Ron Paul Thread. "Farewell Address" Pt.1 Vid and text.

[biguglyamerican]

Originally Posted by ohdannyboy

Which of his books should I cop? Heading to the bookstore tomorrow and I need a good read. The article and the video mention to different books.

You want a book..buy this.

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by ohdannyboy

Which of his books should I cop? Heading to the bookstore tomorrow and I need a good read. The article and the video mention to different books.

If you want a good read, that makes sense:

Edit: Better idea, pick up this and something by Ron Paul, read both, and come to your own conclusion.

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by ohdannyboy

Which of his books should I cop? Heading to the bookstore tomorrow and I need a good read. The article and the video mention to different books.

If you want a good read, that makes sense:

Edit: Better idea, pick up this and something by Ron Paul, read both, and come to your own conclusion.

 

[Bert.]

Ron Paul>>>>>>*

SRS

 

[Bert.]

Ron Paul>>>>>>*

SRS

 

[ducky quack]

America is not smart enough to vote for Ron Paul, plain and simple. It is a damn shame.

 

[ducky quack]

America is not smart enough to vote for Ron Paul, plain and simple. It is a damn shame.

 

[teamjordan79]

if he picks jessie ventura as his VP ima start handing out campaign buttons myself 

 

[teamjordan79]

if he picks jessie ventura as his VP ima start handing out campaign buttons myself 

 

[rexanglorum]

Anything is possible but Ron Paul has a tough road through the GOP primaries. He is not corporate enough to get the support of the Romney types nor is he crazy enough to get the support of the Palin types. Maybe GOP primary voters will see that he could assemble an odd but adequate coalition of war doves, free market supporters and deficit hawks/independents.

He can pound home the message that this country simply cannot afford four more additional Obama budgets. If Barack Obama gets a second term we will end up with a 20 trillion dollar deficit with either high interest rates on the new debt and/or double digit inflation because the Fed will have to print trillions of dollars to buy the new bonds. Only with the majesty of his words and the collective illustion that government is impervious to the constraints faced by mere mortals is it possible for President Obama is downplay and conceal a looming reality that would frighten any ration business or household, debt that will have a seriously harmful effect on our real economy, our standard of living. This is serious and most voters are not willing to be serious until the problem has either destroyed us or is on the brink of destroying us.

Enjoy an Argentine style decline and your very real poverty. I have enough gold, gunds and goods to minimize my suffering and I have relatives with land and political muscle outside of this country, in case thigs get realy bad, what will the rest of you do?

 

[rexanglorum]

Anything is possible but Ron Paul has a tough road through the GOP primaries. He is not corporate enough to get the support of the Romney types nor is he crazy enough to get the support of the Palin types. Maybe GOP primary voters will see that he could assemble an odd but adequate coalition of war doves, free market supporters and deficit hawks/independents.

He can pound home the message that this country simply cannot afford four more additional Obama budgets. If Barack Obama gets a second term we will end up with a 20 trillion dollar deficit with either high interest rates on the new debt and/or double digit inflation because the Fed will have to print trillions of dollars to buy the new bonds. Only with the majesty of his words and the collective illustion that government is impervious to the constraints faced by mere mortals is it possible for President Obama is downplay and conceal a looming reality that would frighten any ration business or household, debt that will have a seriously harmful effect on our real economy, our standard of living. This is serious and most voters are not willing to be serious until the problem has either destroyed us or is on the brink of destroying us.

Enjoy an Argentine style decline and your very real poverty. I have enough gold, gunds and goods to minimize my suffering and I have relatives with land and political muscle outside of this country, in case thigs get realy bad, what will the rest of you do?

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Originally Posted by rashi

What would be pragmatic? Being complacent to Statists?


I believe in voluntary associations and exchange, what's wrong with that?

Other than it being completely unrealistic, relying on the goodness of those with capital only and leading to monopolies? Absolutely nothing.
I'm not getting into it with you on your other question. Free market capitalism got us into the mess we're in now, and it is only widening the gap between the classes and essentially wiping out the middle class. But please, believe otherwise and continue to live in your economic bubble. 

Yet, you still cannot answer 2 questions. You revert to using baseless arguments to try to debunk the Free Market, but you can't provide me evidence that the Free Market free from interference via legislation, subsidization, or political is inferior to the government. Why would the government work better? What incentive do they have to be "better" than private individuals?


Voluntary exchange being unrealistic? Why is it unrealistic? Can't life move forward without lawyers who providing incentives to bankers? How did humanity survive?

That's why it's hard to debate with the dude. There's a reason Hayek didn't make much headway in his career and Keynes did. Yea, I know he won a Nobel but I'm talking about policy. The former's ideas are incompatible with human nature while the latter panders to it. A positive medium can exist.


Deregulation was a big reason for the crisis. Ever read Bill Black? Government had a big hand in it too, of course.


Where was this "deregulation"? The "deregulation" that you people speak of WAS the regulation. This "deregulation" said that "Lend out money or else! Everyone deserves a home! But it's ok, if +*!% hits the fan, we will bail you out." . Like every other Boom and Bust cycle, every Depression, Recession, was created by the monetary policy of politicians with their Banking interests.


Hayek and Mises didn't make headway because their ABCT uses common sense and doesn't empower the government. The General Theory provided "mathematical evidence" to prove it "validity" and it is believed that the government "investment" increases output. The ABCT uses logic and is based on human action.

At the end of the day, Capital is Heterogeneous. It responds to interest rates and a time rate structure of production. The government intervention which Keynes purported distorts the latter, hence creating Boom and Busts.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Originally Posted by rashi

What would be pragmatic? Being complacent to Statists?


I believe in voluntary associations and exchange, what's wrong with that?

Other than it being completely unrealistic, relying on the goodness of those with capital only and leading to monopolies? Absolutely nothing.
I'm not getting into it with you on your other question. Free market capitalism got us into the mess we're in now, and it is only widening the gap between the classes and essentially wiping out the middle class. But please, believe otherwise and continue to live in your economic bubble. 

Yet, you still cannot answer 2 questions. You revert to using baseless arguments to try to debunk the Free Market, but you can't provide me evidence that the Free Market free from interference via legislation, subsidization, or political is inferior to the government. Why would the government work better? What incentive do they have to be "better" than private individuals?


Voluntary exchange being unrealistic? Why is it unrealistic? Can't life move forward without lawyers who providing incentives to bankers? How did humanity survive?

That's why it's hard to debate with the dude. There's a reason Hayek didn't make much headway in his career and Keynes did. Yea, I know he won a Nobel but I'm talking about policy. The former's ideas are incompatible with human nature while the latter panders to it. A positive medium can exist.


Deregulation was a big reason for the crisis. Ever read Bill Black? Government had a big hand in it too, of course.


Where was this "deregulation"? The "deregulation" that you people speak of WAS the regulation. This "deregulation" said that "Lend out money or else! Everyone deserves a home! But it's ok, if +*!% hits the fan, we will bail you out." . Like every other Boom and Bust cycle, every Depression, Recession, was created by the monetary policy of politicians with their Banking interests.


Hayek and Mises didn't make headway because their ABCT uses common sense and doesn't empower the government. The General Theory provided "mathematical evidence" to prove it "validity" and it is believed that the government "investment" increases output. The ABCT uses logic and is based on human action.

At the end of the day, Capital is Heterogeneous. It responds to interest rates and a time rate structure of production. The government intervention which Keynes purported distorts the latter, hence creating Boom and Busts.

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Originally Posted by rashi

What would be pragmatic? Being complacent to Statists?


I believe in voluntary associations and exchange, what's wrong with that?

Other than it being completely unrealistic, relying on the goodness of those with capital only and leading to monopolies? Absolutely nothing.
I'm not getting into it with you on your other question. Free market capitalism got us into the mess we're in now, and it is only widening the gap between the classes and essentially wiping out the middle class. But please, believe otherwise and continue to live in your economic bubble. 

Yet, you still cannot answer 2 questions. You revert to using baseless arguments to try to debunk the Free Market, but you can't provide me evidence that the Free Market free from interference via legislation, subsidization, or political is inferior to the government. Why would the government work better? What incentive do they have to be "better" than private individuals?


Voluntary exchange being unrealistic? Why is it unrealistic? Can't life move forward without lawyers who providing incentives to bankers? How did humanity survive?

That's why it's hard to debate with the dude. There's a reason Hayek didn't make much headway in his career and Keynes did. Yea, I know he won a Nobel but I'm talking about policy. The former's ideas are incompatible with human nature while the latter panders to it. A positive medium can exist.


Deregulation was a big reason for the crisis. Ever read Bill Black? Government had a big hand in it too, of course.

Where was this "deregulation"? The "deregulation" that you people speak of WAS the regulation. This "deregulation" said that "Lend out money or else! Everyone deserves a home! But it's ok, if +*!% hits the fan, we will bail you out." . Like every other Boom and Bust cycle, every Depression, Recession, was created by the monetary policy of politicians with their Banking interests.


Hayek and Mises didn't make headway because their ABCT uses common sense and doesn't empower the government. The General Theory provided "mathematical evidence" to prove it "validity" and it is believed that the government "investment" increases output. The ABCT uses logic and is based on human action.

At the end of the day, Capital is Heterogeneous. It responds to interest rates and a time rate structure of production. The government intervention which Keynes purported distorts the latter, hence creating Boom and Busts.





The incentive a government has to provide for its people is so they aren't forced out of power. You can't vote out a CEO because he isn't fixing the road in front of your house, however you can vote out your Congressman if he isn't getting that road fixed. It is an elected officials job to look out for the good of his constituency, and even NOW that is failing because of lobbying by large corporations for tax breaks and other perks. Do you honestly think that if we're having these issues now, in a political environment with some regulation, that corporations, big businesses and investors won't try to hoard even MORE wealth when there is no regulation?

A private citizen has NO incentive at all to provide services for those who need them. We see this when people exclaim that taxing the rich at a progressive rate is punishing their success, which simply isn't the case. Money to pay for public goods has to come from somewhere, and if someone is making 400 times that of the average citizen per year, they SHOULD be paying more than the average citizen. 

It's amusing that you're saying I'm using baseless arguments when they entire idea of Libertarianism is a baseless argument in itself. 

No, the deregulation came first and allowed large banks to merge. Then the dot com bubble exploded and the government did pass it off onto the housing market. However the predatory lending was not encouraged by the government. It was done out of greed. 

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Originally Posted by rashi

What would be pragmatic? Being complacent to Statists?


I believe in voluntary associations and exchange, what's wrong with that?

Other than it being completely unrealistic, relying on the goodness of those with capital only and leading to monopolies? Absolutely nothing.
I'm not getting into it with you on your other question. Free market capitalism got us into the mess we're in now, and it is only widening the gap between the classes and essentially wiping out the middle class. But please, believe otherwise and continue to live in your economic bubble. 

Yet, you still cannot answer 2 questions. You revert to using baseless arguments to try to debunk the Free Market, but you can't provide me evidence that the Free Market free from interference via legislation, subsidization, or political is inferior to the government. Why would the government work better? What incentive do they have to be "better" than private individuals?


Voluntary exchange being unrealistic? Why is it unrealistic? Can't life move forward without lawyers who providing incentives to bankers? How did humanity survive?

That's why it's hard to debate with the dude. There's a reason Hayek didn't make much headway in his career and Keynes did. Yea, I know he won a Nobel but I'm talking about policy. The former's ideas are incompatible with human nature while the latter panders to it. A positive medium can exist.


Deregulation was a big reason for the crisis. Ever read Bill Black? Government had a big hand in it too, of course.

Where was this "deregulation"? The "deregulation" that you people speak of WAS the regulation. This "deregulation" said that "Lend out money or else! Everyone deserves a home! But it's ok, if +*!% hits the fan, we will bail you out." . Like every other Boom and Bust cycle, every Depression, Recession, was created by the monetary policy of politicians with their Banking interests.


Hayek and Mises didn't make headway because their ABCT uses common sense and doesn't empower the government. The General Theory provided "mathematical evidence" to prove it "validity" and it is believed that the government "investment" increases output. The ABCT uses logic and is based on human action.

At the end of the day, Capital is Heterogeneous. It responds to interest rates and a time rate structure of production. The government intervention which Keynes purported distorts the latter, hence creating Boom and Busts.





The incentive a government has to provide for its people is so they aren't forced out of power. You can't vote out a CEO because he isn't fixing the road in front of your house, however you can vote out your Congressman if he isn't getting that road fixed. It is an elected officials job to look out for the good of his constituency, and even NOW that is failing because of lobbying by large corporations for tax breaks and other perks. Do you honestly think that if we're having these issues now, in a political environment with some regulation, that corporations, big businesses and investors won't try to hoard even MORE wealth when there is no regulation?

A private citizen has NO incentive at all to provide services for those who need them. We see this when people exclaim that taxing the rich at a progressive rate is punishing their success, which simply isn't the case. Money to pay for public goods has to come from somewhere, and if someone is making 400 times that of the average citizen per year, they SHOULD be paying more than the average citizen. 

It's amusing that you're saying I'm using baseless arguments when they entire idea of Libertarianism is a baseless argument in itself. 

No, the deregulation came first and allowed large banks to merge. Then the dot com bubble exploded and the government did pass it off onto the housing market. However the predatory lending was not encouraged by the government. It was done out of greed. 

 

[rashi]

The incentive a government has to provide for its people is so they aren't forced out of power.

Read this and think. Where is your benefit? What legal recourse do you have if the services aren't provided efficiently? What legal recourse do you have, lets say if a government doctor provided substandard care for example? Who takes the blame?

You can't vote out a CEO because he isn't fixing the road in front of your house, however you can vote out your Congressman if he isn't getting that road fixed.

What kind of argument is this? A Congressmen won't be thrown out of office because a road isn't being fixed. Local governments via property taxes and taxes on gasoline pay for things like this. BTW CEOs can be voted out...

It is an elected officials job to look out for the good of his constituency, and even NOW that is failing because of lobbying by large corporations for tax breaks and other perks.

Your representative doesn't care about you. Your representative tells you what you want to hear in exchange for your vote, when he gets this vote and wins, he ends up in Washington D.C. He gets rich by being paid by these lobbyists.

If he doesn't do what the "people" want, then you can vote them out, right? Then you will have another stooge who will do the same exact thing the other guys did. You think politicians care about their constituents? You think they care about rising gasoline prices? No, they have their own gas station at the capital building and they get gas for FREE.

Do you honestly think that if we're having these issues now, in a political environment with some regulation, that corporations, big businesses and investors won't try to hoard even MORE wealth when there is no regulation?


Big business can't survive without political favors. Big business hates the Free Market. Why? Because the Free Market enables them to FAIL. Big business pays off Washington to maintain Monopolies over various industries. Why do you think the Federal Reserve was created?

A private citizen has NO incentive at all to provide services for those who need them.

Really now? Lets say you own a small business, what's your incentive to stay in business? To make money, to provide for your family. You think Bill Gates or Steve Jobs created their products because they "care" about people? Hell nah, they made their products to make a PROFIT. Yeah, that evil, evil, word PROFIT. What was the unintended consequence? Billions of people are now benefiting from these two men.

We see this when people exclaim that taxing the rich at a progressive rate is punishing their success, which simply isn't the case. 
Progressive taxation actually hurts the middle and lower classes. Progressive taxation enables more loopholes within the system.

Money to pay for public goods has to come from somewhere, and if someone is making 400 times that of the average citizen per year, they SHOULD be paying more than the average citizen.

How about charities? How about letting private citizens pick and choose where their money goes? Why do you think that government is some how a
"moral teacher"? If I went to your house and stole your private property and redistributed it to other people, I would go to jail. So why is it ok for the government to do it?

It's none of your business what someone else makes and it isn't none of you business what they do with it.

It's amusing that you're saying I'm using baseless arguments when they entire idea of Libertarianism is a baseless argument in itself.

How? I'm still waiting to hear this.

No, the deregulation came first and allowed large banks to merge. Then the dot com bubble exploded and the government did pass it off onto the housing market. However the predatory lending was not encouraged by the government. It was done out of greed. 


None of this happens without a Federal Reserve. Instituted by who? That's right, the government.

 

[rashi]

The incentive a government has to provide for its people is so they aren't forced out of power.

Read this and think. Where is your benefit? What legal recourse do you have if the services aren't provided efficiently? What legal recourse do you have, lets say if a government doctor provided substandard care for example? Who takes the blame?

You can't vote out a CEO because he isn't fixing the road in front of your house, however you can vote out your Congressman if he isn't getting that road fixed.

What kind of argument is this? A Congressmen won't be thrown out of office because a road isn't being fixed. Local governments via property taxes and taxes on gasoline pay for things like this. BTW CEOs can be voted out...

It is an elected officials job to look out for the good of his constituency, and even NOW that is failing because of lobbying by large corporations for tax breaks and other perks.

Your representative doesn't care about you. Your representative tells you what you want to hear in exchange for your vote, when he gets this vote and wins, he ends up in Washington D.C. He gets rich by being paid by these lobbyists.

If he doesn't do what the "people" want, then you can vote them out, right? Then you will have another stooge who will do the same exact thing the other guys did. You think politicians care about their constituents? You think they care about rising gasoline prices? No, they have their own gas station at the capital building and they get gas for FREE.

Do you honestly think that if we're having these issues now, in a political environment with some regulation, that corporations, big businesses and investors won't try to hoard even MORE wealth when there is no regulation?


Big business can't survive without political favors. Big business hates the Free Market. Why? Because the Free Market enables them to FAIL. Big business pays off Washington to maintain Monopolies over various industries. Why do you think the Federal Reserve was created?

A private citizen has NO incentive at all to provide services for those who need them.

Really now? Lets say you own a small business, what's your incentive to stay in business? To make money, to provide for your family. You think Bill Gates or Steve Jobs created their products because they "care" about people? Hell nah, they made their products to make a PROFIT. Yeah, that evil, evil, word PROFIT. What was the unintended consequence? Billions of people are now benefiting from these two men.

We see this when people exclaim that taxing the rich at a progressive rate is punishing their success, which simply isn't the case. 
Progressive taxation actually hurts the middle and lower classes. Progressive taxation enables more loopholes within the system.

Money to pay for public goods has to come from somewhere, and if someone is making 400 times that of the average citizen per year, they SHOULD be paying more than the average citizen.

How about charities? How about letting private citizens pick and choose where their money goes? Why do you think that government is some how a
"moral teacher"? If I went to your house and stole your private property and redistributed it to other people, I would go to jail. So why is it ok for the government to do it?

It's none of your business what someone else makes and it isn't none of you business what they do with it.

It's amusing that you're saying I'm using baseless arguments when they entire idea of Libertarianism is a baseless argument in itself.

How? I'm still waiting to hear this.

No, the deregulation came first and allowed large banks to merge. Then the dot com bubble exploded and the government did pass it off onto the housing market. However the predatory lending was not encouraged by the government. It was done out of greed. 


None of this happens without a Federal Reserve. Instituted by who? That's right, the government.

 

[callhimar]

Read this and think. Where is your benefit? What legal recourse do you have if the services aren't provided efficiently? What legal recourse do you have, lets say if a government doctor provided substandard care for example? Who takes the blame?

The government takes the blame for it if the doctor provides substandard care, as well as the doctor himself. My benefit is in actually having health care instead of leaving everything up to chance.

What kind of argument is this? A Congressmen won't be thrown out of office because a road isn't being fixed. Local governments via property taxes and taxes on gasoline pay for things like this. BTW CEOs can be voted out...
It was an example. If the road is large and important enough, and nothing is being done about it's repair you can bet that a challenger to that persons seat will appear. BTW, there are State Senates. CEOs can be voted out by shareholders in the company or people on the board, not the general population.

Your representative doesn't care about you. Your representative tells you what you want to hear in exchange for your vote, when he gets this vote and wins, he ends up in Washington D.C. He gets rich by being paid by these lobbyists.

If he doesn't do what the "people" want, then you can vote them out, right? Then you will have another stooge who will do the same exact thing the other guys did. You think politicians care about their constituents? You think they care about rising gasoline prices? No, they have their own gas station at the capital building and they get gas for FREE.

Big business can't survive without political favors. Big business hates the Free Market. Why? Because the Free Market enables them to FAIL. Big business pays off Washington to maintain Monopolies over various industries. Why do you think the Federal Reserve was created?

Really now? Lets say you own a small business, what's your incentive to stay in business? To make money, to provide for your family. You think Bill Gates or Steve Jobs created their products because they "care" about people? Hell nah, they made their products to make a PROFIT. Yeah, that evil, evil, word PROFIT. What was the unintended consequence? Billions of people are now benefiting from these two men.



And neither would the CEO of a large corporation. I agree wholeheartedly that a number of representatives in our Congress say things to get reelected and do another when they are. Them getting rich because of lobbyists is the issue that needs to be dealt with. Senators handing out checks from a large corporation on the Senate floor while a vote is being held that directly affects that corporation is a travesty.

Do you actually think that those of a higher class care about anyone but themselves? They wouldn't ALLOW themselves to fail. They would amass so much wealth they would simply put the competition out of business, or buy them out. Big business can indeed survive without political favors, and they thrive when there is no one checking their power.

No one is saying that profit is an evil word. It is no secret that the private sector has done a great deal for humanity, however when you allow large investors to pay a 15% tax on capital gains which is less than your average American, that is ROBBERY.

Progressive taxation actually hurts the middle and lower classes. Progressive taxation enables more loopholes within the system.
Oh okay, I'll just take your word for it even though this literally makes no sense.

How about charities? How about letting private citizens pick and choose where their money goes? Why do you think that government is some how a
"moral teacher"? If I went to your house and stole your private property and redistributed it to other people, I would go to jail. So why is it ok for the government to do it?

It's none of your business what someone else makes and it isn't none of you business what they do with it.
Depending on charity to provide for the public good is ludicrous. Again, it is a governments duty to provide for its citizens. No one is stealing private property, when you enter into a society you have to understand that you have needs and so do others. The needs of the collective need to be looked out for, and this is why we have taxes. The interstate highway system you use to get to work? Yeah, that would have been built by a charity.

How? I'm still waiting to hear this.
Has a truly free market economy ever worked? Existed?

None of this happens without a Federal Reserve. Instituted by who? That's right, the government.
None of this happens without human greed. Instituted by what? That's right, human nature.

 

[callhimar]

Read this and think. Where is your benefit? What legal recourse do you have if the services aren't provided efficiently? What legal recourse do you have, lets say if a government doctor provided substandard care for example? Who takes the blame?

The government takes the blame for it if the doctor provides substandard care, as well as the doctor himself. My benefit is in actually having health care instead of leaving everything up to chance.

What kind of argument is this? A Congressmen won't be thrown out of office because a road isn't being fixed. Local governments via property taxes and taxes on gasoline pay for things like this. BTW CEOs can be voted out...
It was an example. If the road is large and important enough, and nothing is being done about it's repair you can bet that a challenger to that persons seat will appear. BTW, there are State Senates. CEOs can be voted out by shareholders in the company or people on the board, not the general population.

Your representative doesn't care about you. Your representative tells you what you want to hear in exchange for your vote, when he gets this vote and wins, he ends up in Washington D.C. He gets rich by being paid by these lobbyists.

If he doesn't do what the "people" want, then you can vote them out, right? Then you will have another stooge who will do the same exact thing the other guys did. You think politicians care about their constituents? You think they care about rising gasoline prices? No, they have their own gas station at the capital building and they get gas for FREE.

Big business can't survive without political favors. Big business hates the Free Market. Why? Because the Free Market enables them to FAIL. Big business pays off Washington to maintain Monopolies over various industries. Why do you think the Federal Reserve was created?

Really now? Lets say you own a small business, what's your incentive to stay in business? To make money, to provide for your family. You think Bill Gates or Steve Jobs created their products because they "care" about people? Hell nah, they made their products to make a PROFIT. Yeah, that evil, evil, word PROFIT. What was the unintended consequence? Billions of people are now benefiting from these two men.



And neither would the CEO of a large corporation. I agree wholeheartedly that a number of representatives in our Congress say things to get reelected and do another when they are. Them getting rich because of lobbyists is the issue that needs to be dealt with. Senators handing out checks from a large corporation on the Senate floor while a vote is being held that directly affects that corporation is a travesty.

Do you actually think that those of a higher class care about anyone but themselves? They wouldn't ALLOW themselves to fail. They would amass so much wealth they would simply put the competition out of business, or buy them out. Big business can indeed survive without political favors, and they thrive when there is no one checking their power.

No one is saying that profit is an evil word. It is no secret that the private sector has done a great deal for humanity, however when you allow large investors to pay a 15% tax on capital gains which is less than your average American, that is ROBBERY.

Progressive taxation actually hurts the middle and lower classes. Progressive taxation enables more loopholes within the system.
Oh okay, I'll just take your word for it even though this literally makes no sense.

How about charities? How about letting private citizens pick and choose where their money goes? Why do you think that government is some how a
"moral teacher"? If I went to your house and stole your private property and redistributed it to other people, I would go to jail. So why is it ok for the government to do it?

It's none of your business what someone else makes and it isn't none of you business what they do with it.
Depending on charity to provide for the public good is ludicrous. Again, it is a governments duty to provide for its citizens. No one is stealing private property, when you enter into a society you have to understand that you have needs and so do others. The needs of the collective need to be looked out for, and this is why we have taxes. The interstate highway system you use to get to work? Yeah, that would have been built by a charity.

How? I'm still waiting to hear this.
Has a truly free market economy ever worked? Existed?

None of this happens without a Federal Reserve. Instituted by who? That's right, the government.
None of this happens without human greed. Instituted by what? That's right, human nature.

 

[shaunhillftw49]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Depending on charity to provide for the public good is ludicrous. Again, it is a governments duty to provide for its citizens. No one is stealing private property, when you enter into a society you have to understand that you have needs and so do others. The needs of the collective need to be looked out for, and this is why we have taxes. The interstate highway system you use to get to work? Yeah, that would have been built by a charity.

Outta here with that, if I want to get somewhere, I'll build my own roads.

 

[shaunhillftw49]

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Depending on charity to provide for the public good is ludicrous. Again, it is a governments duty to provide for its citizens. No one is stealing private property, when you enter into a society you have to understand that you have needs and so do others. The needs of the collective need to be looked out for, and this is why we have taxes. The interstate highway system you use to get to work? Yeah, that would have been built by a charity.

Outta here with that, if I want to get somewhere, I'll build my own roads.

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by ShaunHillFTW49

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Depending on charity to provide for the public good is ludicrous. Again, it is a governments duty to provide for its citizens. No one is stealing private property, when you enter into a society you have to understand that you have needs and so do others. The needs of the collective need to be looked out for, and this is why we have taxes. The interstate highway system you use to get to work? Yeah, that would have been built by a charity.

Outta here with that, if I want to get somewhere, I'll build my own roads.

Of course. If my boss asks why I'm late I'll simply explain that I was paving a faster route from my home to the job.

 

[callhimar]

Originally Posted by ShaunHillFTW49

Originally Posted by CallHimAR

Depending on charity to provide for the public good is ludicrous. Again, it is a governments duty to provide for its citizens. No one is stealing private property, when you enter into a society you have to understand that you have needs and so do others. The needs of the collective need to be looked out for, and this is why we have taxes. The interstate highway system you use to get to work? Yeah, that would have been built by a charity.

Outta here with that, if I want to get somewhere, I'll build my own roads.

Of course. If my boss asks why I'm late I'll simply explain that I was paving a faster route from my home to the job.

 

[rashi]

The government takes the blame for it if the doctor provides substandard care, as well as the doctor himself. My benefit is in actually having health care instead of leaving everything up to chance.

Who do you know that sued the government and won? The doctor wouldn't be liable, he's an employee of the government. The government employs the doctor that provided substandard care.

Do you actually think that those of a higher class care about anyone but themselves? They wouldn't ALLOW themselves to fail. They would amass so much wealth they would simply put the competition out of business, or buy them out. Big business can indeed survive without political favors, and they thrive when there is no one checking their power.

If their wasn't an entity like the Federal Reserve and being politically connected, do you actually think they could survive if they provided a service that nobody wanted? The only way a Big business can survive is either 1) Coercion and 2) Government. Take away government you are left with coercion, if Wal-Mart was using force to prevent people from entering a market to compete. People themselves would initiate selling products in the "black market"

at a cheaper price because Wal-Mart using force would also be charging an enormous amount for their products.

Not everyone is an Ivy League graduate, but when it comes to business people in this country aren't stupid.

No one is saying that profit is an evil word. It is no secret that the private sector has done a great deal for humanity, however when you allow large investors to pay a 15% tax on capital gains which is less than your average American, that is ROBBERY.

Who writes the laws again?

Oh okay, I'll just take your word for it even though this literally makes no sense.

Progressive taxation encourages consumption, which discourages private investment.

Has a truly free market economy ever worked? Existed?

The Free Market works, look at the times in American History when a Central Bank did not exist compared to when they did. You will see the standards of living increased exponentially and also the absence of Recessions or Depressions (unless you look at post War of 1812 and Civil War, when they were both financed by Central Banks and the country went into a quick recovery after their charted expired)

That's why you can't answer the questions I asked. A true Free Market can only exist with the eradication of the State.

 

[rashi]

The government takes the blame for it if the doctor provides substandard care, as well as the doctor himself. My benefit is in actually having health care instead of leaving everything up to chance.

Who do you know that sued the government and won? The doctor wouldn't be liable, he's an employee of the government. The government employs the doctor that provided substandard care.

Do you actually think that those of a higher class care about anyone but themselves? They wouldn't ALLOW themselves to fail. They would amass so much wealth they would simply put the competition out of business, or buy them out. Big business can indeed survive without political favors, and they thrive when there is no one checking their power.

If their wasn't an entity like the Federal Reserve and being politically connected, do you actually think they could survive if they provided a service that nobody wanted? The only way a Big business can survive is either 1) Coercion and 2) Government. Take away government you are left with coercion, if Wal-Mart was using force to prevent people from entering a market to compete. People themselves would initiate selling products in the "black market"

at a cheaper price because Wal-Mart using force would also be charging an enormous amount for their products.

Not everyone is an Ivy League graduate, but when it comes to business people in this country aren't stupid.

No one is saying that profit is an evil word. It is no secret that the private sector has done a great deal for humanity, however when you allow large investors to pay a 15% tax on capital gains which is less than your average American, that is ROBBERY.

Who writes the laws again?

Oh okay, I'll just take your word for it even though this literally makes no sense.

Progressive taxation encourages consumption, which discourages private investment.

Has a truly free market economy ever worked? Existed?

The Free Market works, look at the times in American History when a Central Bank did not exist compared to when they did. You will see the standards of living increased exponentially and also the absence of Recessions or Depressions (unless you look at post War of 1812 and Civil War, when they were both financed by Central Banks and the country went into a quick recovery after their charted expired)

That's why you can't answer the questions I asked. A true Free Market can only exist with the eradication of the State.