Hypothetical: Let's Negotiate an Overhaul of the Economy

PS: ENOUGH FUN HAVE TO WORK

 

Can only get more revenue if incomes stay the same. Median incomes are falling (pie to take from is shrinking).

no, FairTax is a consumption tax, flat tax is an income tax

 

Once again, my dear Commodore, you appear to be having another epic math/statistics fail

If the MEDIAN income is falling, that means the midpoint that divides the upper and lower half is moving downwards on the scale. There's more people making less money.

That doesn't really have anythign to do with the "pie shrinking". Just the distribution of the gains being skewed upwards (which they are...)

And by the way, the economy is growing, and has been for 3 years, so "the pie" is getting bigger.

 

1 is a definite.

What the country really needs is massive overhaul of the tax system. A much simpler system that doesn't create loopholes and breaks for specific people, companies, and industries.

 

It sure must be a struggle to live in reality.

 

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)." - Twain

I am aware of Orwell's political leanings. Just because I disagree with him politically doesn't mean I can't learn from him.

While by no means a political force, I don't think libertarians are as small a group as you do.

This is kind of a big issue for me. Liberal was long ago stolen from those who would nowadays be called libertarian. If libertarian comes to be synonymous with conservative I will be a sad man.

Amongst libertarians, there are so many debates over words and their meaning. For example, many libertarians think we ought to start saying we're against capitalism, since capitalism - in the eyes of many - has become what used to be called corporatism (and corporatism used to be called [economic] fascism!). Not only that, but some libertarians want to abandon the word libertarian! They would prefer "cooperatist" or "voluntaryist" or some other ridiculous word.

Well, I don't want to have to explain to people what a cooperatist is. I'd rather clarify what libertarian is. So I will continue to chime in here when people misuse that word.

Once again, a libertarian is one who finds aggression to be illegitimate. That is it and that is all. It is so, so, so simple, and it being so simple is part of the reason why its rampant misuse bothers me.

It's Friday. Some people actually do things while at work on Friday???

 

Many libertarians also believe in the minimal government to the extreme. While they believe in absolute freedom to, for example, smoke pot, many are also against government entities, like the police. Serious.

So the next time someone is ransacking your house or your daughter is getting raped, I hope you have your shotgun ready. Then also pray that we don't become an anarchist state like Somalia.

 

Not really. Protection of individual liberty is a legitimate moral function of the state.

Isn't this true regardless of the type of government you live under?

The most tiresome thing on this board (other than "you're dumb" posts) is people proclaiming what others believe, rather than addressing the beliefs others actually profess.

 

I don't understand what you're saying here. Many who call themselves libertarians are minarchists, yes. They basically want police, courts, and national defense. And for the government to do nothing else.

I am not a minarchist - I am an anarchist. An anarcho-libertarian, if good ol' "libertarian" isn't specific enough for you.

Obviously, no aggression means, among other things, no taxation. Which means no state, which means no state-funded police force. Serious.

Here's a good, short explanation by a fellow Houstonian. He's actually arguing in favor of anarcho-libertarianism as opposed to libertarian-minarchism:

 

Haymitch, ever read Snow Crash?

 

Anyone calling for a massive overhaul of the tax system does not understand much about how the US government works. Nothing really radical ever happens because of the slim balance of power between the two parties, the for or against nature of the two party system, the checks and balances of the US system, the importance of precedent in weighing changes to laws and universal understanding that every change in the system has consequences. Like: eliminating the home mortgage deduction effects the value of every home in the country and that effect the tax income for every State and municipality.

Like it or not, the tax system has grown to what it is by the will of the people and, long term accommodations for existing law are already built into most business plans and home budgets.

But if you want to negotiated in reality you have to make a compromise between these facts:

1. growing deficits are bad because the government competes with business for credit and it commits future growth to today's expenditures.

2. cutting too much government spending is bad because it lowers the GDP, costing jobs (and tax revenue)

3. raising taxes is bad because it takes money out of economic growth

The only answer of course is bad, so you have to some cutting and some taxing (and since you can't get blood out of a turnip you have to tax where the money is)

 

I own it. A Chomsky-loving good friend of mine gave it to me. I only ever read the first chapter or so. About the pizza delivery guys sabotaging each other. I assume it is a critique of what the author thinks a stateless society would look like.

I might start it up again though. Regardless of the message, I'm told it's a good read.

 

Dubious, I don't accept the premise that government spending is required for economic growth.

 

For a country of this size, you will have millions employed by the government (armed force, police, fire fighter, government officials, etc). The trick is to find the right balance of government vs private spending. Too much or too little government spending will both be bad for the economy.

 

Let's start with step #1, the definition of anarchy:

an·ar·chy/ˈanərkē/
Noun:

1. A state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.
2. Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.

 

I am aware of the common definition of the word. I'll just add that the Greek word from which it originates is anarkhos, which meant "without a ruler."

But I still don't know what you're getting at here.

 

To what extent?

Should we have the liberty to murder? The liberty to beat your child? To liberty to enslave someone?

How about a present day scenario: Should banks have the "liberty" to deceive its clients? Should food stores have the liberty to market powdered sugar as vitamins?

No. There are few, if any, societies that force its citizens to provide every aspect of its own security.

 

Your definition of anarchy is fabricated, a figment of your imagination. For example:

"To be an anarchist only means that you believe that aggression is not justified..."

Really. No red flags there, I guess.

Even if we take this statement at face value, it means nothing about whether your neighbor believes in aggression and whether their can be a legitimate civil society in an anarchist state.

 

I see now. The part I quoted from Stephan Kinsella threw you off. That is my bad. Looking back now, it wasn't clear.

I'll try to restate it again.

"To be a libertarian means to reject all forms of aggression. This, in my mind, leads to what is commonly called anarchy. However, there are some other libertarians (minarchists) who reject all forms of aggression yet want a limited government."

And that part I quoted from Kinsella was an article he wrote to those "small government libertarians" who think they can reconcile minarchism with the non-aggression principle (NAP). He was saying the two cannot be reconciled. I agree with him.

I don't think you and I are arguing here. Hopefully I was coherent in this reply.

 

Almost all people can sympathize with a fear of an overly intrusive government, that picks winners and losers, and that overreaches in its power.

But I am not an anarchist.

I believe that a government that we elect can and should protect its own citizens.