Could libertarians please help me understand this?

IMO, it still weakens the overall point. Mainly by exposing her lack of dedication and conviction in her message. It reminds me of warren buffet complaining about being taxed too little whenever a mic was in his face, but omitting the fact he could write a check and give it to the IRS. How strong can his conviction be if he isnt willing to start the movement and give up .01 percent of his wealth that he would probably make back in a week by overrunning smaller guys and taking over/firing struggling companies.

 

When it gets down to the nitty gritty of what can be called socialism and what can not, it really has no definite answer. Everyone has a different percentage of socialist policies required to be socialist. Now some would argue that socialist governments are the ones who declare that they are socialist, but I would say that many countries who say they practice a non socialist method are not being entirely honest. It all comes down to what percentage you personally require in determine whether a country is socialist or not.

For instance we have many socialist policies, some that neither democrats or republicans would want removed. Firemen, Police, road crews, social security, etc...

 

A socialist country is one where the means of production are collectively controlled. That's the definition, everything else is add-ons.

 

It does not matter the benefits bestowed upon a society is beneficial if voluntary consent to participate in such benefits are not not completely voluntary by the individual. Consent must be given, and not coerced. The liberty of the individual is paramount within the constraints of the non-aggression principal. .

 

No kidding. What did she collect, exactly? Social Security? That's a forced retirement fund, not "welfare" in the sense of taxing someone in order to support someone else financially. We pay in, we get something back later.

Still, it's supposed to be optional rather than forced, and I think it's wrong to force people to pay into a scheme like that. That's leftist big government nonsense, and is unamerican in my view. The income tax is likewise.. I mean, since when is money received in exchange for labor a freaking capital gain? It's a form of barter, an exchange of service for money. It's also something that the damned government does little to nothing to facilitate, unless perhaps the work being performed is FOR THE GOVERNMENT.

(*)(*)(*)(*) this stupid (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up system of greedy politicians who continually tell us the exact opposite of the truth in order to keep robbing from us to benefit themselves and their cronies and backers.

 

In fact, fascism is much more defined by its authoritarian nature. Right-left wise, it's dead center, with an equal mix of socialism and capitalism. It is state sponsorization of these entreprises that go in the state's wanted direction, while also heavily investing in its population's education/brainwashing in the same nationalistic views.

A lot of people here are unconscious fascists.

 

Then you perpetuate the "theft". Rose Wilder and Isabel Paterson stood by their convictions. Ayn Rand was a fraud. Those who attempt to rationalize her hypocrisy are no better.

 

Perhaps you misunderstand me - this is the first I've heard of Ayn Rand taking benefits - as I don't really care much for her angle on libertarianism.

I'm not trying to rationalize her hypocrisy. I genuinely think you're entitled to seek compensation in a form other than a direct tax rebate - via other, less liquid forms of capital. If a robber steals $50 from me and 5 other people - I won't refuse him if he offer to take me out for a $50 dinner in exchange. Sure, I'd prefer if he gave me back the cash, because that's a liquid asset - but a lunch is better than nothing.

Moreover, I do not accept that I'd be at fault for the theft of others - that is, unless I took that wine on the side and my total bill equaled more than $50.

[hr][/hr]

I view government benefits much the same way. I know how much I pay in tax, I know how much I'm able to avoid through deductibles on my tax return - the remainder I recoup through services. I accept those $35 cheques the RBA sends whenever you go to the doctor (in Australia), I accept student loans (where the benefit to me is the standard interest rate on a loan that size), I fill out government forms I don't think I should have to fill out - to own a firearm, to obtain a car license, etc. I don't see any of this as wrong or hypocritical.

I would without doubt prefer it if they didn't take my property to begin with - but a $35 cheque in the mail is good enough for me, so long as I have a positive tax bill.

 

Your country has too many ties to Greece, too many people work abroad and only come back when they are unemployed, and I have seen estimates that close to a third of your economy operates off the books. You need more enforcement mechanisms and more proactive economic development programs. Beyond that, you are still fairly new to capitalism--give it time.

 

The flaw in your scenario is that the government spent your social security taxes on somebody else's benefits. To pay your benefit, the ggovernment needs to tax someone else. If the robber used your $50 to buy someone else dinner, then offered to steal $50 from someone else to buy you dinner, how is it right for you to accept the offer?

 

Buffet wants everyone else to pay more, not just him. Giving his money to the government doesn't really help in achieving that goal.

I don't think accepting government benefits means you're a hypocrite for wanting those benefits abolished. Think of taxation like theft of any other variety - a mugging for instance. That's how we view it.

 

That's a better point than your previous one, and I understand where you're coming from - but I disagree. Certainly my taking the $50 dinner might encourage a mugger who's interested in feeding people with their own money against their will - but I am not responsible for his intent. I wish only to recoup what was stolen from me. Whether I do this through the use of retaliatory force, or through the robber's "kindness" is irrelevant, as is whether this will encourage future theft of a similar nature. That's his business.

Whether theft increases as a result of my actions is not relevant - what matters is whether those actions are in themselves coercive.

[hr][/hr]

Perhaps you could persuade me with further argument, I am not entirely opposed to your line of reasoning.

 

No. They can't.

 

In the case of Social Security, you're not ignorant of the source of the money. When you accept the benefit, you know it's been paid for by somebody else's taxes. It's equivalent to the robber telling you that he's going to rob somebody else to buy you dinner, and you agreeing to go along with that.

 

Germany is the only European country with a youth unemployment rate less than ten percent. Greece and Spain are nearly 50%, In the US it exceeds 13% France is even higher.

 

You made a false claim regarding unemployment rates. Your claim said most have high unemployment rates, especially among the young. Not just among the young. Spain isn't in the top 10 for gdp. Greece isn't eeven top 20. Not sure why you would single them out.

If you're trying to support your claim, you're doing a poor job.

 

Well there are a few things to note. First and most important, since it seems like the majority of these discussions confuse the two, let's note that nominal gdp/capita and gdp growth are two separate things. It's an extremely weak inductive point to look at a list of countries with high nominal gdp/capita, and suggest that something they have in common is why they do so well.

Second, yes a lower tax structure is better for a country and should lead towards greater growth. However, the difference isn't light and day between 10% and 20%. So there is a difference, but it isn't going to be enormous.

Third, Bulgaria is a poor example. Economic prosperity has a lot to do with economic freedom, and Bulgaria is pretty average, despite lower taxes. Look for yourself. Taxes are just one part of economic freedom.

Fourth, you have to look at other things that might be holding Bulgaria back. Bulgaria has a lot of issues with corruption and a weak justice system. It's nearly lost it's investment grade credit rating. Look for yourself.

 

Exactly, and what many people do not understand about correlating is when you are correlating two variables there is ALWAYS a third variable that will skew the data in the direction one does not agree with.

You listed things such as; Capital, Education, infrastructure, and market. Which could all be used as third variables, and there will always be even more than that.

 

So if Free healthcare and free college is not Socialist, what is it than smart guy?

 

Free doesn't equate to socialism. It just entails that there is no cost to you. If I pay for your education and medicine directly, that isn't any more socialism than if you are paying for these services through taxation (which is the case in Scandinavian countries that you are so fond of).

Socialism entails that industries are publicly owned, like the UK and Canada, which NHS is controlled and funded by the Government.

 

How does that logic apply to, say, people that aren't republican icons? We all pay into it, why is only she (and Rush Limbaugh and other republicans) given a pass?

 

I'm not giving a pass to anyone. If you want to take advantage of others, go right ahead.

We all understand the social programs, such as Social Security, are very costly to maintain, provide little benefits to those who use it and cannot last in perpetuity. However, I don't need it, neither does Rush Limbaugh or Ayn Rand, but if you give it to us, we will take it, because it is free money. If you don't give it to us, the Government will simply waste it on spending projects.

 

Socialism is an economic system where the means of production are collectively/publicly/socially (pick whichever word you want, they end up meaning the same thing - no private ownership) owned.

That IS the definition, I don't know where you got your made up one.

Also, there is no such thing as free.

 

she....

 

not really. Socialism allows Capitalism to thrive, thus one can make more than their neighbor.

I don't think people properly understand Socialism and feel its Communism, which it isn't.

- - - Updated - - -

untrue, you are thinking communism, they are 2 different systems.