NationStates

AuSable River wrote:paying people not to work by taxing the very entities that would hire them leads to increased unemployment for the following reasons -- a) companies have less capital to hire new workers and b) unemployed workers have less incentive to find work if they are getting paid not to work.

Show that there is a capital shortage, please.

Also, employment is far more lucrative than unemployment or welfare; to make your case on theoretical grounds, therefore, you must show that the value of the leisure time surrendered to an employer in exchange for work is worth more than the added income a person would gain for trading assistance for work.

Until you do the former, you cannot credibly make the claim that higher taxes reduce business investment; until you do the latter, you cannot credibly claim that public assistance causes or contributes to unemployment.

AuSable River wrote:the same dynamic is in play in regard to government managing wealth for the following reason -- government acquires and manages wealth based on political goals that are economically unsustainable.

Programs that are "economical unsustainable" can still be financially sustainable.

National defense, public policing, and our court system are all examples of programs that are financially sustainable without regard for profitability.

IOW, your "economic sustainability" test is a red herring.

AuSable River wrote:Empirically, wherever big govt is juxtaposed to limited govt. ---- limited govt systems have far better economic outcomes and living standards.

north korea/south korea, west germany/east germany, taiwan/communist china, USSR/USA, et al....

The fact that state socialism (a/k/a communism) blows huge chunks doesn't prove that regulated capitalism with limited public investment in socially desirable services is unsustainable; indeed, virtually all of the success stories on your list are exactly the kind of mixed economies you decry.

AuSable River wrote:

Politicopia Founder wrote:So people shouldn't vote for a government that acts in the best interests of the majority of people? That's sort of the point.

No, because the majority simply uses the political process to plunder the fairly gotten wealth of the minority.

Or the inverse, in which the minority wealthy few uses its money to corrupt and influence government at the expense of the honest and hardworking Main Street.

So, in answer to your question -- government shouldnt be used as a tool to plunder irrespective of whether it is by few at the expense of the many --- or the many at the expense of the few.

unfortunately, it appears that many, if not all, on this forum agree that government should still be used to plunder.

They only object when the plunder does not benefit their economic and ideological self-interest.

Or even more unfortunate, is the apparent ignorance that many have of this obvious dynamic that has been in play as government has gotten progressively larger and our economic distress has approached a survival level threat.

Such 'plunder' (which is a ridiculous term and comparison btw) objectively makes populations healthier, happier, better educated, richer and longer living so I'm not really seeing the problem.

The Lone Alliance wrote:Why don't you get over the fact that no one cares what you teabaggers have to say, half of what you say is bullshit anyway.

You claim a government trying to act in the best interests of the people is "Vote buying" so who do you think the government should work for, the corporations or are you like the rest of the mouth breathers here thinking "The Free Market will fix it".

government shouldnt work for anybody based on a quid pro quo of votes/campaign contributions for political favors.

government shouldnt have the power to pick winners and losers in the bedroom, boardroom, church pew, dining room, or anywhere else.

It is a political and military animal and thus it should regulate these aspects of society since that is what it does best.

politicians are expert and very beneficial at balancing, limiting, overseeing, decentralizing, and making transparent political and military power in society.

by doing so, they make it extremely difficult for a monopoly of political, legal, or military power from emerging and establishing absolutism. Politicians in washington constantly watch and attack each other to prevent one side or sides from gaining too much power -- from a political and civil rights perspective -- this is good.

in contrast, anarchism has no such mechanisms for detering monopolies of armed force and political power.

But beyond that, whenever government and politicians start deciding what private businesses and individuals do in their homes, communities and businesses ---- it utterly fails and becomes easily corrupted.

in sum, government within liberal democracies has done an effective job of protecting and expanding most civil and political liberties --- however primarily on the economic front --- its influence has been destructive at best and represents a survival level threat to freedom at its worst.

Politicopia Founder wrote:

AuSable River wrote:
No, because the majority simply uses the political process to plunder the fairly gotten wealth of the minority.

Or the inverse, in which the minority wealthy few uses its money to corrupt and influence government at the expense of the honest and hardworking Main Street.

So, in answer to your question -- government shouldnt be used as a tool to plunder irrespective of whether it is by few at the expense of the many --- or the many at the expense of the few.

unfortunately, it appears that many, if not all, on this forum agree that government should still be used to plunder.

They only object when the plunder does not benefit their economic and ideological self-interest.

Or even more unfortunate, is the apparent ignorance that many have of this obvious dynamic that has been in play as government has gotten progressively larger and our economic distress has approached a survival level threat.

Such 'plunder' (which is a ridiculous term and comparison btw) objectively makes populations healthier, happier, better educated, richer and longer living so I'm not really seeing the problem.

see north korea/south korea, west germany/east germany, taiwan/communist china, california/texas, sweden pre-1990s/sweden post 1990s, et al.

Indeed, see the USA education system, health care, finance, drugs, fiat money, et al

everything government touches either experiences shortages, deficits as far as the eye can see, or reduced quality.

AuSable River wrote:1) those over 65, represent 12% of the population, yet possess over 55% of the wealth in the country -- no problem, they probably earned it.

2) those under 44, represent 60% of the population,yet possess only 7% of the wealth in the country -- no problem, they are just starting out.

Yet when the following statistics are presented the picture gets very grim and disturbing:

3) despite the fact that the oldest 12% possess over 55% of the wealth -- these citizens receive an average of $32,000 in federal government assistance.

4) contrast this figure with Americans under 44 who receive an average of $4,000 per person in federal government assistance.

Prove that the wealth owned by individuals above the age of 65 is evenly distributed among members of the group in question. Otherwise, a very small number of very old, very rich individuals could be skewing the demographic data in such a way as to make it look as though there aren't a lot of poor and/or infirm senior citizens who are in desperate need of public assistance when, in fact, there are.

Also, the kind of assistance seniors need (health and nursing care) is very expensive (eg, $8,000-$10,000/month or more for bed in a nursing facility) relative to the kind of care younger people need.

AuSable River wrote:Hence, the 'logic' in Washington is to reward the leisure class with literally trillions in largesse and punish the productive working poor. No wonder we have been mired in economic malaise. Moreover, those working class stiffs who are paying into the system are guaranteed to get short changed when/if they began receiving social security and medicare.

Yet, largely out of ignorance and ideological programming, they will vote for politicians who defend bankrupt entitlements that informed analysts know will have to be significantly gutted or face insolvency when these younger citizens reach retirement age.

Ideological grandstanding purporting to explain the present situation without further supporting data is worthless. Try saying something useful, and then substantiating it.

AuSable River wrote:Why has this dynamic occurred:



Politicians may be corrupt, economically illiterate, and destructive to the US economy, but they aren't stupid.

They know who votes and who has money.

This is the dynamic you have to prove.

So far, you've done nothing whatsoever to prove it.

AuSable River wrote:everything government touches either experiences shortages, deficits as far as the eye can see, or reduced quality.

Do you live in a world where scarcity doesn't exist?

Gauntleted Fist wrote:

AuSable River wrote:everything government touches either experiences shortages, deficits as far as the eye can see, or reduced quality.

Do you live in a world where scarcity doesn't exist?

He does.

AuSable River wrote:
Indeed, I challenge you to name a single natural resource that has been exhausted despite the fact that mankind has reached 7 billion.

AuSable River wrote:see north korea/south korea, west germany/east germany, taiwan/communist china, california/texas, sweden pre-1990s/sweden post 1990s, et al.

Indeed, see the USA education system, health care, finance, drugs, fiat money, et al

everything government touches either experiences shortages, deficits as far as the eye can see, or reduced quality.

Sure is a mystery why the world is pretty much better than it's ever been before despite a fairly strong increase in the areas that the government is involved in.

Norstal wrote:

Gauntleted Fist wrote:Do you live in a world where scarcity doesn't exist?

He does.

AuSable River wrote:
Indeed, I challenge you to name a single natural resource that has been exhausted despite the fact that mankind has reached 7 billion.

Wait! Is this the same guy who made the argument about never being able to exhaust non-renewable resources because matter can't be created or destroyed?

AuSable River wrote:I guarantee that if your job was directly impacted by affirmative action you would be singing a different tune.

How do you know it isn't?

AuSable River wrote:Indeed, many Americans who have been forced to the back of the bus simply because of race, religion, culture et al do not support these policies for good reason. My guess is that these policies have not significantly impacted your personal life.

I'm a middle aged -white male. How do you now I haven't been so impacted?

AuSable River wrote:and if your pro-abortion -- it is a strawman argument citing your wife's age -- abortion is largely an ideological position since a significant number of people are not involved in the process.

Who said anything about abortion?

I simply made a clear and unequivocal statement: As a middle-aged white male married to a post-menopausal woman, I have absolutely no personal interest in the availability of contraception. In contrast, younger women who might compete with me in the workplace do. By your logic, as a purely self-interested voter, I should support efforts to deny these economic competitors access to the pharmaceutical contraceptive technology they need to continue to compete against me in the workplace. If they were removed from the marketplace, classical economic theory says that my labor would therefore be more valuable due to scarcity, and I could command better terms of employment.

I thought you were all about free market theory; if so, how can you challenge this logic?

AuSable River wrote:again, I seriously doubt that you have been negatively impacted or lost your job because of someone's lifestyle.

Irrelevant; the foregoing economic argument shows how I have a vested interest in the elimination of competitors from the marketplace. That is all that matters, by your logic, to assure my support for anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-minority social troglodytes. The the white male dominated world the right wants to establish, I'd be a winner; so by your logic, I ought to be a hard-core Republican fanatic.

But I'm not.

AuSable River wrote:NOnetheless, I guarantee that women who want abortions or homosexuals vote in their own self-interest in an overwhelming percentage of cases.

Indeed, by citing these examples you prove my point that people vote in their own self-interest.

over 2/3 of gays will vote for democrat candidates and the same applies for those who support abortion.

and it is no coincidence that democrat politicians tout this difference continually. of course, when economic effects are not directly felt, voters are more influenced by social issues.

In sum, your anecdotal argument does not hold water among the overwhelming propensity of voters to act in their own self-interest -- particularily when their personal economic circumstances are impacted by who gets elected in november.

Not at all.

All my argument shows is that some people vote independent of their interest, while others vote in accordance with their interest. What you need to show is how many of each group exist, and then try to make an argument that properly accounts for what to you seems a form of contrarianism (and its political consequences); then, too, you must also account for politicians who act against their interest (a possibility you have thus far completely failed to address).

Gauntleted Fist wrote:

Norstal wrote:He does.

Wait! Is this the same guy who made the argument about never being able to exhaust non-renewable resources because matter can't be created or destroyed?

I don't know about that, but I wouldn't be surprised if he said that. My point is that we shouldn't debate seriously with someone who thinks natural resources don't run out.

The OP is pure drivel.

If you don't think those things happen without government involved, you're a naive fool.

government can make sound economic decisions. It's just that America's can't.

Death Metal wrote:The OP is pure drivel.

If you don't think those things happen without government involved, you're a naive fool.

He appears to be trying to lay the ground for an argument that since government is necessarily a bad-faith actor looking to steal something from someone for somebody's gain, we shouldn't let government do anything beyond that which is absolutely necessary.

He's just completely fucking up his own argument with bad logic and false assumptions, and this rendering this whole thread effectively useless.

AuSable River wrote:

The Lone Alliance wrote:Why don't you get over the fact that no one cares what you teabaggers have to say, half of what you say is bullshit anyway.

You claim a government trying to act in the best interests of the people is "Vote buying" so who do you think the government should work for, the corporations or are you like the rest of the mouth breathers here thinking "The Free Market will fix it".

Bunch of bullshit claiming that the government will either control everything or nothing.

Did I say anything at all about the bedroom or the dining room? Anything at all?
No?
Then shut the **** up about it.

Though mandating that you don't served toxic waste infested food at the dinner table, or don't sleep in a bed with exposed nails, yeah I can see that being a good 'freedom' to deny.

But as most of your arguments are debunked copypasta there's no point in arguing with you, you're wrong, simple as that.

Shnercropolis wrote:government can make sound economic decisions. It's just that America's can't. Congress Won't

Fixed that for you.

The worst thing a government can do for an economy is nothing. Our current situation is proof of this.

Norstal wrote:I don't know about that, but I wouldn't be surprised if he said that. My point is that we shouldn't debate seriously with someone who thinks natural resources don't run out.

It was him. He also attempted to 'school' me on scarcity and Economics 101 in the same thread.

If it didn't run out, it wouldn't be scarce!

Death Metal wrote:

Shnercropolis wrote:government can make sound economic decisions. It's just that America's can't. Congress Won't

Fixed that for you.

The worst thing a government can do for an economy is nothing. Our current situation is proof of this.

agreed.

AuSable River wrote:

Politicopia Founder wrote:
Such 'plunder' (which is a ridiculous term and comparison btw) objectively makes populations healthier, happier, better educated, richer and longer living so I'm not really seeing the problem.

see north korea/south korea, west germany/east germany, taiwan/communist china, california/texas, sweden pre-1990s/sweden post 1990s, et al.

see modern day Norway, Denmark, Japan, insert first world country here.

Indeed, see the USA education system, health care, finance, drugs, fiat money, et al

all are better off then they would have been without intervention whats you point?
look up the Nirvana Fallacy

everything government touches either experiences shortages, deficits as far as the eye can see, or reduced quality.

yes the military, nasa, nist, the post office, and US water quality post EPA are known for low quality... oh wait no, they are known for having incredibly high quality.

All your threads and posts made me a communist.

Fuck the free market fairies.

AuSable River wrote:

The Lone Alliance wrote:Why don't you get over the fact that no one cares what you teabaggers have to say, half of what you say is bullshit anyway.

You claim a government trying to act in the best interests of the people is "Vote buying" so who do you think the government should work for, the corporations or are you like the rest of the mouth breathers here thinking "The Free Market will fix it".

government shouldnt work for anybody based on a quid pro quo of votes/campaign contributions for political favors.

government shouldnt have the power to pick winners and losers in the bedroom, boardroom, church pew, dining room, or anywhere else.

It is a political and military animal and thus it should regulate these aspects of society since that is what it does best.

politicians are expert and very beneficial at balancing, limiting, overseeing, decentralizing, and making transparent political and military power in society.

by doing so, they make it extremely difficult for a monopoly of political, legal, or military power from emerging and establishing absolutism. Politicians in washington constantly watch and attack each other to prevent one side or sides from gaining too much power -- from a political and civil rights perspective -- this is good.

in contrast, anarchism has no such mechanisms for detering monopolies of armed force and political power.

But beyond that, whenever government and politicians start deciding what private businesses and individuals do in their homes, communities and businesses ---- it utterly fails and becomes easily corrupted.

in sum, government within liberal democracies has done an effective job of protecting and expanding most civil and political liberties --- however primarily on the economic front --- its influence has been destructive at best and represents a survival level threat to freedom at its worst.

You've been reading too much Thomas DiLorenzo. It's almost as though you're him.
Economic liberty, while important, is not the most important, nor the most valuable type of liberty, unlike what the man you may as well be quoting believes.
EDIT: Screwed up his last name.

Alien Space Bats wrote:

Death Metal wrote:The OP is pure drivel.

If you don't think those things happen without government involved, you're a naive fool.

He appears to be trying to lay the ground for an argument that since government is necessarily a bad-faith actor looking to steal something from someone for somebody's gain, we shouldn't let government do anything beyond that which is absolutely necessary.

He's just completely fucking up his own argument with bad logic and false assumptions, and this rendering this whole thread effectively useless.

He more or less copies and pastes(Exaggeration here, of course) his arguments from Thomas DiLorenzo.

I'm trying to understand what's wrong with people voting for their own best interests...can someone please explain? Also...how are the "problems" listed in any way connected to a liberal democracy and not just a democracy in general?

Neutraligon wrote:I'm trying to understand what's wrong with people voting for their own best interests...can someone please explain? Also...how are the "problems" listed in any way connected to a liberal democracy and not just a democracy in general?

Because it goes against the OP's best interest. That's why it's wrong, and therefore is a Tyranny of the Majority.

Wait a sec, wait a sec...
Forgive my political ignorance, but isn't 'tyranny by majority' basically democracy? The majority vote for who they think is the best leader (or in case of the UK, it's barely a plurality) and the minority have to live by that, at least until they become the majority.