$50,000 Loans that Don't Have to be Repaid

[raresaturn]

The people. Directly.

No ineffective democracy. No sleazy politicians.

Just the people and their desires.

umm what?  Isn't that what Democracy is?

[Anonymous]

The people. Directly.

No ineffective democracy. No sleazy politicians.

Just the people and their desires.

umm what?  Isn't that what Democracy is?

No, democracy is mob rule (50% +1) that decides what objectives bureaucracies can fumble over, usually through the veil of a representative politician that is bought out by corporate interests.

A free society let's people keep their tax money and decide directly what organizations and causes they want to support. Since they actually have a selection of services they can choose from, failing ones can actually truly fail since support can be denied as opposed to a state program that is left to the whims of whatever elected parasite.

[raresaturn]

The people. Directly.

No ineffective democracy. No sleazy politicians.

Just the people and their desires.

umm what?  Isn't that what Democracy is?

No, democracy is mob rule (50% +1) that decides what objectives bureaucracies can fumble over, usually through the veil of a representative politician that is bought out by corporate interests.

A free society let's people keep their tax money and decide directly what organizations and causes they want to support. Since they actually have a selection of services they can choose from, failing ones can actually truly fail since support can be denied as opposed to a state program that is left to the whims of whatever elected parasite.

Can you provide an example where this has ever worked in the history of the world?

[asdf]

The people. Directly.

No ineffective democracy. No sleazy politicians.

Just the people and their desires.

umm what?  Isn't that what Democracy is?

No, democracy is mob rule (50% +1) that decides what objectives bureaucracies can fumble over, usually through the veil of a representative politician that is bought out by corporate interests.

A free society let's people keep their tax money and decide directly what organizations and causes they want to support. Since they actually have a selection of services they can choose from, failing ones can actually truly fail since support can be denied as opposed to a state program that is left to the whims of whatever elected parasite.

Can you provide an example where this has ever worked in the history of the world?

USA, pre 1913. You know, industrial revolution and all that.

[Hunterbunter]

Can you provide an example where this has ever worked in the history of the world?

USA, pre 1913. You know, industrial revolution and all that.

Didn't that, like, happen everywhere in the 'western' world?

[raresaturn]

The people. Directly.

No ineffective democracy. No sleazy politicians.

Just the people and their desires.

umm what?  Isn't that what Democracy is?

No, democracy is mob rule (50% +1) that decides what objectives bureaucracies can fumble over, usually through the veil of a representative politician that is bought out by corporate interests.

A free society let's people keep their tax money and decide directly what organizations and causes they want to support. Since they actually have a selection of services they can choose from, failing ones can actually truly fail since support can be denied as opposed to a state program that is left to the whims of whatever elected parasite.

Can you provide an example where this has ever worked in the history of the world?

USA, pre 1913. You know, industrial revolution and all that.

quickly followed by the Great Depression

[Anonymous]

The people. Directly.

No ineffective democracy. No sleazy politicians.

Just the people and their desires.

umm what?  Isn't that what Democracy is?

No, democracy is mob rule (50% +1) that decides what objectives bureaucracies can fumble over, usually through the veil of a representative politician that is bought out by corporate interests.

A free society let's people keep their tax money and decide directly what organizations and causes they want to support. Since they actually have a selection of services they can choose from, failing ones can actually truly fail since support can be denied as opposed to a state program that is left to the whims of whatever elected parasite.

Can you provide an example where this has ever worked in the history of the world?

USA, pre 1913. You know, industrial revolution and all that.

quickly followed by the Great Depression

Because JP Morgan spreaded toxic gossip about the banks. It was an inside job.

[someotherguy]

Uh, so it's all fine and dandy to steal my money, then you can help me out when it's convenient?

FUCK YOU, PARASITE! There's no other way to say it. You have no respect for man! You only have respect when its convenient for your whims and desires!

Parasite, eh? The buzzword of objectivists, nothing more. I have respect for human rights. I respect the human right to food and shelter, the human right to live. Should the common man be punished for the failure of capitalism? No.

So, you believe in the right of slavery -- the right to enslave others to feed, shelter and sustain others that are deemed worthy by the slaver. How humanitarian.

+1

[FredericBastiat]

Here is my take on the purpose and role of Government:
Hopefully it clarifies any confusion in this thread

THE LAW

Men, Women, Agent(s), Person(s), and Life collectively or individually have synonymous equivalent meaning herein. De facto entrusted crucially dependent Life admits safe guardianship or conveyance thereto.
1.   All men are equal in Rights.
  1.1.   All men are intrinsically free, whose expression when manifest, admits autonomy.
  1.2.   Rights exist because man exists (consequent to Life).
  1.3.   Rights are inalienable and inherent, hence discovered not created.
  1.4.   Man commits autonomous choices apart from all other men.
2.   Rights are defined as the Liberty to control, secure and defend one’s Property and Life.
3.   Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything not in violation of other’s Rights.
4.   Rights Violations are unprovoked physical aggressions (UPAs) initiated by man against another, or Breaches of Contract (BOCs), resulting in an incontrovertible diminishment in one’s Rights.
  4.1.   UPAs are non-consenting acts which cause an Object (Property or Life) to undergo a transferred or transformed change to the Object’s original energy state or condition.
  4.2.   Energy transfer to/from an Object or energy transformation of the Object occurs by means of three ways, namely: thermodynamic work, heat transfer, or mass transfer.
  4.3.   Contracts are compulsory promissory agreements involving Property or Life (and specific performances or forbearances therewith) between mutually consenting men.
  4.4.   Misrepresentation of Contract obligations or BOCs resulting in misappropriation of Property or Life, or expenditures related thereto, is subject to Rights Violations.
5.   Property can be anything comprised of physical material matter (PMM).
6.   Property is the exclusive non-simultaneous possession or dominion of discrete PMM.
  6.1.   Unconstrained/non-delimited/uncontrolled PMM (UPMM), UPMM effusions or energy transmissions, are not Property; they are ownerless nonexclusive UPMM or Emissions thereof, until physically made to become otherwise.
  6.2.   A Property’s inertial reference frame, dimensions, Emissions/Emitters, usage and genesis thereof, define and constitute its Property Scope Ambit (PSA).
  6.3.   PSAs that initiate tangible material perturbations which intersect or preclude another’s preexisting or antecedent PSAs may be subject to Rights Violations.
 6.4.   Preexisting antecedent unconstrained Emitters cannot proscribe the receipt of similar, both in magnitude and direction, intersecting Emissions Flux.
  6.5.   Property cannot transform into something extracorporeal, extrinsic or compulsory due to the manipulation or interpretation of its PMM composition.
  6.6.   Absent Contract and Force, Property or Life of one man shall not control, compel or impede Property or Life of another.
  6.7.   Unintentional personal ingress vouchsafes unimpeded passage and egress.
7.   Force is the means –proportionate to the aggression– to obstruct, inhibit or extirpate the Rights of any man who interferes with or imminently threatens the Rights of other men.
  7.1.   Force can only be applied to resolve Rights Violations and is consequently just.
  7.2.   Man, or an Agent to man, must ascertain that a Rights Violation has occurred.
  7.3.   Man is severally liable and accountable for solely his Rights Violations a posteriori.
8.   Justice, viz., lawfulness effectuates disjunctive Rights between men.
9.   That which is neither just nor lawful is Violence and imperils the Rights of man.
10.   Violence causes inequality (unequal in Rights of man) and is forbidden.


Suggestions welcome 

[Babylon]

They shuld have done this before bailing out the banks.  it bails out the banks and the home owners at the same time, for the same price.

[netrin]

This is egregious. I sold my apartment at a small loss anticipating the crash in the market, and have been paying a handsome monthly rent ever since. In theory i'm now subsidizing the guy who bought my dream home. Fuck that!

Just a comment to all the anti-socialist European haters. I lived several years in a high tax welfare state with a balanced annual budget, that today has only 11% debt/gdp, very little crime, free education, health care, long maternity leave, educated society with a working honest democracy and press, and other niceties Americans can only dream about. Yes, we all paid for that. I was still paying off my American student loans while taxed to pay for someone else's education. And it was worth it. America has a sick system. The US has low taxes but prints money to compensate. It's amazing to me the country hasn't collapsed already.

[billyjoeallen]

They shuld have done this before bailing out the banks.  it bails out the banks and the home owners at the same time, for the same price.

Bails out home owners at the expense of home buyers and future tax payers. You can't make an economic calculation without looking at both sides of the equation.

[billyjoeallen]

This is egregious. I sold my apartment at a small loss anticipating the crash in the market, and have been paying a handsome monthly rent ever since. In theory i'm now subsidizing the guy who bought my dream home. Fuck that!

Just a comment to all the anti-socialist European haters. I lived several years in a high tax welfare state with a balanced annual budget, that today has only 11% debt/gdp, very little crime, free education, health care, long maternity leave, educated society with a working honest democracy and press, and other niceties Americans can only dream about. Yes, we all paid for that. I was still paying off my American student loans while taxed to pay for someone else's education. And it was worth it. America has a sick system. The US has low taxes but prints money to compensate. It's amazing to me the country hasn't collapsed already.

The American system is broken because it is NOT a free market system. Your anecdotal evidence proves nothing. Perhaps the socialist utopia you claim to have lived in would have been even more heavenly with more economic freedom. perhaps the U.S. would be even more screwed up if it was more socialist. Perhaps not, but your claim is meaningless.  Compare apples to apples: East Germany to West Germany. North Korea to South Korea. Texas to California.

Socialism has perverse incentives: when you are required to give according to you ability and take according to your need, it's in your personal interest to be seen to have the greatest need and the least ability.

Socialism also suffers from the economic calculation problem. Market prices are needed to allocate scarce resources. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem otherwise, there is no efficient way to determine what should go where.

[Babylon]

They shuld have done this before bailing out the banks.  it bails out the banks and the home owners at the same time, for the same price.

Bails out home owners at the expense of home buyers and future tax payers. You can't make an economic calculation without looking at both sides of the equation.

I'm not saying its the right thing to do, I'd have preferred they let the banks go under, but if they are gonna bail out, might as well bail out as many people as possible, especcially if it doesn't raise the rpice of the bailout.

[billyjoeallen]

They shuld have done this before bailing out the banks.  it bails out the banks and the home owners at the same time, for the same price.

Bails out home owners at the expense of home buyers and future tax payers. You can't make an economic calculation without looking at both sides of the equation.

I'm not saying its the right thing to do, I'd have preferred they let the banks go under, but if they are gonna bail out, might as well bail out as many people as possible, especcially if it doesn't raise the rpice of the bailout.

I agree, however the caveat is that bailing our more people creates more moral hazard.

[netrin]

Just a comment to all the anti-socialist European haters. I lived several years in a high tax welfare state with a balanced annual budget, that today has only 11% debt/gdp...

The American system is broken because it is NOT a free market system. Your anecdotal evidence proves nothing. Perhaps the socialist utopia you claim to have lived in would have been even more heavenly with more economic freedom. perhaps the U.S. would be even more screwed up if it was more socialist. Perhaps not, but your claim is meaningless.  Compare apples to apples: East Germany to West Germany. North Korea to South Korea. Texas to California.

Perhaps my reference to anti-socialist Europe haters implied that the northern European country I referred to was in fact socialist. You'd be hard pressed to find a socialist country by your definition anywhere in Europe.

In fact the Scandinavian countries are among the most free production markets in the world. Low corporate taxes, few barriers to entry and trade, just as easy to fire as to hire. The point I meant to make is that the citizens are highly taxed to pay for their high level of social services, rather than an inflation of the money supply.

[billyjoeallen]

Just a comment to all the anti-socialist European haters. I lived several years in a high tax welfare state with a balanced annual budget, that today has only 11% debt/gdp...

The American system is broken because it is NOT a free market system. Your anecdotal evidence proves nothing. Perhaps the socialist utopia you claim to have lived in would have been even more heavenly with more economic freedom. perhaps the U.S. would be even more screwed up if it was more socialist. Perhaps not, but your claim is meaningless.  Compare apples to apples: East Germany to West Germany. North Korea to South Korea. Texas to California.

Perhaps my reference to anti-socialist Europe haters implied that the northern European country I referred to was in fact socialist. You'd be hard pressed to find a socialist country by your definition anywhere in Europe.

In fact the Scandinavian countries are among the most free production markets in the world. Low corporate taxes, few barriers to entry and trade, just as easy to fire as to hire. The point I meant to make is that the citizens are highly taxed to pay for their high level of social services, rather than an inflation of the money supply.

Inflation due to money printing is just another tax, so If I am understanding you correctly, you are merely making a claim that one form of tax is more efficient than another form of tax while making no claim as to whether  said services should be provided by the state.  Taxes transfer wealth involuntarily, which is to say they are all a form of legally-sanctioned theft. In the long run, it is in society's best interest for theft to be an INEFFICIENT as possible, which would make it easier to eliminate.  If the relevant issue is (as it should be) the moste efficient way to provide Essesential Services, then it should be obvious that a monopoly would not be and is not optimal. The State is a monopoly. This fact means that very poor incentives exist for the State to provide maximum value. 

[netrin]

Perhaps my reference to anti-socialist Europe haters implied that the northern European country I referred to was in fact socialist. You'd be hard pressed to find a socialist country by your definition anywhere in Europe.

In fact the Scandinavian countries are among the most free production markets in the world. Low corporate taxes, few barriers to entry and trade, just as easy to fire as to hire. The point I meant to make is that the citizens are highly taxed to pay for their high level of social services, rather than an inflation of the money supply.

Inflation due to money printing is just another tax, so If I am understanding you correctly, you are merely making a claim that one form of tax is more efficient than another form of tax while making no claim as to whether  said services should be provided by the state.  Taxes transfer wealth involuntarily, which is to say they are all a form of legally-sanctioned theft. In the long run, it is in society's best interest for theft to be an INEFFICIENT as possible, which would make it easier to eliminate.  If the relevant issue is (as it should be) the moste efficient way to provide Essesential Services, then it should be obvious that a monopoly would not be and is not optimal. The State is a monopoly. This fact means that very poor incentives exist for the State to provide maximum value.  

Monetary inflation is an efficient but very specific type of tax, namely a tax on long term savings, not immediate consumption.

I believe that common health services (such as inoculation against contagious diseases) can be most efficiently provided and most beneficial under a monopoly. I prefer to live in a society where a minimal level of education can be expected - particularly if I rely on my peers to vote wisely. It is my experience that crime is minimal (or at least less apparent) in countries with greater welfare/taxes. I am not sure what law would mean without a regional monopoly. These are services for which I happily pay a monopoly: health, education, law. For when others benefit from these services, I benefit two-fold.

[billyjoeallen]

Perhaps my reference to anti-socialist Europe haters implied that the northern European country I referred to was in fact socialist. You'd be hard pressed to find a socialist country by your definition anywhere in Europe.

In fact the Scandinavian countries are among the most free production markets in the world. Low corporate taxes, few barriers to entry and trade, just as easy to fire as to hire. The point I meant to make is that the citizens are highly taxed to pay for their high level of social services, rather than an inflation of the money supply.

Inflation due to money printing is just another tax, so If I am understanding you correctly, you are merely making a claim that one form of tax is more efficient than another form of tax while making no claim as to whether  said services should be provided by the state.  Taxes transfer wealth involuntarily, which is to say they are all a form of legally-sanctioned theft. In the long run, it is in society's best interest for theft to be an INEFFICIENT as possible, which would make it easier to eliminate.  If the relevant issue is (as it should be) the moste efficient way to provide Essesential Services, then it should be obvious that a monopoly would not be and is not optimal. The State is a monopoly. This fact means that very poor incentives exist for the State to provide maximum value.  

Monetary inflation is an efficient but very specific type of tax, namely a tax on long term savings, not immediate consumption.

I believe that common health services (such as inoculation against contagious diseases) can be most efficiently provided and most beneficial under a monopoly. I prefer to live in a society where a minimal level of education can be expected - particularly if I rely on my peers to vote wisely. It is my experience that crime is minimal (or at least less apparent) in countries with greater welfare/taxes. I am not sure what law would mean without a regional monopoly. These are services for which I happily pay a monopoly: health, education, law. For when others benefit from these services, I benefit two-fold.

You're getting the cause and effect mixed up. Most countries have as much socialism as they can afford.

[netrin]

Monetary inflation is an efficient but very specific type of tax, namely a tax on long term savings, not immediate consumption.

I believe that common health services (such as inoculation against contagious diseases) can be most efficiently provided and most beneficial under a monopoly. I prefer to live in a society where a minimal level of education can be expected - particularly if I rely on my peers to vote wisely. It is my experience that crime is minimal (or at least less apparent) in countries with greater welfare/taxes. I am not sure what law would mean without a regional monopoly. These are services for which I happily pay a monopoly: health, education, law. For when others benefit from these services, I benefit two-fold.

You're getting the cause and effect mixed up. Most countries have as much socialism as they can afford.

What cause/effect -- That a country first prioritizes services and then attempts to afford them with taxes? You may be right. It may be impossible to find an example country that does not waste money in economically irrational but populist adventures (Singapore?). But my assertion is that some countries attempt to pay for both their rational and populist services (N. Europe) while others such as the United States pass the bill on to the future/collapse.