Why can't capitalism stop its excesses, greed, and other damaging characteristics?

Tax revenues fund the welfare programs. Which again proves that production comes before consumption.

 

You might as well claim the Bible or the Koran. A document/book/slip of paper is not a source of rights.

 

Taxpayers don't provide anything. They have their productivity confiscated. You are effectively claiming that the state is the source of capitalism, that people cannot engage in trade and develop capital without a state to provide for their efforts. I think that would be impossible to prove.

 

It documents those rights

 

That’s absurd. The state provides the security with which freedom is not possible.

 

Obviously something has to exist in order to be consumed.
Last I checked, those individuals paying about $12,000 per year in taxes or families who are paying about $12,000 per family member in Federal taxes are net providers while those paying less would be net consumers.

 

And your point would be??

 

Simply that you were stating the obvious, or what should be obvious to all. Do you disagree with what I posted, which agreed with what you had posted?

 

If you want to make a point then make it. Wealth creation is taxed and part of those tax revenues fund gov welfare programs. Maximizing wealth production which is what free market capitalism does results in less need for welfare programs. Those who have the larger incomes pay most of the taxes.

 

Did you not read, or comprehend what I posted?

"Simply that you were stating the obvious, or what should be obvious to all. Do you disagree with what I posted, which agreed with what you had posted?"

 

I could care less.

 

Noted.

 

You say that the state has the right to tax. That right must come from somewhere. Either it is inherent in the institution, it comes from some deity, it comes from a mystical social contract, or it comes from the individuals who lend that right to the institution. Since individuals do not have the right to tax, the last one would not be possible.

 

More assertions. As if security is impossible without a monopoly on justice. That you perceive yourself to be dependent on bureaucrats and politicians does not make that dependence the truth.

Given the rate of democide and the rate of incarceration for non-crimes, I'd say that you are considerably less secure for having a state than you would be if you made your own voluntary arrangements.

 

The Constitution is for the people. The government is for the people. In order to provide security necessary for freedom taxation is necessary. 2 + 2 = 4.

 

More truths. The rule of law is a construct to provide security. Taxation is necessary to provide enforcement.

 

a liberal will lack the IQ to understand voluntary arrangements, they are too complex for the liberal mind. All they can understand is magical and violent government that can solve every problem. This is how they gave us Hitler Stalin Mao

 

the people give govt the right more and more by voting more and more for liberal force or violence. Liberalism is naturally violent. It is about forcing others to do what you want at gunpoint.

 

There's no free market capitalism. You might as well refer to the productivity of unicorns. There is free market economics. However, that isn't about maximising wealth production. Its about maximising inefficient rents

 

Funny stuff. Where does that come from??

 

You maintain your 'no content' response habit. There is no free market capitalism. Government is an integral part of capitalism. Free market economics has naff all to do with delivering the unicorn of free markets There's a reason its funded by big business...

 

Government is an integral part of any economic system. Government provides the security necessary for freedom and the rule of law. Big business loves gov regulations that add to the cost of production because that limits competition. Free market capitalism is not big business capitalism.

 

It goes way beyond that. See, for example, the failure of the Coase Theorem to eliminate regulation.

Then why are the fake libertarian sites funded by the profiteering from big business?

 

Sensible regulations are required.

What fake libertarian sites ??

Why are profits bad ??

 

We're not talking about regulations to protect property rights. We're necessarily talking about direct interventionism. For the Austrian wannabe, coercion.

Name one that isn't? Anything funded by recipients of rent is fake.

Rent is bad. In neoclassical language, only normal profit (covering opportunity costs) is associated with efficiency.