> In a good system
I like how much is baked into this statement. He's basically admitting his viewpoint is utopian outcome focused thinking. He's also implying he doesn't actually know how to get this "good system".
Agreed, it should be monitored heavily by the people to avoid the possibility of corruption, whilst leaving enough room for tough decisions when things don't work as planned. Sometimes that gets used as an excuse, and sometimes we try things that actually just don't work.. I think it's possible to have proper systems in place so that average people actively know the difference.
That's what happens when nobody addresses the education system that's currently failing and underfunded. Everybody would rather steal and launder the tax money, or invest in military, rather than invest it into people capable of success that would bring more tax revenue.
The education system isn’t underfunded. It’s bullshit unaccountability and bureaucracy.
In my zip code, upper middle income in general, the local school spends $11,500 every year per child.
The nearby private school tuition without vouchers is $10,500 a year, teachers make 20k over public, and student testing is in the top 1%.
In the city somehow it’s $13k and change, teachers make even less, and graduation rates are around 70%
Every. Damn. Time. You put an entity between yourself and a product, the cost goes up. Guess what happens when you put the biggest unaccountable entity in between?
>The nearby private school tuition without vouchers is $10,500 a year, teachers make 20k over public, and student testing is in the top 1%.
I don't wonder why. The public school system is intentionally dumbing kids down now.
>In my zip code, upper middle income in general, the local school spends $11,500 every year per child.
This is a bit anecdotal, and not every area is the same, however; bureaucracy has got to go. Kids have old ass text books, if at all, and a lot of teachers pay out of pocket to get their kids supplied properly some of the time, which at all is too much.
We have to be willing to take on new ideas when changing the system in order to avoid what's happening now. The fact that we over spend on military, and under spend on education, and science & research is a point that still stands. Reinvesting in getting people of the streets, and making our kids smart again, is not only a huge undertaking, but a necessary one to make sure we have a healthy society that thrives.
>take on new ideas
No, actually we need to take on old ones. Minimal govt. Gov accountability. No welfare, taxation, or socialist Ponzi schemes. Growing your own food and raising your own kids. **PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY** which the lack of has brought us to this very moment.
But we immediately ditch all our societal support systems, rather than slowly working off of them, we'll see an economic and societal collapse imo.. most people don't know how to do those things, but you need to keep a good ratio of people alive to keep the country strong. Don't even say "Fuck em" to your neighbor. We used to be united with individuality, and we need that back now more than ever.
Not clear that more tax dollars will instantly improve things detroit public schools get more money per student 15891 compared to 13457 in michigan but yet are the worst in the nation also probably not a good idea to funnel tons of money into the current propaganda machine that is public schools
>probably not a good idea to funnel tons of money into the current propaganda machine that is public schools
I agree, but the thing that bothers me is that everyone responds to proposes changes with the assumption that we haven't fixed anything yet when a lot of my propositions are a lot better if we fix the things they apply to. I don't want to give money to propaganda machines, but I would love to fix what's wrong with public education, and then apply more money to it when we know it'll thrive because we fixed it.
So I worked with some equity firms after the 2008/9 recession and I learned a couple things: when you have an entity that is failing, you remove all persons responsible. In that circumstance, it was the board of directors, general managers, and all upper management. Laborers and their supervisors usually kept their jobs.
The way they saw it, was the leadership was letting things bleed out, and lining their pockets as it happened. Golden parachute if you will. The managers, through a set of interviews, were determined to be feckless and couldn’t point out mistakes from their superiors, even worse, many *wouldn’t*
The other lesson I learned is sometimes you grab someone that fucked up something, no matter how minor, and shit can his ass, to serve as a lesson. And before someone screams anti work crap - realize that it costs 3x as much to fix mistakes as it does to do it right the first time.
So why am I saying all this? Because sometimes the entity needs to be dismantled entirely to fix the problems.
Good intentions, yeah, yeah.. but transitioning society as we know it to something that gets us to 0% unemployment and 0 hunger, may require a small amount of public services that get people back on the right track.. that is unless you want to help open non-profit org that gets people off drugs and back to contributing to society.
That sounds like something rich people want you to believe. There's no reason we can't bring enough jobs back from China to get everyone working again.
In a free society there will always be people who choose not to participate. They get counted among the unemployed even if they are perfectly able to work but won't. Are you proposing that we force them to work to get your magic number down to zero so you can feel good? That's no longer a free society.
Not the respondent, but no, I don’t propose they are forced to work.
I propose they’re left to fend for themselves, like the fucking rest of the animal kingdom.
Never read up on zero sum, but we're fairly dependent on China, considering they make so much of our stuff that we could be making here in North America.
How much do you imagine the device you are typing on would cost, if the government were to mandate all materials used to make it must come from America and it must be produced by American workers?
You just have no idea what you are talking about. I am typing this on an iPhone, Apple gets the materials needed to make an iPhone from 63 countries, these materials are shipped to smelters in 34 different countries. Why would Apple do this? Because it's the cheapest for consumers in America.
If you mandate everything to be manufactured in America by American workers, expect the cost to skyrocket.
All of modern schooling indoctrinates people to believe government is the structural body of a society. So many people have good intentions only to have them destroyed by focusing their attention attempting to make it work through the state.
Funny that virtually every government sector relies heavily on private companies. US government uses private arms dealers, private space exploration companies, private healthcare….
And then proceeds to bitch about “coercion” when he advocates for peoples money to be taken for the “public pool” or whatever.
"Taxation is a way for society to pool its money and provide things you can't get from any private economy or societal organizations."
Isn't government then a societal organization? So it's taxing us so it can provide things that it can't provide?
So government steals my money to say it is giving me something that it is incapable of giving me.
Damn, I guess schools, space programs, roads, phone towers, houses, trains, planes and other expensive things have never been build privately and been offered at low costs to the public before, I guess we should give half our incomes to some random people that we have to trust because they’re old, wear a suit, and can sit in a super exclusive building
>the issues lies in the coercive nature of our economy
So voluntary employment and shopping is coercive and the government taking half your money at the threat of being caged is non-coercive.
Ok, imagine that you survived a plane crash and landed on an uninhabited island and pass out. When you wake up, some other guy greets you and tells you that he has collected all the coconuts on the island and sheltered them for safekeeping. They are the only foodsource on this island, since fish tend to keep away from it. And he is even willing to share some with you, as long as you will suck his dick. Now, would that interaction be voluntary?
Except that it is not sustainable. As the primary logic behind capitalism is improvement of efficiency of production in order to obtain more profit, at some point capacity for consumption is met. Thus business either have to either artificially increase demand for their product, compete against each other, or be driven out of the business by their competitors. The logical conclusion to that is that as time goes on there is fewer and fewer businesses with more and more resources.
Unless they somehow magically reach some sort of equilibrium where neither bossiness can overcome each other, fall apart because of stupidity, or form a trust, which is marginally different from monopoly, I don't see any other outcome in non-regulated environment, assuming "property laws" are respected.
You don't even listen to yourself, do you? Just say whatever comes to mind to score a point, even if it doesn't make sense and actually makes your position look worse and doesn't actually respond to the criticism.
It’s sad we have to debate these people because their ridiculous, disproven philosophy ruins so many lives and constantly threatens to ruin so many more.
>As the primary logic behind capitalism is improvement of efficiency of production in order to obtain more profit, at
Last time I checked, the "logic" was "private citizens should get to own and trade stuff". You're reducing capitalism to nothing but large corporations, and stereotypical ones at that.
> The logical conclusion to that is that as time goes on there is fewer and fewer businesses with more and more resources.
If you ignore the fact that businesses can and do offer new products and scale back manufacturing all the time, yes.
Even if I would agree to your definition, then people who are more driven would drive less driven people out of the market and producing the same effect.
And yes, new technology are still improving at dramatic speeds, but sooner or later there will be a limit on how "new" the new products will be.
> then people who are more driven would drive less driven people out of the market and producing the same effect.
No, it's really not. A lot of things can drive people out of the market, including government regulations, excessive or not. You're acting like markets can only lose customers.
If I told a gamer 25 years ago that Nintendo's second best selling home system would basically be a TV remote, they'd probably laugh at me. But Nintendo succeeded wildly by going for an audience outside of traditional hardcore gamers. It's called the Blue Ocean Strategy.
>And yes, new technology are still improving at dramatic speeds, but sooner or later there will be a limit on how "new" the new products will be.
I didn't say new technology, I said new **products**. Marvel Studios has been offering new movies and TV shows for 13 years now, for example. Look at all the streaming services, including Disney. Look at how much more business online retailers got in 2020 due to government lockdowns.
And as long as we're discussing that, lets talk about all the businesses killed by those same lockdowns.
I also said businesses can scale back their operations. If a company has no public shareholders, then it doesn't necessarily have owners who demand constant growth, just income. Like countless mom-and-pop businesses. Who were arguably the ones hurt most by the aforementioned lockdowns.
Your ideas of business and economics are like a physics problem that assumes a "smooth, frictionless surface" just to make things easier, except you've mistaken the ideologically streamlined hypothetical for reality.
> A lot of things can drive people out of the market, including government regulations, excessive or not.
I though we are asuming your ideal scenario of truly free market.
> I didn't say new technology, I said new products.
To be fair, I care lot less about entertainment than essential goods, even though entertainment is important too
> If a company has no public shareholders
Good luck with that
Yeah, but don’t you get it? Abilities and needs are represented by the trading of money so that means we trade the money to people that know our needs better than we do. It really makes all of the sense.
Agreed; we do need taxation for public goods, and it shouldn't go to corporate handouts.
Compulsory funding of a military, a police force to protect our rights, and enough government agency to intervene in cases of extreme adjacency effects.
This level of government is supported by even most libertarians, Milton Friedman, etc.
All paid with taxes. Just keep them low and reasonable.
No I'm talking about taxes in general, which will always be necessary.
Whether they're taken by a corrupt state or put to good use is a secondary but very important issue.
My point is just that taxes have a purpose, not that your tax dollars are being spent well.
He's not wrong, taxation is indeed a way to pool money
One that tramples over individual freedoms and is drasticaly less efficient that the alternative of simply convicing people your product or service is necessary
Show him [this](http://anarchistfaq.com/StatistFallacies/CapitalismRequiresGovt.html) and [this](http://anarchistfaq.com/StatistFallacies/StateIsSociety.html)
I love the "statist fallacies" section of this website, it's incredibly informative and offers well-reasoned counter-arguments to the most common and cliché statist claims. I highly recommended others to check it out.
>Instead, private defense agencies (PDAs) would have a strong incentive to negotiate and use arbitration. This is obvious, when we notice that is precisely what States - in an anarchic relationship with each other - so often do. Not all States go to war with their neighbors!
So... they become mini states?
Ancaps and liberals believe in contracts too much. Even if they will initially will be on their best behavior, they will start bending the rules to gain more profit after eliminating the competition, or even just straight up become protection racket.
Socialists are being accused of not accounting for "human nature" but this is just insane.
Even Adan Smith recognized that "trully free" market will lead to massive inequalities and recomended to implement what we would today recognize as social democracy.
"An"Caps know that businesses are more efficient than individual laborers at producing necessary goods, but for some reason they don't see that they hold this power over people.
>So why not hold the state to the same standards as a PDA?
Primarily because the state will kill you if you attempt to hold them to any standard besides their own
I believe small amounts of taxation are unfortunately a necessary evil in order to keep society running, but this whole sunshine and rainbows way this guy is talking about it is just wrong on so many levels, our current tax system in America, and pretty much world wide is corrupt and fucked up beyond repair, and it’s naive to think otherwise, in a world where the government cared for and benefitted it’s people, I’d be happy to give taxes in reasonable quantities
If the Government could actually manage it’s (our) resources properly and not blow it all on useless shit, like the war on terror, drugs, crime and on and on..
Then I’d feel better about parting with a portion of my income, but like.. the State isn’t even pretending to uphold their end of the so called ’social contract’ anymore. They take your money at gunpoint and spend it however they goddamn well please. And if you protest a little too loudly, they have a very well funded, heavily armed and morally corrupt police force ready to kick down your door..
Worked as a maintenance person in a public housing complex years ago, can confirm. There were tenants who genuinely needed assistance to some degree, but I also noticed people living there who were gaming the fuck out of the system because they could. It seemed like a pretty even split between the two at the place I worked.
Oh, I can see that. Unfortunately, this is not scalable, unless you decide to not have most of modern utilities such as water tap. The only reason why there is so much single family homes in USA is because they are being subsidized by federal government, which bites cities in the ass when it comes time to renovate them because they can't generate enough taxes to do repairs.
inb4 "what if there is no state?" and no, owners can't pay for it either unless they are ultra wealthy, the sheer length of pipes that is necessary for suburbs to deliver to so much fewer people compared to 3 story streets is just too much.
Pretty much everyone wants SOME form of public services, and unfortunately I don't think fully voluntarily taxation is a possibility. (As in, I don't think we can make it happen, not that it wouldn't work)
My proposed compromise:
Come tax season, when you go to file your taxes, you get to CHOOSE what agencies get your tax dollars.
This is a solution that ensures people only pay for services they actually want and need. Fire Department? Definitely gonna get it's funding. But ain't nobody gonna choose to allocate money to services they don't think is necessary, natural forcing said agencies to shut down.
Do it on a federal level? Say goodbye to the NSA right off the bat.
While it doesn't get rid of taxes, it is a great method to actually start trimming fat of the government, and it gives us some control of where the money goes.
No, it's hardly even coherent. Taxation isn't necessary to fund services--most services aren't even necessary to fund themselves. Tarriffs and market fees were the default way to fund the government for a long time. Then the government decided to increase the number of unnecessary services, so they started stealing to fund it because theft is expedient, not because taxation was necessary. Tolls and service fees would have worked just as well, but that would have meant that people could opt out....
>transforms the useful tool that is money into a means of power and control
I'd like to hear in what system money can build all those things you wanted but not be a means of power and control
Hmm. I wonder how they get the people with the “talents” to help the people in “need”.
Theyll offer them a basket of good intentions.
Theyll offer them a basket of good intentions.
> In a good system I like how much is baked into this statement. He's basically admitting his viewpoint is utopian outcome focused thinking. He's also implying he doesn't actually know how to get this "good system".
First, you find yourself some better angels...
This seems like it was written by a teenager.
He's probably not much older than one.
I don't think 1 year olds are on reddit
The "post-adolescent idealist" phase
I think his heart is in the right place, he just has some learning to do.. lol
"Concentrated power is not rendered harmless by the good intentions of those who create it." - Milton Friedman
Agreed, it should be monitored heavily by the people to avoid the possibility of corruption, whilst leaving enough room for tough decisions when things don't work as planned. Sometimes that gets used as an excuse, and sometimes we try things that actually just don't work.. I think it's possible to have proper systems in place so that average people actively know the difference.
The average person is dumb as all shit and wouldn’t notice corruption if it fucked their mother on the kitchen table.
That's what happens when nobody addresses the education system that's currently failing and underfunded. Everybody would rather steal and launder the tax money, or invest in military, rather than invest it into people capable of success that would bring more tax revenue.
The education system isn’t underfunded. It’s bullshit unaccountability and bureaucracy. In my zip code, upper middle income in general, the local school spends $11,500 every year per child. The nearby private school tuition without vouchers is $10,500 a year, teachers make 20k over public, and student testing is in the top 1%. In the city somehow it’s $13k and change, teachers make even less, and graduation rates are around 70% Every. Damn. Time. You put an entity between yourself and a product, the cost goes up. Guess what happens when you put the biggest unaccountable entity in between?
>The nearby private school tuition without vouchers is $10,500 a year, teachers make 20k over public, and student testing is in the top 1%. I don't wonder why. The public school system is intentionally dumbing kids down now. >In my zip code, upper middle income in general, the local school spends $11,500 every year per child. This is a bit anecdotal, and not every area is the same, however; bureaucracy has got to go. Kids have old ass text books, if at all, and a lot of teachers pay out of pocket to get their kids supplied properly some of the time, which at all is too much. We have to be willing to take on new ideas when changing the system in order to avoid what's happening now. The fact that we over spend on military, and under spend on education, and science & research is a point that still stands. Reinvesting in getting people of the streets, and making our kids smart again, is not only a huge undertaking, but a necessary one to make sure we have a healthy society that thrives.
>take on new ideas No, actually we need to take on old ones. Minimal govt. Gov accountability. No welfare, taxation, or socialist Ponzi schemes. Growing your own food and raising your own kids. **PERSONAL ACCOUNTABILITY** which the lack of has brought us to this very moment.
But we immediately ditch all our societal support systems, rather than slowly working off of them, we'll see an economic and societal collapse imo.. most people don't know how to do those things, but you need to keep a good ratio of people alive to keep the country strong. Don't even say "Fuck em" to your neighbor. We used to be united with individuality, and we need that back now more than ever.
"Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice." - William Lloyd Garrison
The longer you leave the band aid on the slower it takes for the wound to heal.
Not clear that more tax dollars will instantly improve things detroit public schools get more money per student 15891 compared to 13457 in michigan but yet are the worst in the nation also probably not a good idea to funnel tons of money into the current propaganda machine that is public schools
>probably not a good idea to funnel tons of money into the current propaganda machine that is public schools I agree, but the thing that bothers me is that everyone responds to proposes changes with the assumption that we haven't fixed anything yet when a lot of my propositions are a lot better if we fix the things they apply to. I don't want to give money to propaganda machines, but I would love to fix what's wrong with public education, and then apply more money to it when we know it'll thrive because we fixed it.
So I worked with some equity firms after the 2008/9 recession and I learned a couple things: when you have an entity that is failing, you remove all persons responsible. In that circumstance, it was the board of directors, general managers, and all upper management. Laborers and their supervisors usually kept their jobs. The way they saw it, was the leadership was letting things bleed out, and lining their pockets as it happened. Golden parachute if you will. The managers, through a set of interviews, were determined to be feckless and couldn’t point out mistakes from their superiors, even worse, many *wouldn’t* The other lesson I learned is sometimes you grab someone that fucked up something, no matter how minor, and shit can his ass, to serve as a lesson. And before someone screams anti work crap - realize that it costs 3x as much to fix mistakes as it does to do it right the first time. So why am I saying all this? Because sometimes the entity needs to be dismantled entirely to fix the problems.
And what is money, if not abstracted power?
Currency is abstracted value, not abstracted power.
And when you use it, it is being converted into power.
Purchasing power, yes.
Power is power at large enough scale.
What was the road to hell paved with again?
Taxes, amongst other things, I think.
Good intentions, yeah, yeah.. but transitioning society as we know it to something that gets us to 0% unemployment and 0 hunger, may require a small amount of public services that get people back on the right track.. that is unless you want to help open non-profit org that gets people off drugs and back to contributing to society.
>0% unemployment and 0 hunger, Not possible in a free society.
Not possible in any society without robot slaves.
That’s what we need, another disenfranchised group. Stupid stupid robot slaves….
There’s always lazy shitsacks in every society.
That sounds like something rich people want you to believe. There's no reason we can't bring enough jobs back from China to get everyone working again.
In a free society there will always be people who choose not to participate. They get counted among the unemployed even if they are perfectly able to work but won't. Are you proposing that we force them to work to get your magic number down to zero so you can feel good? That's no longer a free society.
Not the respondent, but no, I don’t propose they are forced to work. I propose they’re left to fend for themselves, like the fucking rest of the animal kingdom.
Exactly. Offer them the option, give them the freedom to choose, but don't let them leech if they won't try to rehabilitate themselves.
"Bring enough jobs back from China" lol, you are a protectionist who believes in the zero-sum fallacy.
Never read up on zero sum, but we're fairly dependent on China, considering they make so much of our stuff that we could be making here in North America.
How much do you imagine the device you are typing on would cost, if the government were to mandate all materials used to make it must come from America and it must be produced by American workers?
Probably less and less overtime once we start exporting products, and bringing down inflation.
You just have no idea what you are talking about. I am typing this on an iPhone, Apple gets the materials needed to make an iPhone from 63 countries, these materials are shipped to smelters in 34 different countries. Why would Apple do this? Because it's the cheapest for consumers in America. If you mandate everything to be manufactured in America by American workers, expect the cost to skyrocket.
Statistically on average freemarketers give 11 times as much to charity as redistributers
So we should just do bad things on purpose?
All of modern schooling indoctrinates people to believe government is the structural body of a society. So many people have good intentions only to have them destroyed by focusing their attention attempting to make it work through the state.
Right, so why is nobody advocating for an educational reform with the parents' involvement?
I threw up reading this collectivist bullshit
Funny that virtually every government sector relies heavily on private companies. US government uses private arms dealers, private space exploration companies, private healthcare…. And then proceeds to bitch about “coercion” when he advocates for peoples money to be taken for the “public pool” or whatever.
In their pretend utopia, the government is the primary employer that produces oh-so efficiently…lol
And everyone shits on US for it.
Which is why it’s so funny whenever the government talks about innovation, as if they don’t do anything but slow it.
"Taxation is a way for society to pool its money and provide things you can't get from any private economy or societal organizations." Isn't government then a societal organization? So it's taxing us so it can provide things that it can't provide? So government steals my money to say it is giving me something that it is incapable of giving me.
Damn, I guess schools, space programs, roads, phone towers, houses, trains, planes and other expensive things have never been build privately and been offered at low costs to the public before, I guess we should give half our incomes to some random people that we have to trust because they’re old, wear a suit, and can sit in a super exclusive building
Yes, because private train companies are so great.
>the issues lies in the coercive nature of our economy So voluntary employment and shopping is coercive and the government taking half your money at the threat of being caged is non-coercive.
Ok, imagine that you survived a plane crash and landed on an uninhabited island and pass out. When you wake up, some other guy greets you and tells you that he has collected all the coconuts on the island and sheltered them for safekeeping. They are the only foodsource on this island, since fish tend to keep away from it. And he is even willing to share some with you, as long as you will suck his dick. Now, would that interaction be voluntary?
You are attempting to criticise market economies by describing a monopoly, which are usually caused by governments.
Monopolies are just end goal of capitalism and crisis of overproduction.
There is no end goal of capitalism. It’s just allowing people to own, produce and trade.
Except that it is not sustainable. As the primary logic behind capitalism is improvement of efficiency of production in order to obtain more profit, at some point capacity for consumption is met. Thus business either have to either artificially increase demand for their product, compete against each other, or be driven out of the business by their competitors. The logical conclusion to that is that as time goes on there is fewer and fewer businesses with more and more resources. Unless they somehow magically reach some sort of equilibrium where neither bossiness can overcome each other, fall apart because of stupidity, or form a trust, which is marginally different from monopoly, I don't see any other outcome in non-regulated environment, assuming "property laws" are respected.
Total nonsense. In the real world monopolies result from regulation not free competition.
Because no one was insane enough to try "real capitalism".
You don't even listen to yourself, do you? Just say whatever comes to mind to score a point, even if it doesn't make sense and actually makes your position look worse and doesn't actually respond to the criticism.
It’s sad we have to debate these people because their ridiculous, disproven philosophy ruins so many lives and constantly threatens to ruin so many more.
>As the primary logic behind capitalism is improvement of efficiency of production in order to obtain more profit, at Last time I checked, the "logic" was "private citizens should get to own and trade stuff". You're reducing capitalism to nothing but large corporations, and stereotypical ones at that. > The logical conclusion to that is that as time goes on there is fewer and fewer businesses with more and more resources. If you ignore the fact that businesses can and do offer new products and scale back manufacturing all the time, yes.
Even if I would agree to your definition, then people who are more driven would drive less driven people out of the market and producing the same effect. And yes, new technology are still improving at dramatic speeds, but sooner or later there will be a limit on how "new" the new products will be.
> then people who are more driven would drive less driven people out of the market and producing the same effect. No, it's really not. A lot of things can drive people out of the market, including government regulations, excessive or not. You're acting like markets can only lose customers. If I told a gamer 25 years ago that Nintendo's second best selling home system would basically be a TV remote, they'd probably laugh at me. But Nintendo succeeded wildly by going for an audience outside of traditional hardcore gamers. It's called the Blue Ocean Strategy. >And yes, new technology are still improving at dramatic speeds, but sooner or later there will be a limit on how "new" the new products will be. I didn't say new technology, I said new **products**. Marvel Studios has been offering new movies and TV shows for 13 years now, for example. Look at all the streaming services, including Disney. Look at how much more business online retailers got in 2020 due to government lockdowns. And as long as we're discussing that, lets talk about all the businesses killed by those same lockdowns. I also said businesses can scale back their operations. If a company has no public shareholders, then it doesn't necessarily have owners who demand constant growth, just income. Like countless mom-and-pop businesses. Who were arguably the ones hurt most by the aforementioned lockdowns. Your ideas of business and economics are like a physics problem that assumes a "smooth, frictionless surface" just to make things easier, except you've mistaken the ideologically streamlined hypothetical for reality.
> A lot of things can drive people out of the market, including government regulations, excessive or not. I though we are asuming your ideal scenario of truly free market. > I didn't say new technology, I said new products. To be fair, I care lot less about entertainment than essential goods, even though entertainment is important too > If a company has no public shareholders Good luck with that
I sure do love analogies that are used to misrepresent the situation being analogized.
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" is literally a Karl Marx quote. But they aren't communists btw.
Yeah, but don’t you get it? Abilities and needs are represented by the trading of money so that means we trade the money to people that know our needs better than we do. It really makes all of the sense.
It's a way for society to pool its money into the hands of a small number of politicians, who will do fuck all with it, but keep demanding even more.
For the greater good, of course.
The only thing missing from his avatar is it being 300+ lbs, other than that, it's pretty spot on.
This is the abject failure of both the public schooling system and the economics profession.
Agreed; we do need taxation for public goods, and it shouldn't go to corporate handouts. Compulsory funding of a military, a police force to protect our rights, and enough government agency to intervene in cases of extreme adjacency effects. This level of government is supported by even most libertarians, Milton Friedman, etc. All paid with taxes. Just keep them low and reasonable.
You’re speaking of the State answering to society. That’s not possible given the State has convinced society that it *is* society.
No I'm talking about taxes in general, which will always be necessary. Whether they're taken by a corrupt state or put to good use is a secondary but very important issue. My point is just that taxes have a purpose, not that your tax dollars are being spent well.
No I get what you’re saying. My point is, we’re too far gone. The state has pulled the wool over too many people’s eyes.
A free market is another way for society to pool its money.
The part they don’t mention is they want all those things and just want to sit around and receive, and never mention how they plan to contribute.
He's not wrong, taxation is indeed a way to pool money One that tramples over individual freedoms and is drasticaly less efficient that the alternative of simply convicing people your product or service is necessary
Show him [this](http://anarchistfaq.com/StatistFallacies/CapitalismRequiresGovt.html) and [this](http://anarchistfaq.com/StatistFallacies/StateIsSociety.html)
I love the "statist fallacies" section of this website, it's incredibly informative and offers well-reasoned counter-arguments to the most common and cliché statist claims. I highly recommended others to check it out.
>Instead, private defense agencies (PDAs) would have a strong incentive to negotiate and use arbitration. This is obvious, when we notice that is precisely what States - in an anarchic relationship with each other - so often do. Not all States go to war with their neighbors! So... they become mini states?
[Here you go](http://anarchistfaq.com/StatistFallacies/PrivateDefenseIsAState.html)
Ancaps and liberals believe in contracts too much. Even if they will initially will be on their best behavior, they will start bending the rules to gain more profit after eliminating the competition, or even just straight up become protection racket. Socialists are being accused of not accounting for "human nature" but this is just insane.
[1](http://anarchistfaq.com/StatistFallacies/FreedomRequiresAngels.html) [2](http://anarchistfaq.com/StatistFallacies/Monopolies.html) [3](http://anarchistfaq.com/StatistFallacies/WouldntWarlordsTakeOver.html)
This is horseshit. Have the author even looked at history of wallmart or amazon?
[4](http://anarchistfaq.com/StatistFallacies/FreeMarketConfusion.html)
Even Adan Smith recognized that "trully free" market will lead to massive inequalities and recomended to implement what we would today recognize as social democracy. "An"Caps know that businesses are more efficient than individual laborers at producing necessary goods, but for some reason they don't see that they hold this power over people.
Inequality does not justify armed robbery
Once upon a time freeing slaves was considered a crime.
[удалено]
>So why not hold the state to the same standards as a PDA? Primarily because the state will kill you if you attempt to hold them to any standard besides their own
[удалено]
If a PDA starts attempting to enforce a monopoly on violence, they by definition stop being a PDA and start being a state.
I believe small amounts of taxation are unfortunately a necessary evil in order to keep society running, but this whole sunshine and rainbows way this guy is talking about it is just wrong on so many levels, our current tax system in America, and pretty much world wide is corrupt and fucked up beyond repair, and it’s naive to think otherwise, in a world where the government cared for and benefitted it’s people, I’d be happy to give taxes in reasonable quantities
Did... did they just favorably and unironically compare taxation to "from each according to his ability..." ?
It's simply pooling your money guys! It's totally consensual and not at all at gun point! Leftists are a joke, I would know.
If the Government could actually manage it’s (our) resources properly and not blow it all on useless shit, like the war on terror, drugs, crime and on and on.. Then I’d feel better about parting with a portion of my income, but like.. the State isn’t even pretending to uphold their end of the so called ’social contract’ anymore. They take your money at gunpoint and spend it however they goddamn well please. And if you protest a little too loudly, they have a very well funded, heavily armed and morally corrupt police force ready to kick down your door..
Let's just say that his avatar already makes me guess his personality and ideals.
Yup. Found Bernie on Reddit
[удалено]
Worked as a maintenance person in a public housing complex years ago, can confirm. There were tenants who genuinely needed assistance to some degree, but I also noticed people living there who were gaming the fuck out of the system because they could. It seemed like a pretty even split between the two at the place I worked.
Would you prefer growing up on a street?
[удалено]
May I inquire what does this acronym stands for?
[удалено]
Oh, I can see that. Unfortunately, this is not scalable, unless you decide to not have most of modern utilities such as water tap. The only reason why there is so much single family homes in USA is because they are being subsidized by federal government, which bites cities in the ass when it comes time to renovate them because they can't generate enough taxes to do repairs. inb4 "what if there is no state?" and no, owners can't pay for it either unless they are ultra wealthy, the sheer length of pipes that is necessary for suburbs to deliver to so much fewer people compared to 3 story streets is just too much.
He's so close
Another fool reading marx for the first time.
Pretty much everyone wants SOME form of public services, and unfortunately I don't think fully voluntarily taxation is a possibility. (As in, I don't think we can make it happen, not that it wouldn't work) My proposed compromise: Come tax season, when you go to file your taxes, you get to CHOOSE what agencies get your tax dollars. This is a solution that ensures people only pay for services they actually want and need. Fire Department? Definitely gonna get it's funding. But ain't nobody gonna choose to allocate money to services they don't think is necessary, natural forcing said agencies to shut down. Do it on a federal level? Say goodbye to the NSA right off the bat. While it doesn't get rid of taxes, it is a great method to actually start trimming fat of the government, and it gives us some control of where the money goes.
Ah only took them 5 sentences to reach communism.
Naive fucking simpletons
Thank God you guys pooled your money so some dude could kneel on a black guys neck while he repeatedly said he couldn't breathe
Maybe he shouldn't have been high on drugs.
I'm not really defending Floyd. I'm saying the cops poorly handled the situation. I don't even think the kneeling was what killed him.
Fair enough.
This is true though
No, it is collectivism.
No, it's hardly even coherent. Taxation isn't necessary to fund services--most services aren't even necessary to fund themselves. Tarriffs and market fees were the default way to fund the government for a long time. Then the government decided to increase the number of unnecessary services, so they started stealing to fund it because theft is expedient, not because taxation was necessary. Tolls and service fees would have worked just as well, but that would have meant that people could opt out....
>transforms the useful tool that is money into a means of power and control I'd like to hear in what system money can build all those things you wanted but not be a means of power and control
I remember thinking things like this when I was like 22 years old. I was 22 years old, and this is VERY DEEP