Govt is corrupt, so why do liberals want bigger govt !?!?

[AuSable River]

checkmate dude!

the government cant fund anything

And yet my source says it funded ENIAC. And the Internet.

all of its wealth originates from taxpayers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_bonds

hence, using your illogic government doesnt need to tax or regulate since it can fund 'itself'

What does that have to do with anything I said?

and for the 2nd time please answer my challenges in a previous post.

I would if they were actually relevant to what I'm posting.

dude you have to be able to think beyond immediate consequences.

1) when you say govt funds projects, you dont seem to understand that this funding originates from tax payers .

2) government bonds leverage the government's monopoly on fiat currency. for example, government has a monopoly on money making on the printing and issuing of currency. without it, nobody would pay a thin dime for government debt. Moreover, government has a monopoly on taxation - -hence investors realize that government can fund these debts without having to compete in a free, voluntary, and competive market.

hence, if government didnt have the power to tax ---- nobody would be stupid enough to buy these bonds.

3) in sum, without a coercive monopoly to protect itself from competition thereby making government the only player in an industry or taxation -- government cant compete.

[Liriena]

a) Because in a capitalist society everything costs money, and the government doesn't really have a magic machine to make it (at least, not without causing serious currency problems)

b) Because the free market as it exists today is an imperfect market and, thus, it would never be efficient enough to provide for the needs of the whole population. Please read some basic economy on the differences between and properties of "market of perfect competition" and "market of imperfect competition".

c) Funny thing...in many countries that actually happens...and it goes rather well.

a) I got news for you honey, in every society goods and products cost money.

b) yes everything humans do is imperfect including the free market, but in contrast to big govt systems it is far more effective (see north korea, cuba, zimbabwe, california, detroit, et al).

c ) where and for every time you cite government just surviving without tax payer plunder or favorable monopolistic law protecting them --- millions of free market firms exist and thrive despite having to pay taxes.

a) Not really. Again, you fail at economic history. Before currency existed, there was barter. Not to mention small societies where there there was no trade of any kind but merely production for subsistence have existed since the dawn of man and still exist in some parts of the world.

b) Aha...Still doesn't explain Scandinavia. Despite some decrease in taxes and spending, they are still "big government" countries.

c) That question only serves to continue your circular (il)logic.

[Mavorpen]

dude you have to be able to think beyond immediate consequences.

1) when you say govt funds projects, you dont seem to understand that this funding originates from tax payers .

When businesses fund projects, it originates from the consumers.

2) government bonds leverage the government's monopoly on fiat currency. for example, government has a monopoly on money making on the printing and issuing of currency. without it, nobody would pay a thin dime for government debt. Moreover, government has a monopoly on taxation - -hence investors realize that government can fund these debts without having to compete in a free, voluntary, and competive market.

Uh, government debt doesn't matter, economic growth does.

hence, if government didnt have the power to tax ---- nobody would be stupid enough to buy these bonds.

Well duh, because without government taxes, people wouldn't get their services.

3) in sum, without a coercive monopoly to protect itself from competition thereby making government the only player in an industry or taxation -- government cant compete.

Yeah, no.

[Liriena]

Or run by...you know...powerful economic groups who, in an imperfect market, control both price and production, thus eliminating the basic principle for a fair capitalist system: a balance between producer and consumer.

Negative and negative should make a positive, shouldn't it? In theory.

Why can't politics be math?

Yeah...nope...that was not my point.

[AuSable River]

checkmate dude!

the government cant fund anything

all of its wealth originates from taxpayers.

I see what you did there!
This is brilliant logic my friend!
Of course it would also stand to reason then, that private enterprise can't fund anything.
All of its wealth originates from customers and investors

exactly, free market voluntary and based on satisfying consumer preferences by increasing value, quality, and productivity.

in contrast, government funds itself in a corrupt, coercive, and wasteful process of plundering sustainable and productive private sector entities and redistribute this plunder to politically connected unsustainable, corrupt, and inefficient cronies in the public and private sector in a quid pro quo scheme of preferential tax and regulatory policies for campaign contributions(bribes) and special interest votes

[El Pescado Frio]

YOU STILL DISGUST ME...

[Liriena]

NEWSFLASH: LIFE ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE TERRIBLE!

YOU'RE ALL IDEALISTS! YOU DISGUST ME!

I fart in your general direction!

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries!

[Wirbel]

NEWSFLASH: LIFE ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE TERRIBLE!

YOU'RE ALL IDEALISTS! YOU DISGUST ME!

Also, nice flag.

[Mavorpen]

exactly, free market voluntary and based on satisfying consumer preferences by increasing value, quality, and productivity.

And taxes are voluntary and based on satisfying the voting populace by improving standard of living and promoting social and economic equality.

in contrast, government funds itself in a corrupt, coercive, and wasteful process

Just like the free market.

of plundering sustainable and productive private sector entities and redistribute this plunder to politically connected unsustainable, corrupt, and inefficient cronies

Just like the free market.

[Samuraikoku]

dude you have to be able to think beyond immediate consequences.

1) when you say govt funds projects, you dont seem to understand that this funding originates from tax payers .

2) government bonds leverage the government's monopoly on fiat currency. for example, government has a monopoly on money making on the printing and issuing of currency. without it, nobody would pay a thin dime for government debt. Moreover, government has a monopoly on taxation - -hence investors realize that government can fund these debts without having to compete in a free, voluntary, and competive market.

hence, if government didnt have the power to tax ---- nobody would be stupid enough to buy these bonds.

3) in sum, without a coercive monopoly to protect itself from competition thereby making government the only player in an industry or taxation -- government cant compete.

Explain to me how this has anything to do with me disproving your points.

[Liriena]

I see what you did there!
This is brilliant logic my friend!
Of course it would also stand to reason then, that private enterprise can't fund anything.
All of its wealth originates from customers and investors

exactly, free market voluntary and based on satisfying consumer preferences by increasing value, quality, and productivity.

in contrast, government funds itself in a corrupt, coercive, and wasteful process of plundering sustainable and productive private sector entities and redistribute this plunder to politically connected unsustainable, corrupt, and inefficient cronies in the public and private sector in a quid pro quo scheme of preferential tax and regulatory policies for campaign contributions(bribes) and special interest votes

Aha...so...What happens when you live in a market of imperfect competition and the heads of corporations are greedy assholes who (logically) won't hire anyone so as to cut as much spending as they can when they could just (with a little bit more effort) just produce more and get the whole economic process on the right track? What when the corporations pay you two cents the hour because nobody tells them that to live with SOME dignity, a guy needs at least a thousand times that? What about all other variables that come when you leave every single thing in the hands of a handful of men who's only social duty, without a government to tell them otherwise, is make a profit no matter what?

What part of "market of imperfect competition" didn't you get?

[AuSable River]

a) I got news for you honey, in every society goods and products cost money.

b) yes everything humans do is imperfect including the free market, but in contrast to big govt systems it is far more effective (see north korea, cuba, zimbabwe, california, detroit, et al).

c ) where and for every time you cite government just surviving without tax payer plunder or favorable monopolistic law protecting them --- millions of free market firms exist and thrive despite having to pay taxes.

a) Not really. Again, you fail at economic history. Before currency existed, there was barter. Not to mention small societies where there there was no trade of any kind but merely production for subsistence have existed since the dawn of man and still exist in some parts of the world.

b) Aha...Still doesn't explain Scandinavia. Despite some decrease in taxes and spending, they are still "big government" countries.

c) That question only serves to continue your circular (il)logic.

a) after barter, there was gold and silver --- hence governments couldnt inflate or print money (thereby destroying the value of savings and debase currency thereby destroying society) in order to pass this monopoly money onto their friends before the cruel effects of inflation began to be felt in the economy.

b) you need to understand that comparing scandinavia and the USA is like comparing apples and oranges --- nonetheless, you obviously didnt understand my point that reducing government influence in the economy leads to increased societal wealth and growth which is the only way that standards of living improve.

for example, reduce government in a big government state like those in scadanavia and economic conditions improve. reduce government in a relatively moderate government controlled state like the USA and the same results increased growth and societal wealth.

btw, are you aware of the fact that within your scandanavian paradises' over 40 US states have a higher GDP per capita (PPP) ???

hence, norway (even with oil), sweden, et al would be at the bottom of the list with states like mississippi, alabama, et al in terms of economic health.

c)okay, I am calling you out ---- provide your source that government succeeds competing against free market enterprises on a level playing field without plundering the tax payer or preferential monopolistic protections

[Saint Germain]

Yes, liberals are for expanding government and conservatives back conglomerates. A radical supposition, as opposed to liberal or conservative is left libertarianism. It would avoid big government and big business -- a voluntary political confederation of egalitarian, localized socio-economic communities of individuals.

[Samuraikoku]

c)okay, I am calling you out ---- provide your source that government succeeds competing against free market enterprises on a level playing field without plundering the tax payer or preferential monopolistic protections

Why do you want the government to compete in a level playing field? That's why it's the government.

[Silent Majority]

government cant compete.

Indeed, but the government is not a business, it isn't meant to compete, it is meant to deal with societal problems that cannot be dealt with by the free market(or cannot be dealt with fairly through the free market).

You seem to be treating the government like it's just a corporation, and then complaining that is has unfair advantages that other corporations don't have, but it is not a corporation, it's main motive is not profit, nor should it be.

[Wamitoria]

Wamitoria holds economically conservative ideals...

Not really.

I'm not at all concerned with the concentration of economic power leaning towards the state, nor am I nostalgic for any period of time when people were supposedly not dependent upon the government for their safe-keeping.

[HeresJohnny]

Why do conservatives want bigger businesses?

[El Pescado Frio]

NEWSFLASH: LIFE ISN'T SUPPOSED TO BE GOOD, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE TERRIBLE!

YOU'RE ALL IDEALISTS! YOU DISGUST ME!

I fart in your general direction!

Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries!

Hey, it's the truth. You all DO disgust me. I didn't make that up.

[AuSable River]

Aha...so...What happens when you live in a market of imperfect competition and the heads of corporations are greedy assholes who (logically) won't hire anyone so as to cut as much spending as they can when they could just (with a little bit more effort) just produce more and get the whole economic process on the right track?lirenia

if they are so corrupt and greedy --- then it should be easy for an enlightened genius like yourself to find venture capital from the many billionaire liberals walking around (buffett, gates, soros, et al) open up a competing firm and put them out of business in a free, voluntary and competitive marketplace.

What when the corporations pay you two cents the hour because nobody tells them that to live with SOME dignity, a guy needs at least a thousand times that? --- lirneia

then obviously, I dont work there. I find another job. or I go into business myself and society benefits with a new firm.

otherwise, if someone stays in the firm working -- then logically this is the best they can get and the firm should be commended for at least providing a job when none was available otherwise.

or course, if you think that these talented workers are underpaid ---then you can open your own firm and leverage this talent and make a profit at the same time.

but, to complain in the absence of any action is reprehensible and typical of the liberal pay police who seek to impose their view of 'equality' and 'fairness' by subjecting all citizens to their 'benevolent' despotism.

What about all other variables that come when you leave every single thing in the hands of a handful of men who's only social duty, without a government to tell them otherwise, is make a profit no matter what?--lirenia

I got news for you honey. if any entity doesnt make a profit -- it is unsustainable and will in time go broke.

hence we follow self-evident rules in the free market --- not self-aggrandizing hand wringing.

this popular quote from CS Lewis pretty much sums up the nonsense that you are promoting:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S. Lewis

[Samuraikoku]

Hey, it's the truth. You all DO disgust me. I didn't make that up.

The Emperor protects nonetheless.

[Miss Defied]

I see what you did there!
This is brilliant logic my friend!
Of course it would also stand to reason then, that private enterprise can't fund anything.
All of its wealth originates from customers and investors

exactly, free market voluntary and based on satisfying consumer preferences by increasing value, quality, and productivity.

in contrast, government funds itself in a corrupt, coercive, and wasteful process of plundering sustainable and productive private sector entities and redistribute this plunder to politically connected unsustainable, corrupt, and inefficient cronies in the public and private sector in a quid pro quo scheme of preferential tax and regulatory policies for campaign contributions(bribes) and special interest votes

In your fantasy land, when i want to travel on the road that goes past my house and I have to pay a toll, that isn't voluntary.

[Liriena]

Why do conservatives want bigger businesses?

Because of the delusion that they live in an economy with markets of perfect competition in which the market provides exactly what everyone needs and wants on both ends, and everyone is consciously or subconsciously willing to help one another through their greed and obsession for wealth, thus leading to some utopia in which everyone has a job with a good wage (yeah, right ) to buy all the things they need at the fair price, as settled by the crossing of the curve of demand and the curve of offer...

...and they lived happily ever after...until human nature came along.

[Mavorpen]

if they are so corrupt and greedy --- then it should be easy for an enlightened genius like yourself to find venture capital from the many billionaire liberals walking around (buffett, gates, soros, et al) open up a competing firm and put them out of business in a free, voluntary and competitive marketplace.

You do know this is only possible because the government keeps corporations from stepping on any competition, right?

then obviously, I dont work there. I find another job. or I go into business myself and society benefits with a new firm.

Unfortunately, there are no more jobs paying higher wages, because they can't be "competitive" with higher wages.
or course, if you think that these talented workers are underpaid ---then you can open your own firm and leverage this talent and make a profit at the same time.

but, to complain in the absence of any action is reprehensible and typical of the liberal pay police who seek to impose their view of 'equality' and 'fairness' by subjecting all citizens to their 'benevolent' despotism.

You'll probably go bankrupt.

I got news for you honey. if any entity doesnt make a profit -- it is unsustainable and will in time go broke.

Which is why naturally businesses will destroy competition without a government regulating them.

this popular quote from CS Lewis pretty much sums up the nonsense that you are promoting:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -- C.S. Lewis

You take C.S. Lewis seriously?

[AuSable River]

government cant compete.

Indeed, but the government is not a business, it isn't meant to compete, it is meant to deal with societal problems that cannot be dealt with by the free market(or cannot be dealt with fairly through the free market).

You seem to be treating the government like it's just a corporation, and then complaining that is has unfair advantages that other corporations don't have, but it is not a corporation, it's main motive is not profit, nor should it be.

wrong

government is a self-serving scheme that benefits politicians, bureaucrats, and their cronies in the private and public sector in a quid pro quo scheme of preferential tax and regulatory policy in exchange for special interest votes and campaign contributions.

hence the large number of lobbyists in washington.

do you seriously think they are lobbying washington with hundreds of billions of dollars in order to help society ????!!!!


naive = statist on the outside.

corrupt = statist on the inside

poor = statist on the outside

privledged = statist on the inside.

[Neutraligon]

I never understood the taxation is stealing. You have accepted a contract with whatever government you are a citizen of. Under that contract you pay taxes so that the government can provide services to you, some of which would not be available through private companies. If you do not want to pay taxes to the government, then don't use any of the services the government provides to you, including the protections of the military.