Thing is, I desire neither of those things. If you don't care what others think, then why even bother participating in discussion? All of them. And if you don't care, why ask? -Meta
Excellent. I misunderstood. I thought you advocated the government initiating aggression against the person and property of my fellow man. I only care when someone advocates for the government initiating violence against the person or property of my fellow man, in which case I try to dissuade them from such a position. I mistakenly thought you supported such violence, but since you don't I really don't care what sort of quack economic theories you do or do not support. That's your business. I asked before I understood that you were not advocating for the government using its guns to initiate violence against my fellow man. As long as you are not using your economic theories to support the idea that the government should confiscate the property of my fellow man, then I really don't care what theories you hold.
Quack!? Ask pretty much any economist and they'll tell you that more demand leads to more jobs, higher pay, and lower unemployment. Heck! Even most supply-siders acknowledge that. There's nothing quack about it. So your primary concern is with making sure the government doesn't go around shooting people unjustly? A noble goal for sure, but then should I take it then that you aren't similarly concerned about improving the lives of Americans in general? -Meta
Whatever. I don't really care, unless you are using your economic theories to justify the government initiating aggression against my fellow man. No. My primary concern is that people (including government people) don't initiate aggression against the person or property of their fellow man. No, you can't take it.
Great, so then other than preventing the initiation of aggression, what are some things you would have our government do in order to improve the lives of Americans? -Meta
Removing taxation. That is a government sponsored initiation of agression I would endorse removing. Gun control laws. It unjustly infringes upon property rights. Eminent domain. Same.
Sure. I'd like the federal government to: manage trade with foreign nations, settle trade disputes between the states, operate a military to protect our borders, return to the pre-1964 definition of a dollar (26.73 grams of 90% silver) and to re-allow private minting. And then pretty much phase everything else out: social security, medicare, and medicaid federal all wage and price controls all federal gun control legislation the fed income tax and the IRS the war on drugs everything If it isn't defense or foreign relations or inter-state relations, stop doing it. If an action doesn't have a specific, identifiable victim, it should be legal.
People will never be 'exactly equal' or close to it...they will be 100% diversified from the lowest of limitations to the highest of limitations. Regarding wages or wealth, people will receive 'exactly' in return what they put into it. Obama and those who follow him at this time have no plan whatsoever to reduce deficit spending which can be seen in Obama's projections. Believing people are going to accept reduced government and/or higher taxes to eliminate deficit spending IMO is a joke. Why do you wish to tax the ones who are asked to create jobs and grow the economy? I think corporate tax should be 10-15%. Regarding wage dictation, let the People decide how much they must earn. If people in distressed areas are okay working for $5/hour then why should government tell them otherwise? In these areas, and within these types of jobs, given enough time, wages will increase. Again, why do you wish to tax the ones who are asked to create jobs and grow the economy? How in any sense of logic does it make sense for employers to pay FICA and health care costs? If people demand retirement benefits and health care then let the government fund this from general funding. Again, why burden the employer to calculate income taxes, payroll withholding, etc. Just let the employer pay the employee a gross wage and deal with the administration of taxes and FICA, etc. away from industry. Again, in what possible logic does it make sense to apply corporate taxation on profits which are earned outside of the USA? There are billion$ or trillion$ in corporate cash sitting outside of the USA because of this stupid tax. Stop this tax and encourage this money to come back to the USA. Of course regulations need to be in place but government is a bureaucracy and over-kill regulations are put in place to offset political stupidity. This applies to all levels of government...
Remove all taxes? Wont that harm the poor and middles class, cripple our infrastructure over time, and leave us with no unified way to defend ourselves from threats, domestic or foreign, environmental natural or unnatural, and also no way to pay off the debt we've already accumulated???? Is the removal of taxes really worth all those ailments, or do you both think that removing taxes will somehow not lead to such outcomes? Also, as far as aggression goes,...as I explained, it is the government which creates the money and gives it its initial value. In my opinion, this justifies the government setting up terms and conditions for its use, provided this is understood by the users. Is there some way for government to, in your opinions, justly define such rules for use (as in a tax structure) and yet still issue out money to the populous for use as a medium of exchange? And how do you propose the federal government pay for all that without collecting any taxes and with no federal reserve or irs?? I also think that it would be good for all federal wage/price controls, such as the minimum wage, to be removed at some point. But I don't think any of the things you listed there should be phased out prior to there being put in place something to ensure that the people who currently benefit from those systems don't suffer as they did before those systems were put in place. Keep in mind, the question was what we could do to improve the lives of Americans in addition to preventing aggression... Assuming you're not planning on replacing them, in what way can removing those systems help the poor, the old, the young, and the sick whom they currently benefit? Do you say that from a constitutionalists perspective, or from a moral perspective? Should the federal government have no say in preventing a state from oppressing its people or infringing on their rights? Well, at least we can agree on that much at least... -Meta
Hey,...no offense, but are you actually reading my posts in full before replying? Anyway....going back to my main point,...we're wanting to improve America by reducing unemployment and underemployment here, and the government ought to be doing its part to help out. Not that individuals should wait for government, but nor should government wait for some change among individuals. We've got several good options which our government could implement right now to improve things, the best of which either involve creating or tapping into currently untapped demand. If we can find some way to tap into overseas demand, then great! But if for some reason we can't, I think it makes sense that we ought be prepared to create our own local demand by hiring Americans through the government, to do things which we really ought to be doing anyways, such as maintaining and improving our infrastructure. -Meta
Every day of our lives, people partake in voluntary transactions and enter into voluntary contractual obligations. There has never been any indication that the function required for preservation of individual rights (the only valid reason for the existence of government) would be any different. Preservation of the right of the individual is paramount, and no matter the ends you can not justify it by any means. If that makes us "less comfortable" then that is fine, I I do not agree that those things you list would happen with any reasonable certainty. (BTW, I consider national roadways and possible railways to be a vital part of military expense and should be included within that budget.)
I said eliminate the IRS and the income tax. If the federal government is going to collect taxes, I'd favor indirect taxes rather than direct taxes. Other options would be voluntary contributions by individuals, a national lottery, or even membership fees paid by each state. That's why, when you asked for specifics, I suggested that the government stop doing so: "return to the pre-1964 definition of a dollar (26.73 grams of 90% silver) and to re-allow private minting." Voluntary contributions, national lottery, membership fees paid by states who wish to remain members, or indirect taxes (my least preferred choice). Those programs are an initiation of aggression, so I don't support them. If you or I wish to help the poor, old, young, or sick, we can do so without taking other people's money by force. That was not the reason that the sovereign states came together and constituted their union. Each state has its own constitution and bill of rights. It's a start, at least
The problem is, there are some things which a significant number of people just aren't going to do voluntarily, just as there are things which they would not voluntarily avoid doing. You say that preserving the rights of individuals is paramount......but the fact of the matter is, sometimes such rights come into conflict. What then? I take it you're not in favor of individuals having the right to infringe upon the rights of other individuals, and it seems like you'd be in favor of governments being formed for the purpose of protecting those rights, but are you in favor of governments actually being able to do anything towards those ends? For instance: Should government do anything to take away an individual's liberty to kill others? I assume you'd say yes to this... Should government do anything to take away one's liberty to attempt theft? What about one's liberty to exploit others more indirectly? Should people be allowed to do any of these things? Should people be allowed to benefit from things like fire departments, police, military without having to pay for them? Should they be allowed to pollute? Should they be allowed to endanger others, intentionally or unintentionally? And if government is to be tasked with establishing protections against such things, how will these protections be paid for without taxes? If it so happens that the people with the money are also the people doing the killing, stealing, and exploitation, I assume they aren't going to just voluntarily hand that money over so that their own liberties can be regulated. And then there will be folks like me, who wont be willing to chip in for such things, unless they know their fellow country men and women will be chipping in too. And if the government protections are not adequately funded, it is likely that some communities would ban together in order to establish their own protections via their own more localized governments. Should people have a right to do such a thing if it is voluntary? And if so, should they have a right to establish rules such as mandatory taxation and or democratic decision making? And should they also have the right to make such rules as to say that anyone entering or born into the community, must abide by the community's laws or leave? Also what happens to our debt when there are no longer any taxes? And since government creates the money and gives it its initial value. Under what conditions should it be allowed to establish rules and conditions for its creation, and yet still be allowed to issue it out to the populous for use as a medium of exchange? Budget? What budget?! You just said that taxation should be removed..... -Meta
No offense...government cannot solve the problems you talk about! Government is broke! We have debt and deficit spending and no money! Greatly increase GDP and most all problems go away. But this can happen only if demand increases and currently this is not happening in the USA so how about looking towards the 7 billion consumers outside of the US? Government needs to stop meddling in the private sector! If government wishes to give everyone some money to spend then let government do this from their general fund. Government forcing work in the private sector, like WPA, should only be a very short-term concept while the root economy gets back on track. For most people there is a place in the economy for them, and once they are in it, they can navigate to achieve more if they wish. Those who are incapable of finding a place in the economy need to take steps to change something. If you want government to help then how about graduating all kids from high school instead of it being a drop out factory? How about government removing ghettoes and crime and drugs from all areas of the USA? Here's my guess about WPA type programs; even if government wished to spend $2 trillion on these programs, very few of the current unemployed or under-employed will qualify for this type of work. Further, most WPA programs are in remote areas, building bridges, dams, roads, parks, etc. and most people will not relocate to secure this type of work. If unemployment was 35% people would be desperate enough to work WPA jobs but today IMO lots of people are simply not going to sacrifice much if anything for hard labor jobs outside of their area. Look at the US and a huge portion of it and it's people lie outside of urban centers and high employment areas and I don't see any impetus whatsoever to solve this problem for millions of Americans? Another huge portion are unskilled, lower skilled, lacking education and struggle finding a place in the economy. And then we have millions more who are unemployed, retired, don't wish to work, unhealthy, in prison, etc. etc. etc.
Ah I see....so you are in favor of some types of taxes,...just not the types of taxes we have right now... Sorry, it sounded like you and TedintheShed were against all taxes (actually, after reading back it still sounds like TedintheShed is against them) Why? Also, which definition of direct tax are you referring to? The legal one,...or some other definition? Sure, the government could do something like that, but what I'm saying is that they really don't have any obligation to, ...especially if doing such a thing would not benefit the American people as a whole, We're not talking about you or me here. Of course we can do our parts individually to help the poor, but it is also the case that for most of us, the benefits of our efforts are limited. What we're talking about here, is what the government can do, and what it should (or shouldn't) do to help the poor, old, young, sick, etc. And I've said many times before that something like the minimum wage isn't smart, doesn't make a lot of sense to have, and really isn't even all that useful given some of the alternatives. And some of the things government does I can see as unnecessary aggression, while others I see as preemptive aggression, while yet others I see as government exercising just ownership. But putting that aside for a moment, the immediate question here is whether or not removing the things you listed without replacing them with anything, would improve the lives of the poor, sick, young, etc. or actually make them worse off. Obviously, I believe such a thing would make them worse off, and I think we should both be able to agree on that much. So then the question becomes, is there something out there which makes it worth worsening their lives? I am personally of the belief that no ideology is worth making the American people worse off, unless there is a very very very good reason for it....And I have yet to see such a reason. Not the reason they joined the union you say? Well certainly it was at least one of the reasons the federal government (ie: the original 13) let them in, not to mention one of the requirements of joining. In other words, their reasons for joining aside, the fact that they agreed to join means they are all bound by the rules of the federal government, including the federal bill of rights. BTW, sorry for the hiatus.......Been busy. -Meta
We as a country are awash in money. The only reason our government is in debt, is because it lacks the political will to collect enough money in taxes to pay for the things we the American people want. It also seems to lack the will to do certain things which would inevitably lead to increased GDP,...not that our current GDP isn't already through the roof.... http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xnzJY11I_...1600/Screen+Shot+2015-01-29+at+2.38.40+PM.png The problem is that for whatever reason, the majority of Americans haven't been sharing in the benefit from that increased GDP, nor has much of it been going towards paying down our debt. Anyway, we are in agreement at least on the fact that we need more demand. And as I said we should keep our options open and do everything we can to increase it, while keeping in mind that if we want long term solutions to the problems, that we need to put in place long term fixes (ie not temporary ones). That can mean more exports, or it could mean something like a WPA. And on the topic of WPA, if it offers market wages or comparable, people are going to take the jobs. There is nothing out there that I've seen that would suggest otherwise. -Meta
The government ceasing to initiation aggression against innocent people would make them better off, not worse off.
Like I said, unless there's a very good reason tied with it, no dogmatic ideology is worth making the American people worse off. And btw, you're speaking in generalities here, let's talk specifics. How exactly does removing things like minimum wage, social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, etc. without replacing them with something else make the poor, old, young, and sick better off?? How exactly would their day-to-day lives be any better? -Meta
I agree, which is why I reject your dogmatic ideology. I reject the idea that it is justified to initiate violence to achieve one's ends. People would not have their money taken by the government to provide for their food, retirement, and health care (with the attendant corruption, ineptitude, and waste), and they would be able to allocate their scarce resources according to their preferences.
My arguments are based on little more than practicality and mutually agreed upon goals, rather than rigid principals and a broad refusal to consider the specific effects of things. Likewise, my views on what will help us reach our goals are anything but dogmatic. I am glad that we agree that ideology is generally not worth making the American people worse off. Do you have any evidence that food stamp recipients for example would have more money to buy food if the food stamp program didn't exist? I find that hard to believe. -Meta
My arguments are based on the practical goal of protecting the person and property of my fellow man. I know that many people have an ideology-based refusal to consider the specific effect of how their desired violence effects their fellow man. One needs to free himself from the dogma of the state in order to advance to a society in which people interact on a peaceful and voluntary basis, so that each person can achieve his or her own goals, rather than have them imposed from from on high by violent means. I don't think that ideology is worth making people worse off.
Which boils down to "the end justifies the means when a enough of us say it does" and the basic principle of that is "might is right." Unless you have some other principle for objectively determining right and wrong when applied to political action?
Actually, there are generally no one-size-fits-all principals. and that's part of my point. If you want to avoid dogmatic idealism, then you have to look at things on a case-by-case basis and consider all the alternatives when considering potential options and not simply rule options out completely on the basis of some overarching ideology without having first compared them to the pros and cons of the other options. Also, keep in mind....true absolutes are few and far between. -Meta
