Atlas Shrugged
12-17-2009, 04:51 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: 757/767 First Officer
Posts: 364
"1. Government generates zero income, all wealth they redistribute is confiscated from individuals who earn it."
Wait, I must have missed something:
Do those indivuduals drive on roads?
Do they have a national defense that protects their wealth?
Do they have a legislative and judicial system that establishes a rule of law?
Unless those "individuals who earned it" live like Ted Kaczynski in the middle of the woods, they rely on a SOCIETY to help them generate their wealth.
"2. The top 10% of American taxpayers pay about 70% of the income tax burden"
See previous: if the top 10% want a functioning society to protect what they have, they shouldn't mind paying for it. Spend some time in Somalia and see what a lawless, Darwinian society produces. I certainly don't see many Wall St. types running off to anarchistic places. Sure, some countries will offer the wealthy havens from taxes, but it's unsustainable in-and-of itself in the long run.
"Rich or poor, regardless of your political leaning, Government has spent too much of our money and the current course is unsustainable. We have been forced to support a massive program of deficit spending that we won't be able to continue in the future. How that money has been distributed is about as important as the proverbial deck chairs on the Titanic."
Hey, you finally made sense. What you're saying is that spending on war in Iraq is equally as dumb as throwing money down black holes anywhere else; it's all a question of deciding what's worth it. I guess, to you, sending tanks, bombs, guns, and young kids over to the desert is more desirable spending that investing in healthcare, infrastructure, energy, and job creation?
Wow, when you're king I'd love to come visit your kingdom. Good luck.
PS - Ayn Rand's philosophies weren't much different than the game of Monopoly - remember - that game that ends when one player has all the money and the others have none? Sounded fun for two hours on a rainy night, but it's a sh1tty way to go through life.
Wait, I must have missed something:
Do those indivuduals drive on roads?
Do they have a national defense that protects their wealth?
Do they have a legislative and judicial system that establishes a rule of law?
Unless those "individuals who earned it" live like Ted Kaczynski in the middle of the woods, they rely on a SOCIETY to help them generate their wealth.
"2. The top 10% of American taxpayers pay about 70% of the income tax burden"
See previous: if the top 10% want a functioning society to protect what they have, they shouldn't mind paying for it. Spend some time in Somalia and see what a lawless, Darwinian society produces. I certainly don't see many Wall St. types running off to anarchistic places. Sure, some countries will offer the wealthy havens from taxes, but it's unsustainable in-and-of itself in the long run.
"Rich or poor, regardless of your political leaning, Government has spent too much of our money and the current course is unsustainable. We have been forced to support a massive program of deficit spending that we won't be able to continue in the future. How that money has been distributed is about as important as the proverbial deck chairs on the Titanic."
Hey, you finally made sense. What you're saying is that spending on war in Iraq is equally as dumb as throwing money down black holes anywhere else; it's all a question of deciding what's worth it. I guess, to you, sending tanks, bombs, guns, and young kids over to the desert is more desirable spending that investing in healthcare, infrastructure, energy, and job creation?
Wow, when you're king I'd love to come visit your kingdom. Good luck.
PS - Ayn Rand's philosophies weren't much different than the game of Monopoly - remember - that game that ends when one player has all the money and the others have none? Sounded fun for two hours on a rainy night, but it's a sh1tty way to go through life.
12-17-2009, 06:15 PM
#33
With The Resistance
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
Originally Posted by SeamusTheHound
"1. Government generates zero income, all wealth they redistribute is confiscated from individuals who earn it."
Wait, I must have missed something:
Do those indivuduals drive on roads?
Do they have a national defense that protects their wealth?
Do they have a legislative and judicial system that establishes a rule of law?
Unless those "individuals who earned it" live like Ted Kaczynski in the middle of the woods, they rely on a SOCIETY to help them generate their wealth.
"2. The top 10% of American taxpayers pay about 70% of the income tax burden"
See previous: if the top 10% want a functioning society to protect what they have, they shouldn't mind paying for it. Spend some time in Somalia and see what a lawless, Darwinian society produces. I certainly don't see many Wall St. types running off to anarchistic places. Sure, some countries will offer the wealthy havens from taxes, but it's unsustainable in-and-of itself in the long run.
"Rich or poor, regardless of your political leaning, Government has spent too much of our money and the current course is unsustainable. We have been forced to support a massive program of deficit spending that we won't be able to continue in the future. How that money has been distributed is about as important as the proverbial deck chairs on the Titanic."
Hey, you finally made sense. What you're saying is that spending on war in Iraq is equally as dumb as throwing money down black holes anywhere else; it's all a question of deciding what's worth it. I guess, to you, sending tanks, bombs, guns, and young kids over to the desert is more desirable spending that investing in healthcare, infrastructure, energy, and job creation?
Wow, when you're king I'd love to come visit your kingdom. Good luck.
PS - Ayn Rand's philosophies weren't much different than the game of Monopoly - remember - that game that ends when one player has all the money and the others have none? Sounded fun for two hours on a rainy night, but it's a sh1tty way to go through life.
Wait, I must have missed something:
Do those indivuduals drive on roads?
Do they have a national defense that protects their wealth?
Do they have a legislative and judicial system that establishes a rule of law?
Unless those "individuals who earned it" live like Ted Kaczynski in the middle of the woods, they rely on a SOCIETY to help them generate their wealth.
"2. The top 10% of American taxpayers pay about 70% of the income tax burden"
See previous: if the top 10% want a functioning society to protect what they have, they shouldn't mind paying for it. Spend some time in Somalia and see what a lawless, Darwinian society produces. I certainly don't see many Wall St. types running off to anarchistic places. Sure, some countries will offer the wealthy havens from taxes, but it's unsustainable in-and-of itself in the long run.
"Rich or poor, regardless of your political leaning, Government has spent too much of our money and the current course is unsustainable. We have been forced to support a massive program of deficit spending that we won't be able to continue in the future. How that money has been distributed is about as important as the proverbial deck chairs on the Titanic."
Hey, you finally made sense. What you're saying is that spending on war in Iraq is equally as dumb as throwing money down black holes anywhere else; it's all a question of deciding what's worth it. I guess, to you, sending tanks, bombs, guns, and young kids over to the desert is more desirable spending that investing in healthcare, infrastructure, energy, and job creation?
Wow, when you're king I'd love to come visit your kingdom. Good luck.
PS - Ayn Rand's philosophies weren't much different than the game of Monopoly - remember - that game that ends when one player has all the money and the others have none? Sounded fun for two hours on a rainy night, but it's a sh1tty way to go through life.
You want to be a peacenik socialist, and that is fine by me. The only question I have is how will you pay for it all?
A very small minority has been paying for a very large majority of the government extravagance for a very long time.
"..more desirable spending that(SIC) investing in healthcare, infrastructure, energy, and job creation?"
This indicates that you have not yet learned that government can't legislate technological advance, or create jobs (except those funded completely by taxpayers and wealth creators), and that none of us will be cared for without paying the vey high price that will eventually come due.
12-17-2009, 09:35 PM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: USAF
Posts: 1,398
Perhaps this is a bit of an over-simplification but...
When it boils down to it, any financial/work/product transaction is less efficient with a third party controlling a larger percentage of the transaction. Rand's concept, is really that the government is the third party, and in that fashion, is controlling a larger percentage of all transactions making the whole game less efficient.
Are party to party transactions always efficient? Not in all cases, but they are generally more efficient than third party involvement.
A more micro example of this analogy is the healthcare/health insurance industry. Third party coverage in general has simply driven prices up and has held economic progress in healthcare up. The government is third party, the insurance companies are third party. To put it simply, the government is the middleman; the less middlemen, the more efficiency. The insurance companies' most efficient modis operadi for the whole would be pooling resources and risks in a small population for low probability, high cost calamities, and letting the freemarkey justify other smaller costs.
When it boils down to it, any financial/work/product transaction is less efficient with a third party controlling a larger percentage of the transaction. Rand's concept, is really that the government is the third party, and in that fashion, is controlling a larger percentage of all transactions making the whole game less efficient.
Are party to party transactions always efficient? Not in all cases, but they are generally more efficient than third party involvement.
A more micro example of this analogy is the healthcare/health insurance industry. Third party coverage in general has simply driven prices up and has held economic progress in healthcare up. The government is third party, the insurance companies are third party. To put it simply, the government is the middleman; the less middlemen, the more efficiency. The insurance companies' most efficient modis operadi for the whole would be pooling resources and risks in a small population for low probability, high cost calamities, and letting the freemarkey justify other smaller costs.
12-18-2009, 09:31 AM
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: Box Pusher
Posts: 151
Originally Posted by jungle
You want to be a peacenik socialist, and that is fine by me. The only question I have is how will you pay for it all?
A very small minority has been paying for a very large majority of the government extravagance for a very long time.
A very small minority has been paying for a very large majority of the government extravagance for a very long time.
I do think the government hemorrhages money, but to really fix that, we have to reevaluate what it means to be an American. We demand a lot but we are not willing to give anything. No politician can get elected if they promise to balance the budget because that means the social services many depend upon will end and it means we cannot afford to finance our military. We would have to give up things like our unemployment benefits and having the best military in the world.
I also hate when people start throwing words like socialists and fascist around. We are in a crisis and cannot resort to labeling other economic philosophies as un-American. Also, fascism and socialism are two separate things (this isn’t directed towards anyone specifically, but it just annoys me when people use these terms interchangeably).
We can either continue business as usual wasting money and saying that hard working rich people are suffering so poor people can continue to be lazy, or we can stop and rethink what kind of country we want to live in and what we will be willing to sacrifice to get it.
12-19-2009, 03:48 PM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 204
Libertarianism as a philosophy and paradigm for state order is as extreme and full of contradictions as any Marxist ideology. I think Karl Marx and Ayn Rand shared a similar penchant for spouting off sanctimonious nonsense.
The most successful free-market societies as previous posters had listed, have developed a healthy balance of government and capitalism and have never taken the pathway to all-out free-market society. All of those listed still have some semblence of government. Some of those extreme "free-market" societies listed even provide free-health care! Japan for instance.
Extremist ideologies are dangerous. Marxist or Libertarian? Pick your poison. Do you want Joseph Stalin telling you what to do or Milton Friedman?
The most successful free-market societies as previous posters had listed, have developed a healthy balance of government and capitalism and have never taken the pathway to all-out free-market society. All of those listed still have some semblence of government. Some of those extreme "free-market" societies listed even provide free-health care! Japan for instance.
Extremist ideologies are dangerous. Marxist or Libertarian? Pick your poison. Do you want Joseph Stalin telling you what to do or Milton Friedman?
12-19-2009, 04:07 PM
#37
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2009
Position: Box Pusher
Posts: 151
Originally Posted by MEMpilot
Libertarianism as a philosophy and paradigm for state order is as extreme and full of contradictions as any Marxist ideology. I think Karl Marx and Ayn Rand shared a similar penchant for spouting off sanctimonious nonsense.
The most successful free-market societies as previous posters had listed, have developed a healthy balance of government and capitalism and have never taken the pathway to all-out free-market society. All of those listed still have some semblence of government. Some of those extreme "free-market" societies listed even provide free-health care! Japan for instance.
Extremist ideologies are dangerous. Marxist or Libertarian? Pick your poison. Do you want Joseph Stalin telling you what to do or Milton Friedman?
The most successful free-market societies as previous posters had listed, have developed a healthy balance of government and capitalism and have never taken the pathway to all-out free-market society. All of those listed still have some semblence of government. Some of those extreme "free-market" societies listed even provide free-health care! Japan for instance.
Extremist ideologies are dangerous. Marxist or Libertarian? Pick your poison. Do you want Joseph Stalin telling you what to do or Milton Friedman?
12-19-2009, 08:45 PM
#39
Line Holder
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by MEMpilot
Libertarianism as a philosophy and paradigm for state order is as extreme and full of contradictions as any Marxist ideology. I think Karl Marx and Ayn Rand shared a similar penchant for spouting off sanctimonious nonsense.
The most successful free-market societies as previous posters had listed, have developed a healthy balance of government and capitalism and have never taken the pathway to all-out free-market society. All of those listed still have some semblence of government. Some of those extreme "free-market" societies listed even provide free-health care! Japan for instance.
Extremist ideologies are dangerous. Marxist or Libertarian? Pick your poison. Do you want Joseph Stalin telling you what to do or Milton Friedman?
The most successful free-market societies as previous posters had listed, have developed a healthy balance of government and capitalism and have never taken the pathway to all-out free-market society. All of those listed still have some semblence of government. Some of those extreme "free-market" societies listed even provide free-health care! Japan for instance.
Extremist ideologies are dangerous. Marxist or Libertarian? Pick your poison. Do you want Joseph Stalin telling you what to do or Milton Friedman?
"Free" healthcare in Japan? Healthcare in Japan is NOT "free". Not to be rude, but you saying so is ignorant and irresponsible.
Milton Friedman as dangerous as Joe Stalin? Friedman "telling you what to do" as Stalin would? Are you serious? That is one of the most ridiculous assertions I've ever heard. Clearly, you do not understand Friedman.
12-20-2009, 04:42 AM
#40
Libertarian Resistance
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Position: 757 FO
Posts: 1,057
Originally Posted by MEMpilot
Libertarianism as a philosophy and paradigm for state order is as extreme and full of contradictions as any Marxist ideology. I think Karl Marx and Ayn Rand shared a similar penchant for spouting off sanctimonious nonsense.
The most successful free-market societies as previous posters had listed, have developed a healthy balance of government and capitalism and have never taken the pathway to all-out free-market society. All of those listed still have some semblence of government. Some of those extreme "free-market" societies listed even provide free-health care! Japan for instance.
Extremist ideologies are dangerous. Marxist or Libertarian? Pick your poison. Do you want Joseph Stalin telling you what to do or Milton Friedman?
The most successful free-market societies as previous posters had listed, have developed a healthy balance of government and capitalism and have never taken the pathway to all-out free-market society. All of those listed still have some semblence of government. Some of those extreme "free-market" societies listed even provide free-health care! Japan for instance.
Extremist ideologies are dangerous. Marxist or Libertarian? Pick your poison. Do you want Joseph Stalin telling you what to do or Milton Friedman?
Milton Friedman was a serious economist who wrote serious books with sound proposals. He wrote Capitalism and Freedom, a book based on logic, sound economics, and a belief in individual liberty. Nowhere does he suggest abolishing the state. Give it a try.
The CATO Institute is probably the nation's leading Liberatrian think tank. They publish a handbook for policy makers which, as far as I know, does not quote Ayn Rand anywhere. The link to the publication is here:
Here is the executive summary from a chapter titled "limited Government and the Rule of Law":
Congress should:
●
live up to its constitutional obligations and cease the practice
of delegating legislative powers to administrative agencies—
legislation should be passed by Congress, not by unelected
administration officials;
●
legislation should be passed by Congress, not by unelected
administration officials;
●
before voting on any proposed act, ask whether that exercise
of power is authorized by the Constitution, which enumerates
the powers of Congress;
●
the powers of Congress;
●
exercise its constitutional authority to approve only those
appointees to federal judgeships who will take seriously the
constitutional limitations on the powers of both the states and
the federal government; and
●
constitutional limitations on the powers of both the states and
the federal government; and
●
pass and send to the states for their approval a constitutional
What here is extreme?
The core belief of Libertarainism is a belief that free citizens (not children or the insane) live their lives according to their interests and their talents. They are free to chart their own course--respecting the rights of other citizens and complying with the rule of law-- and to live with the fruits of good decisions and the consequences of bad ones. If that is extreme, then I am an extremist.
WW
amendment limiting senators to two terms in office and representatives
to three terms, in order to return the legislature to
citizen legislators.
to three terms, in order to return the legislature to
citizen legislators.
What here is extreme?
The core belief of Libertarainism is a belief that free citizens (not children or the insane) live their lives according to their interests and their talents. They are free to chart their own course--respecting the rights of other citizens and complying with the rule of law-- and to live with the fruits of good decisions and the consequences of bad ones. If that is extreme, then I am an extremist.
WW
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Splanky
Atlas/Polar
4
10-30-2008 06:53 AM
