Obama a bad choice?

[Grave_n_idle]

Perhaps you think the Free Market Fairy provides infrastructure.



Yes.

Don't worry, the parasitical classes railing against the status quo is hardly new. You're like the rich commie white kids in a 90210 code.

So could you provide evidence I mooch off of anyone? Or my dislike of "infrastructure expenditure?"
Rich commie white kids? Im actually quite poor thank you.

I didn't say you were a rich commie white kid. If you're going to act all offended, at least read what is supposed to be offending you.

You didn't pay for your infrastructure, yet you use it. Simultaneously, you complain about taxation, so you oppose collective infrastructure spending.

Which just makes you a hypocrite. No big deal. It's hardly unique.

[Terra Agora]

So could you provide evidence I mooch off of anyone? Or my dislike of "infrastructure expenditure?"
Rich commie white kids? Im actually quite poor thank you.

I didn't say you were a rich commie white kid. If you're going to act all offended, at least read what is supposed to be offending you.

You didn't pay for your infrastructure, yet you use it. Simultaneously, you complain about taxation, so you oppose collective infrastructure spending.

Which just makes you a hypocrite. No big deal. It's hardly unique.

I actually did pay for part of my house.
And I do complain about taxation.
No I do not oppose "collective infrastructure spending".

So again you "argument" is what?

[Norstal]

No I do not oppose "collective infrastructure spending".

So again you "argument" is what?

So they get their money from?

[Grave_n_idle]

I didn't say you were a rich commie white kid. If you're going to act all offended, at least read what is supposed to be offending you.

You didn't pay for your infrastructure, yet you use it. Simultaneously, you complain about taxation, so you oppose collective infrastructure spending.

Which just makes you a hypocrite. No big deal. It's hardly unique.

I actually did pay for part of my house.
And I do complain about taxation.
No I do not oppose "collective infrastructure spending".

I don't mind debating with hypocrites. Liars, however, lose my interest real fast.

Enjoy the rest of the thread with people who are more tolerant of your bullshit.

[Terra Agora]

No I do not oppose "collective infrastructure spending".

So again you "argument" is what?

So they get their money from?

Did you maybe think that I would rather have people consent to taxation first?

EDIT: It can be more then that though if one must have taxation I would rather have one consent to it.

[Terra Agora]

I actually did pay for part of my house.
And I do complain about taxation.
No I do not oppose "collective infrastructure spending".

I don't mind debating with hypocrites. Liars, however, lose my interest real fast.

Enjoy the rest of the thread with people who are more tolerant of your bullshit.

Collective infrastructure first off =/= taxation.

I dont mind debating with hypocrites either. Though I'd rather not debate with a prick.

[Norstal]

So they get their money from?

Did you maybe think that I would rather have people consent to taxation first?

So, ok, for people to be taxed, they will have to "consent first".

Does this mean that you won't be using the infrastructure whilst you have not consent to the taxation?

[Terra Agora]

Did you maybe think that I would rather have people consent to taxation first?

So, ok, for people to be taxed, they will have to "consent first".

Does this mean that you won't be using the infrastructure whilst you have not consent to the taxation?

If you do not consent to say whatever percent of taxes that go to medicare you will not be able to get medicare.

EDIT: see my last edit.

[Wamitoria]

So, ok, for people to be taxed, they will have to "consent first".

Does this mean that you won't be using the infrastructure whilst you have not consent to the taxation?

If you do not consent to say whatever percent of taxes that go to medicare you will not be able to get medicare.

EDIT: see my last edit.

However, would that apply to infrastructure as well?

[Terra Agora]

If you do not consent to say whatever percent of taxes that go to medicare you will not be able to get medicare.

EDIT: see my last edit.

However, would that apply to infrastructure as well?

Like a public school or library?
Yes

[Wamitoria]

However, would that apply to infrastructure as well?

Like a public school or library?
Yes

Cool. Like roads?

[Terra Agora]

Like a public school or library?
Yes

Cool. Like roads?

Yes Though I think roads can be privatized that would be a hole different argument.

Though the one problem I see is "how would the government keep track of who paid and who used the roads?"

I think it makes more sense that they lump things together though. (public utilities, etc)

[Norstal]

So, ok, for people to be taxed, they will have to "consent first".

Does this mean that you won't be using the infrastructure whilst you have not consent to the taxation?

If you do not consent to say whatever percent of taxes that go to medicare you will not be able to get medicare.

EDIT: see my last edit.

So, the U.S army is free to invade your homes then, right?

[Terra Agora]

If you do not consent to say whatever percent of taxes that go to medicare you will not be able to get medicare.

EDIT: see my last edit.

So, the U.S army is free to invade your homes then, right?

Yes and im a flying pig.

[Norstal]

So, the U.S army is free to invade your homes then, right?

Yes and im a flying pig.

You don't believe in social contract. Since you're not paying for it, it's not yours. Which means, the land you own is not shared with the U.S government.

Therefore, because the service of the U.S Army is not yours, they are someone else's. Therefore, if you don't consent to paying taxes, they are free to invade and occupy your home.

[Terra Agora]

Yes and im a flying pig.

You don't believe in social contract. Since you're not paying for it, it's not yours. Which means, the land you own is not shared with the U.S government.

Therefore, because the service of the U.S Army is not yours, they are someone else's. Therefore, if you don't consent to paying taxes, they are free to invade and occupy your home.

lolwut?

I said I believe you should be able to consent to taxes. When is my land not mine? You don't share your land with the government. Its called private property. Your right the US Army is not mine. With or without your ridiculous argument if the government wanted to "invade" my house they would.

[Helghast empire]

well Osama bin laden died under Obama's administration, good enough for me.

[Norstal]

You don't believe in social contract. Since you're not paying for it, it's not yours. Which means, the land you own is not shared with the U.S government.

Therefore, because the service of the U.S Army is not yours, they are someone else's. Therefore, if you don't consent to paying taxes, they are free to invade and occupy your home.

lolwut?

I said I believe you should be able to consent to taxes. When is my land not mine? You don't share your land with the government. Its called private property. Your right the US Army is not mine. With or without your ridiculous argument if the government wanted to "invade" my house they would.

Yeah, because you don't pay your taxes if you don't consent to it. Your property taxes.

[EnragedMaldivians]

No it didn't. In fact, what he did wrong was to end stimulus policies too early.

But I guess Nobel Prize Winner, Princeton econonomics proffessor, Paul Krugman is probably wrong about these things. He's a liberal after all.

Ah yes the appeal to authority.

Eh - the opposite of my facetious "probably wrong" - would be that he's "probably right".

And in that vein, an appeal to a relavant authority - who is an acnowledged expert in his field, to support, yes, my opinion - is not a fallacy. It might not be a conclusive truth - but certainly his opinion, (because of his qualification and academic background) has more intellectual currency than the rantings of our resident Libertarians/Objectivists/Anti-Statists, who are already philosphically opposed to Taxation and government intervention by dint of their politics - rather than any honest analysis. And if you think Paul Krugmans just another guy with an opinion and his account and explanation of the Great depression is just as relavent and pertinent as that of your own - I don't really need to appeal to any authority to conclusively prove your utter ignorance.

For instance, consider that there's considerable debate within physics - I don't really know the merits or demerits behind string theory, but I would assume that a relavent expert with the proper credentials is more qualified to speak on it than the average layman, or NS aficianados. Ditto with history, biolgy, geography etc.

Wait - you just want the standard of living, protection, security and due process of law afforded to you by the government without having to pay for it? What don't you support again?

I do? Thanks for telling me.

Do you want for the government to enforce your property rights - and keep your immediate enviroment physically secure?

[Terra Agora]

Ah yes the appeal to authority.

Eh - the opposite of my facetious "probably wrong" - would be that he's "probably right".

And in that vein, an appeal to a relavant authority - who is an acnowledged expert in his field, to support, yes, my opinion - is not a fallacy. It might not be a conclusive truth - but certainly his opinion, (because of his qualification and academic background) has more intellectual currency than the rantings of our resident Libertarians/Objectivists/Anti-Statists, who are already philosphically opposed to Taxation and government intervention by dint of their politics - rather than any honest analysis. And if you think Paul Krugmans just another guy with an opinion and his account and explanation of the Great depression is just as relavent and pertinent as that of your own - I don't really need to appeal to any authority to conclusively prove your utter ignorance.

For instance, consider that there's considerable debate within physics - I don't really know the merits or demerits behind string theory, but I would assume that a relavent expert with the proper credentials is more qualified to speak on it than the average layman, or NS aficianados. Ditto with history, biolgy, geography etc.

I do? Thanks for telling me.

Do you want for the government to enforce your property rights - and keep your immediate enviroment physically secure?

Still hanging on to that logical fallacy are we?

Yes

[Terra Agora]

lolwut?

I said I believe you should be able to consent to taxes. When is my land not mine? You don't share your land with the government. Its called private property. Your right the US Army is not mine. With or without your ridiculous argument if the government wanted to "invade" my house they would.

Yeah, because you don't pay your taxes if you don't consent to it. Your property taxes.

Okay lets get back to the basics. This would not work in our current governmental state.

If you are curious on how this would work per se see voluntaryism and minarchism.

Yes im still an anarchist I disagree with those beliefs but its better then what we have now.

[EnragedMaldivians]

- snip -

Still hanging on to that logical fallacy are we?

Hey, genius - trusting the opinion of a relevant expert in macro economics, on an issue pertaining to macro-economic history, over the rantings of anti-statists, is not a logical fallacy. It would be if I said, "he said it and therefore that's that and I am right until proven otherwise."

What I did was give you a link to a brief analysis of the New Deal by Krugman - and I referred to his credentials to indicate that his opinion, and interpretation of the New Deal should not be taken lightly. What you demonstrate is a basic misunderstanding of the concept of an "appeal to authority" - or would you trust the medical opinion of Mike Tyson equal to that of a qualified doctor?

yes.

Are you are willing to pay taxes, for them to provide that service for you?

________

Oh and here's a less brief rebuttal, of your arguement that the New Deal made the depression worse. The spending boost provided by the "stimulus" meant that the nominal GDP trend was on its way to closing the output gap, but as soon as FDR prematurely cut back spending - the economy went back into a recession, only to be saved by war-time industrial mobilization. I again refer you to this graph.

Furthermore, the Great Depression was neither the first time, nor the last time that the U.S economy was thrown into crisis precisely because of either a lack of safety net, or excessive deregulation. There needs to be some level of government intervention in the economy to keep it functioning efficiently - while correcting for the volatility of the bussiness cycle, to protect the savings and real purchasing power of ordinary consumers- and keep investment stable in the long run. And, you know - prevent their citizens from starving to death.

In my opinion