an impressive library of banking, money, economics, politics, history and philosophy books and have read over 200 of them and counting, so if what you saying is after putting this much time in to understand something about the world we live in and form a view on human nature and stating what I feel, then yes, I guess that is what I am doing.     Have you even read Wealth of Nations from your hero Adam Smith?  Even he says you can't have purely free markets.   

See? I'm certain now that you have no fucking clue what I advocate. Any Mises in that library of yours? Hayek? Hoppe? Rothbard? Talk to me after you've read some of them. (hey, guess what, you can read them free over at mises.org)

[Dalkore]

Myrkul -

I don't think you actually know what I advocate. Have you read anything about AnCap, or Voluntaryism?

This response just sidesteps my statement.  Human motives and interests persist in any system.  You seem to be under the impression that this will be some Utopia where somehow people will be better off.  From you other writings you have no problem with people falling behind or having a large underclass, that is for sure. 

As long as this view is supported by you or other AnCappers, you will just continue to be a fringe movement with no hope of actual execution.  You need to embrace that people have been abused and been put at a disadvantage that is not just of their own making.  That is called reality and compassion.  Not just saying, oh they will just go to charity.  It just shows you lack true empathy.

You advocate government, which is by definition a relative few controlling everything else.

A few for a limited time, rotating in and out of government is what I advocate, just like in our constitution.  You seem to forget that document we have in America.  I know many do not respect it, but I do.

 
See? I'm certain now that you have no fucking clue what I advocate. Any Mises in that library of yours? Hayek? Hoppe? Rothbard? Talk to me after you've read some of them. (hey, guess what, you can read them free over at mises.org)

Look at your responses and tell me I have no clue?  I read what you write.  I under what your saying when you mention pure capitalism and free markets.  Yes, Mises and Hayek are in my library and I actually have a book on order that is a collection of Hayek essays I will be reading.  That doesn't mean everything that have said is correct either.   That is where your own analysis and common sense comes in.

[myrkul]

That may be the case but my point is certain types of activity I think, should not be encouraged compared to other business activity.  Namely, rent-seeking and usury.  On top of that, I would want policies in place that make it difficult to concentrate capital at a certain point (this can be debated).   Concentration of capital at a certain level causes societal problems and the people who control this said capital tend to use it to gain undue influence and shape politics (yes there are even politics on AnCap, just not in a formal sense) and policies.   

A system where most people are well off is better than a system where a small handful are doing wonderful and rest are running around for crumbs.  Finding a balance is your goal, it is not just one way or the other.    Pure unbridled capitalism doesn't work nor does absolute socialism or communism.   

What makes you think that a straight free market would not result in most people being well off? And what proof do you have that pure capitalism doesn't work?

It seems to me like you're just repeating what you've been taught in school.

Because humans have many different interests and perspectives on what is ok to do and not.  You seem to advocate a system where it is just fine and dandy that people can be taken advantage of at anytime.  I don't, have fair and clear rules so people can operate and compete is for everyone well being.

I don't think you actually know what I advocate. Have you read anything about AnCap, or Voluntaryism?

This response just sidesteps my statement.  Human motives and interests persist in any system.  You seem to be under the impression that this will be some Utopia where somehow people will be better off.  From you other writings you have no problem with people falling behind or having a large underclass, that is for sure. 

As long as this view is supported by you or other AnCappers, you will just continue to be a fringe movement with no hope of actual execution.  You need to embrace that people have been abused and been put at a disadvantage that is not just of their own making.  That is called reality and compassion.  Not just saying, oh they will just go to charity.  It just shows you lack true empathy.

I'll let Penn take this one:

Pure capitalism doesn't work because we are on a finite planet.  And I don't advocate a system where over time, a relative few of the population owns and or controls all the resources. 

You advocate government, which is by definition a relative few controlling everything else.

A few for a limited time, rotating in and out of government is what I advocate, just like in our constitution.  You seem to forget that document we have in America.  I know many do not respect it, but I do.

Switching out the overseers doesn't make the slave any less a slave.

First off, I have not taken a micro or macro economics course.   Second, I have personally put together an impressive library of banking, money, economics, politics, history and philosophy books and have read over 200 of them and counting, so if what you saying is after putting this much time in to understand something about the world we live in and form a view on human nature and stating what I feel, then yes, I guess that is what I am doing.     Have you even read Wealth of Nations from your hero Adam Smith?  Even he says you can't have purely free markets.   

See? I'm certain now that you have no fucking clue what I advocate. Any Mises in that library of yours? Hayek? Hoppe? Rothbard? Talk to me after you've read some of them. (hey, guess what, you can read them free over at mises.org)

Look at your responses and tell me I have no clue?  I read what you write.  I under what your saying when you mention pure capitalism and free markets.  Yes, Mises and Hayek are in my library and I actually have a book on order that is a collection of Hayek essays I will be reading.  That doesn't mean everything that have said is correct either.   That is where your own analysis and common sense comes in.

I've yet to see you use any of that... I noticed you did't say there were any books by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in there. I strongly suggest reading some of his work. While you're at it, some Gustave de Molinari and Rothbard couldn't hurt.

[myrkul]

So, have you read any of the books I suggested? Even just "The Production of Security" by de Molinari would help, and it's short enough you can probably read it in an hour or two.

Are you ready to debate from a position of knowledge of what I advocate?

[hawkeye]

Wrong question.   Obviously if someone wants to be part of a nation that has this tax rate and policies then they agreed to be subject to those laws.  If not then they would not be part of the nation, they would be part of some other nation where they agreed with their laws and taxes or lack there of.

I never agreed to it.  I was just born here.

The entire problem I have with the state is that there are no solid contracts.  There's no contract defining what my behaviour should be that I have signed.   Instead, there is an ever-shifting contract that I never signed but still have to accept all the changes to it.  No business could operate in this fashion.  In fact, it's clear what happens in these circumstances.  Without any formal contracts, everybody just tries to get their own piece of the action.  And why not?  If anarchy is defined as chaos (it's not, but let's assume for the sake of argument), then government and states as they currently exist sure fit the bill.  No-one knows what the rules are and they are subject to change at any time at the whim of a small group of people.  In the event of a dispute there is no contract that can be pointed at to try and resolve the dispute.  Just the dishonest words of disreputable men (and women) who can't be held to account in any significant way.  That's madness.

A situation where there is proper contracts between people doing business with each other over all facets of life.  That is order.  That is anarchy.  That is sanity.