Why the Left Fears Libertarianism

[LastBattle]

Not sustainable?  Based on what?  Prove it.  It's been sustaining just fine.

On the fact that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. Economically active people and businesses leave the country for jurisdictions with lower taxation (UK for example) being fed up with ever-growing number of welfare recipients. What kind of future does this country have?

That myth has been busted for awhile now

Enjoy...

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/quelle-surprise-tax-increases-on-rich-do-not-lead-to-exodus.html

It's almost as comparing apples to oranges. Taxation differences between US states is incomparable to that of semi-socialist European countries.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/29/the-truth-about-taxes-and-the

From the link above:

The general conclusion is that moderate tax increases on the rich, even if no neighboring jurisdictions follow suit, is unlikely to lead to much in the way of emigration.

Squirming again? Or should I say twisting facts?

Nope, sorry.  Your argument is that higher taxes drive the rich away, see...

Economically active people and businesses leave the country for jurisdictions with lower taxation (UK for example)

That's simply not true, mostly because wealthy people aren't stupid and they understand that you have to pay to play.  You want to live in a nice society?  You're going to pay higher taxes for it.  You want people to actually be health and alive enough (not to mention have enough disposable income) to buy your products?  You're going to have to subsidize them.  One hand washes the other.  The rich understand why they pay more in taxes.  It's the igornant poor (like yourself) that are the ones crying for lower taxes on the rich.

If the rich want to be taxed higher, then why don't they donate rather than get "taxed"? Can't they do so on their own without dragging others in with them?

[1714062701]

1714062701

[1714062701]

1714062701

[1714062701]

1714062701

[1714062701]

1714062701

[freespirit]

It's the igornant poor (like yourself) that are the ones crying for lower taxes on the rich.

I am neither, but it looks like you are.

[AyeYo]

Not sustainable?  Based on what?  Prove it.  It's been sustaining just fine.

On the fact that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. Economically active people and businesses leave the country for jurisdictions with lower taxation (UK for example) being fed up with ever-growing number of welfare recipients. What kind of future does this country have?

That myth has been busted for awhile now

Enjoy...

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/quelle-surprise-tax-increases-on-rich-do-not-lead-to-exodus.html

It's almost as comparing apples to oranges. Taxation differences between US states is incomparable to that of semi-socialist European countries.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/29/the-truth-about-taxes-and-the

From the link above:

The general conclusion is that moderate tax increases on the rich, even if no neighboring jurisdictions follow suit, is unlikely to lead to much in the way of emigration.

Squirming again? Or should I say twisting facts?

Nope, sorry.  Your argument is that higher taxes drive the rich away, see...

Economically active people and businesses leave the country for jurisdictions with lower taxation (UK for example)

That's simply not true, mostly because wealthy people aren't stupid and they understand that you have to pay to play.  You want to live in a nice society?  You're going to pay higher taxes for it.  You want people to actually be health and alive enough (not to mention have enough disposable income) to buy your products?  You're going to have to subsidize them.  One hand washes the other.  The rich understand why they pay more in taxes.  It's the igornant poor (like yourself) that are the ones crying for lower taxes on the rich.

If the rich want to be taxed higher, then why don't they donate rather than get "taxed"? Can't they do so on their own without dragging others in with them?

Because the rich aren't stupid.  Everyone pays their share.  No one in their right mind is going to let people benefit from a system without contributing to it, which is why we force you to pay taxes even though you don't understand the benefits you reap from it.

[LastBattle]

Not sustainable?  Based on what?  Prove it.  It's been sustaining just fine.

On the fact that sooner or later you run out of other people's money. Economically active people and businesses leave the country for jurisdictions with lower taxation (UK for example) being fed up with ever-growing number of welfare recipients. What kind of future does this country have?

That myth has been busted for awhile now

Enjoy...

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/quelle-surprise-tax-increases-on-rich-do-not-lead-to-exodus.html

It's almost as comparing apples to oranges. Taxation differences between US states is incomparable to that of semi-socialist European countries.

http://reason.com/archives/2011/04/29/the-truth-about-taxes-and-the

From the link above:

The general conclusion is that moderate tax increases on the rich, even if no neighboring jurisdictions follow suit, is unlikely to lead to much in the way of emigration.

Squirming again? Or should I say twisting facts?

Nope, sorry.  Your argument is that higher taxes drive the rich away, see...

Economically active people and businesses leave the country for jurisdictions with lower taxation (UK for example)

That's simply not true, mostly because wealthy people aren't stupid and they understand that you have to pay to play.  You want to live in a nice society?  You're going to pay higher taxes for it.  You want people to actually be health and alive enough (not to mention have enough disposable income) to buy your products?  You're going to have to subsidize them.  One hand washes the other.  The rich understand why they pay more in taxes.  It's the igornant poor (like yourself) that are the ones crying for lower taxes on the rich.

If the rich want to be taxed higher, then why don't they donate rather than get "taxed"? Can't they do so on their own without dragging others in with them?

Because the rich aren't stupid.  Everyone pays their share.  No one in their right mind is going to let people benefit from a system without contributing to it, which is why we force you to pay taxes even though you don't understand the benefits you reap from it.

You missed my point.  Oh well.

The "rich" are not a single group, just like "the poor" and "the blacks". They are composed of many individuals, each with their own goals and abilities, and many come out of supporting higher taxes in better shape because they get subsidies, or because they can survive the taxes and a competitor can't, allowing them to make up the difference in market share. Look at Jim Rogers, Peter Schiff, the Kochs, and then look at Warren Buffet and George Soros. The aforementioned most definitely do NOT want to be taxed, and they are rich.

Anyway, the vast majority of people who pay taxes end up with a net loss. We get roads, but they are paid for (in my own country, at least) with absurdly high gas taxes, are excessively spread out, constantly have inconvenient maintenance, encourage pollution when alternate forms of transportation would be common if roads didn't get a blank check, and they aren't even of especially high quality. We get water plants, but they too aren't especially cheap and are often run by incompetent idiots who allow e. coli into the water or they attempt to make it cleaner by dumping fluoride into the water. We get electricity, but because of monopoly it is generally pretty expensive, not always reliable in bad weather, and requires that individuals be forced out of their homes at gunpoint, given paltry compensation, and forced to leave as the government destroys their house to build a power line. We get the military, which goes to foreign countries to bomb brown people that we have no good reason to bomb, and benefits absolutely no one except a handful of beneficiaries.

[AyeYo]

You've got the rhetoric down well: list only the negatives of government, list only the positives of private business.

You'll overlook private market greed giving birth to companies like Enron, who systematically decreased electricity supply to sections of California to fake a lack of supply, thus allowing them to jack electricity prices and tack on obscene service charges to fix problems that never existed.  The free market did that.

You'll forget about all the factory farms that cut corners on cleanliness and pest control, action that has led to numerous e.coli and salmonela outbreaks in the last few years.  That's the free market's standard of food safety.

Let's just ignore tobacco companies that knew the negative affects of their products as early as the 1930's, but continued to market them as perfectly safe until government regulation cracked down on them over thirty years later.

So easily you forget AIG that sidestepped and mislead regulators about the finanical instruments they had created, of course, out of greed, and brought world-wide financial system collapse - because they only cared about themselves and making a quick buck.

And oh, all the Chinese companies using lead paint in toys. Forget about them, they don't matter. That's the free market saving a buck at the expense of the populace. That didn't stop until government regulators put an end to it.

[Anonymous]

If the government didn't have a monopoly on regulation and didn't FAIL at it, maybe companies would have more incentive to make safer products.

[AyeYo]

If the government didn't have a monopoly on regulation and didn't FAIL at it, maybe companies would have more incentive to make safer products.

Yea that makes perfect sense.  They won't do it when we tell them to do it and threaten them with jail time and fines, but if we let them do whatever they want, naturally they'll self-regulate to perfection.  Yea, that's totally logical.

[Anonymous]

If the government didn't have a monopoly on regulation and didn't FAIL at it, maybe companies would have more incentive to make safer products.

Yea that makes perfect sense.  They won't do it when we tell them to do it and threaten them with jail time and fines, but if we let them do whatever they want, naturally they'll self-regulate to perfection.  Yea, that's totally logical.

Except the government doesn't do that at all when they have more incentive to accept bribes. However, that's alright; government organizations can't be held accountable. They will always be the only ones.

They will self-regulate when their is actual incentive to give consumers safe products. That disappears when the industry is forced to rely on a regulatory monopoly.

Let me guess, companies shouldn't be dealing bribes. It's their fault! It couldn't possibly be because the whole system is flawed and allows for this kind of thing!

[AyeYo]

If the government didn't have a monopoly on regulation and didn't FAIL at it, maybe companies would have more incentive to make safer products.

Yea that makes perfect sense.  They won't do it when we tell them to do it and threaten them with jail time and fines, but if we let them do whatever they want, naturally they'll self-regulate to perfection.  Yea, that's totally logical.

Except the government doesn't do that at all when they have more incentive to accept bribes. However, that's alright; government organizations can't be held accountable. They will always be the only ones.

Can't be held accountable?  You must live under a rock.  Do you know what a voting booth looks like?

 

They will self-regulate when their is actual incentive to give consumers safe products. That disappears when the industry is forced to rely on a regulatory monopoly.

Why, in your wacked out mind, is there not currently incentive to give consumers safe products?

[Anonymous]

If the government didn't have a monopoly on regulation and didn't FAIL at it, maybe companies would have more incentive to make safer products.

Yea that makes perfect sense.  They won't do it when we tell them to do it and threaten them with jail time and fines, but if we let them do whatever they want, naturally they'll self-regulate to perfection.  Yea, that's totally logical.

Except the government doesn't do that at all when they have more incentive to accept bribes. However, that's alright; government organizations can't be held accountable. They will always be the only ones.

Can't be held accountable?  You must live under a rock.  Do you know what a voting booth looks like?

 

They will self-regulate when their is actual incentive to give consumers safe products. That disappears when the industry is forced to rely on a regulatory monopoly.

Why, in your wacked out mind, is there not currently incentive to give consumers safe products?

The voting booth is bunk. It doesn't work for building good services. There is little incentive and efficiency to achieve set objectives unless you have passionate officials and workers, which never happens. You only get it when there is a possibility of failure that comes with competing services.

There is no incentive now because nobody else but the government can regulate safety. If I want society to have safer products, I have to ask for permission and I will always get a no because the government likes its power.

If I tried working for the government agency, it would be a nightmare. The culture would naturally be terrible and the funding would be inadequate for what needs to get done.

[AyeYo]

If the government didn't have a monopoly on regulation and didn't FAIL at it, maybe companies would have more incentive to make safer products.

Yea that makes perfect sense.  They won't do it when we tell them to do it and threaten them with jail time and fines, but if we let them do whatever they want, naturally they'll self-regulate to perfection.  Yea, that's totally logical.

Except the government doesn't do that at all when they have more incentive to accept bribes. However, that's alright; government organizations can't be held accountable. They will always be the only ones.

Can't be held accountable?  You must live under a rock.  Do you know what a voting booth looks like?

 

They will self-regulate when their is actual incentive to give consumers safe products. That disappears when the industry is forced to rely on a regulatory monopoly.

Why, in your wacked out mind, is there not currently incentive to give consumers safe products?

The voting booth is bunk. It doesn't work for building good services. There is little incentive and efficiency to achieve set objectives unless you have passionate officials and workers, which never happens. You only get it when there is a possibility of failure that comes with competing services.

That's a fault of the people electing the crappy officials, and those people are a fact of life in ANY system.  Stop bitching and running your mouth online where it'll do nothing and go run for office yourself.

There is no incentive now because nobody else but the government can regulate safety. If I want society to have safer products, I have to ask for permission and I will always get a no because the government likes its power.

That does not explain why businesses have no incentive to produce safer products.  All you've done is repeat the line: "government bad, free market good, rabble rabble rabble."

Again, explain to me why businesses currently have no incentive to produce safer products.

If I tried working for the government agency, it would be a nightmare. The culture would naturally be terrible and the funding would be inadequate for what needs to get done.

Completely irrelevant to what's being discussed and in dire need of a citation or ten.  Cliffs: government bad, free market good, rabble rabble rabble.

[Anonymous]

THERE IS NO INCENTIVE BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS ELIMINATED IT.

THEIR PHILOSOPHY: GOVERNMENT GOOD, PROFIT BAD, RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

So you admit democracy fails? So why not let people vote with their dollar?

[AyeYo]

THERE IS NO INCENTIVE BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS ELIMINATED IT.

THEIR PHILOSOPHY: GOVERNMENT GOOD, PROFIT BAD, RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

So you admit democracy fails? So why not let people vote with their dollar?

HOW has the government eliminated it?  What, specifically, has been eliminated that has taken away the incentive.  Try to break out of your norm and post more than a one-liner with zero backup proof.


Democracy eventually fails, as do all systems, because the rich and powerful will always find a way to get themselves back in power.

The problem with people voting with their dollars is that 50% of the world's population controls less than 1% of the world's wealth.  So, voting with dollars means you get what you pay for, and the rich are the ones able to pay for whatever they want, thus it puts them in directly in control (no need to take the time and effort to proxy through a government) right off the bat.

It's a simple concept really, you'll understand it when you're older.

[Anonymous]

THERE IS NO INCENTIVE BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS ELIMINATED IT.

THEIR PHILOSOPHY: GOVERNMENT GOOD, PROFIT BAD, RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

So you admit democracy fails? So why not let people vote with their dollar?

HOW has the government eliminated it?  What, specifically, has been eliminated that has taken away the incentive.  Try to break out of your norm and post more than a one-liner with zero backup proof.


Democracy eventually fails, as do all systems, because the rich and powerful will always find a way to get themselves back in power.

The problem with people voting with their dollars is that 50% of the world's population controls less than 1% of the world's wealth.  So, voting with dollars means you get what you pay for, and the rich are the ones able to pay for whatever they want, thus it puts them in directly in control (no need to take the time and effort to proxy through a government) right off the bat.

The government doesn't allow any other businesses to appear. Passionate people who can build great systems are kept out because of political barriers and so forth. Normally they would only require funding by investors.

Businesses fail before they can take the people with it.

So, what? Voting with dollars means if your system doesn't work and fails to complete its objective, it gets no money. It's replaced by one that works and meets peoples desires. People get the value they put into it. It lets the people who pay for the services to have control, which is completely justified.

[AyeYo]

THERE IS NO INCENTIVE BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS ELIMINATED IT.

THEIR PHILOSOPHY: GOVERNMENT GOOD, PROFIT BAD, RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE

So you admit democracy fails? So why not let people vote with their dollar?

HOW has the government eliminated it?  What, specifically, has been eliminated that has taken away the incentive.  Try to break out of your norm and post more than a one-liner with zero backup proof.


Democracy eventually fails, as do all systems, because the rich and powerful will always find a way to get themselves back in power.

The problem with people voting with their dollars is that 50% of the world's population controls less than 1% of the world's wealth.  So, voting with dollars means you get what you pay for, and the rich are the ones able to pay for whatever they want, thus it puts them in directly in control (no need to take the time and effort to proxy through a government) right off the bat.

The government doesn't allow any other businesses to appear.

What does this mean?  There are plenty of businesses around.  Business is quite cut-throat in many industries due to the number of competitors, especially in this down economy.  What do you mean by this statement?

Passionate people who can build great systems are kept out because of political barriers and so forth. Normally they would only require funding by investors and they can.

Like who?  Do you have an example?  What industry are you referring to?  What barriers, specifically, are you referring to?  It's time for you to put some substance behind your vague and hollow statements.

Businesses fail before they can take the people with it.

What does this mean?  Give me a real world example.  Take what people with it?

So, what? Voting with dollars means if your system doesn't work and fails to complete its objective, it gets no money. It's replaced by one that works and meets peoples desires. People get the value they put into it. It's let the people who pay for the services to have control, which is completely justified.

If you're looking to go back to the feudal days, then you're on the right track.  The rest of us are looking for something a little less... tyrannical... and a little more.... free.

[Anonymous]

Would the government really let its monopolies on services die to private competitors?

I'm referring to all government-controlled industries. You have to be voted into a system by a shallow interview process in order to improve them. Private industry allows everyone to give it a shot.

When businesses fail, they only fail their supporters. Not everybody who was forced to pay into it.

Poor people want safe products to and they can pay for him. They will not be left out.

[AyeYo]

Would the government really let its monopolies on services die to private competitors?

I'm referring to all government-controlled industries.

Ah, but see, Chinese toy manufacturers and every other example I listed aren't government service monopolies, so you've still not answered my question: why do they not have incentive to create safer products?

[Anonymous]

Would the government really let its monopolies on services die to private competitors?

I'm referring to all government-controlled industries.

Ah, but see, Chinese toy manufacturers and every other example I listed aren't government service monopolies, so you've still not answered my question: why do they not have incentive to create safer products?

They are under the jurisdiction of Chinese safety regulations. The government sucks at enforcing them. If somebody tries to make a system that works, they are denied.

[AyeYo]

Would the government really let its monopolies on services die to private competitors?

I'm referring to all government-controlled industries.

Ah, but see, Chinese toy manufacturers and every other example I listed aren't government service monopolies, so you've still not answered my question: why do they not have incentive to create safer products?

They are under the jurisdiction of Chinese safety regulations. The government sucks at enforcing them. If somebody tries to make a system that works, they are denied.

You still have no answered the question: why do they not have incentive to make SAFER products?

Government regulations prevent them from making LESS SAFE products.  Why do they not have incentive to make MORE SAFE products?

[Anonymous]

Would the government really let its monopolies on services die to private competitors?

I'm referring to all government-controlled industries.

Ah, but see, Chinese toy manufacturers and every other example I listed aren't government service monopolies, so you've still not answered my question: why do they not have incentive to create safer products?

They are under the jurisdiction of Chinese safety regulations. The government sucks at enforcing them. If somebody tries to make a system that works, they are denied.

You still have no answered the question: why do they not have incentive to make SAFER products?

Government regulations prevent them from making LESS SAFE products.  Why do they not have incentive to make MORE SAFE products?

They have no reason to. The public is fooled into thinking everything is regulated and fine. The company can get away with shoveling out crap under the faux-veil of government protection.