Let's Ban Profits!

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Michael, Sep 6, 2012.

  1. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    I don't see a line that divides 'social' issues from 'economic' issues. They are the exact same thing IMO. Economy goes together with society like hand in glove.

    Therefor, when I think we should have the freedom to interact with whoever we please, however we please and that we have total control over our bodies - and as long as we are not using for force against someone - that goes for interaction where a currency is exchanged. I fail to see why just because money changes hands all of a sudden we need to report to our betters - a bunch of useless bureaucratic nobs. As a matter of fact - we don't!
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,428
    but libertarians love the use of force. you all loving cramming your ideology onto to others.


    and if you can manage to perfectly equate social issues like gay marriage and woman's rights with economic like the regulation of pollution and the taxation you have some pretty fucked up hoops your thought patterns jump through.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    No we don't. It's just that you see Libertarians defending themselves (and they only do so intellectually - it's not Libertarians who are going to send the police to your house) against your thievery (example: Income Tax) and see their defense against YOUR use of State Force - as force.

    Why?

    It's because you hear words like "For the Glory of the Gods" or "The Good of the Nation" or "We're American" and this somehow convinces you (and most others) that taking from other people by force is not stealing BECAUSE it's for the ... the Glory of the Gods and Good of the Nation. As if as soon as we invent concepts like Gods and Nations this somehow makes stealing OK.

    Well, take a look out the window. Is it working? Is stealing bringing prosperity to the USA? I don't think so. So why not try NOT stealing and see how THAT works out?

    IMO part of the process to being free is regaining our monetary freedom. IOWs currency competition. See, you're going to hear a LOT about taxing this person or that person, but the truth that is NEVER going to be discussed "money" and your forced use of USD. See how that slight of hand works? You will be all wound up about who has "our" money. What the truth is we have all the money we need. It only exists in our mind

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Isn't it interesting 12 years of State run "Education" and the topic of money, perhaps one of the most important topics for daily living, is NEVER discussed. I find that interesting.



    I was watching the Cobert Report the other day and a House Representative was being interviewed and asked what she would do if she was in the 1890s. Which was all very funny. But, what was interesting is her insistence that "We're (Americans) the best workers you could ask for". I find that so sad. That the best we can hope for is to be a cog in someone's machine. THAT is what we're teaching children. Not to be the owner. But to be the worker.
     
    Last edited: Sep 9, 2012
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,428
    no libertarians just view their uses of force as justified that doesn't change the fact that they are initians of force
     
  8. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Libertarian economic philosophy centers around NOT initiating force and instead supports finding ways to facilitate the voluntary interaction and trade between free people.
     
  9. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910
    You cannot even explain what you mean by "force" in any meaningful way Michael. Just like you cannot define what you mean by “big government”. Instead you keep drawing arbitrary lines that shift as frequently as the desert sands in a wind storm. You have this nebulous concept of morality of which you have yet to offer a cogent explanation in sufficient detail so as to merit serious consideration.

    And you still have failed to address the question as to why those corporatists that you like to complain about are the chief financiers of your Libertarian Party.
     
  10. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,428
    it claims that but its all about "retalitory force"( usually an initiation force against something they dislike)
     
  11. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    From: A Few Preliminary Definitions by Sam Wells

    "Coercion" (or "violent force") is an act by a human or humans against the will or without the permission of another human being with respect to that which is his own (his own person or property). It means for someone to take, use, meddle with or otherwise do something to the body or property of another human being without the permission or against the will of that other human being. This includes fraud and embezzlement and other indirect uses of force as well as direct physical violence.

    If someone does something to the body or property of someone else without their permission or against their will, that is what we mean by coercion, coercive force, or violence in this context. There are two kinds of coercion: initiatory coercion (the use of coercive force against someone who has not committed a coercive act against anyone) and retaliatory coercion (the use of coercive force in retaliation against someone who has initiated the use of coercion against someone). It is the initiation of the use of coercion that all libertarians oppose on principle since it is the violation of the self-ownership or property rights of innocent human beings (those who have not initiated the use of violence against anyone). Most libertarians favor the proper and righteous use of coercive force, according to rules of due process, against criminals, those who have been convicted of violating the rights of someone by initiatory coercion.

    A voluntary relationship is a human relationship in which the wills of all the participants coincide (agree) with respect to the terms of the relationship. A voluntary relationship does not (necessarily) mean one in which a person "volunteers" in the sense of performing some work for no material compensation (such as donating ones time and energies to working for a charity or on civic activities). It includes any mutually agreed-upon exchange (such as working as an employee for a company in exchange for a salary or wages.) Libertarians oppose any coercive interference -- either by government or by criminals -- with such voluntary exchanges. This is why libertarians oppose government controls on prices, wages, rents, and interest rates -- since such controls represent coercive interference with the terms of voluntary exchanges and relationships.

    The Libertarian Party? You're kidding me Joe. The Libertarian Party is so insignificant as to be pretty much meaningless in American politics.

    0 seats in the Senate
    0 seats in the House
    0 Governorships
    0 State Upper House seats
    1 State Lower House seat



    In terms of total Corporate campaign contributions, who receives more? The Democratic POTUS Candidate this year...... or every single Libertarian political candadite for the entire history of the Libertarian Party in the USA added together?

    Which Political Party received more Corporate Donations Joe? The Libertarian Party OR the Democratic Party?


    My problem is with businesses being Corporations legally. I have no problem with businesses, I have a problem with the legal entity that is a Corporation.
     
  12. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Care to give an example?

    The Libertarian philosophy is :YES, you can defend yourself against physical attack, IOWs they're not pacifists; NO, you can not initiate force as that would be immoral. This is why both of the BIG entrenched political racketeers/"parties" HATE Libertarian philosophy - because it means: no more made up WARs against innocent civilians to support the millitary industrial complex by attacking people who live in other 'Nations', no more income tax to bribe the electorate, no more selling off children's future productivity, no more inflationary policy, no more money by fiat backstopped through State force by our future labor - no more treating Citizens like cattle to be led around by the nose and milked.

    That's not force, the exact opposite of force.


    Of course, not getting to steal is difficult when you're so used to making a living by thievery. Once theivery bvecomes the norm, yeah, it probably seems like force is being initiated.... no, that's actually the victim defending themselves. It's like a thief being shocked that one day a would be victim legally stops him and takes away his knife. *gasp* says the robber - shocked he didn't get his free money. Suddenly the thief thinks (like a child) it's not 'fair'!! YOU stopped me from taking your money! How am I going to eat if I can't take your money!?!

    Yeah, I imagine from the hungry thieves point of view, being 'forced to do an honest day's work' seems unfair. It's not unfair. I bet when the White cotton plantation owners lost their free labor, they didn't think having to pay or pick their own cotton was fair either. That's the nature of the thief. They can't help but justify their theivery. Hence the phrase: For the Glory of God and the Good of Nation. That's one of the main reasons humans invented Gods and Nations!
     
  13. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Asked and answered many times in the past. But the main fundamental difference is the Austrian "economics" is not a scientific "theory" at all. It starts out by pointedly rejecting the scientific method, and asserting a faith-based ideological exercise in its place.

    Neither, really. Policy doesn't work as some kind of team sport wherein one is always applying exactly one or another theory in some faithful, representative way.

    What happens is that there are a variety of theories (and ideologies, like Austrian "economics") out there, which have varying degrees of influence on various policy-makers at various times, and which weigh on their thinking when they confront specific policy decisions.

    When you so determinedly, persistently make threads all about your personal failings and inability to substantively discuss any particular topic, that is the inevitable result and you are in no position to complain.

    Pointing out that it is on your to demonstrate that you actually grasp these concepts you like to throw around is not an "excuse." You are the one looking to make excuses for your ignorance by shifting the onus onto me to educate you. But, educating you isn't my responsibility. I just want you to stop your energetic campaign to pollute this board with nonsense idiocy.

    Right wing politics values private property over communal interest, and likewise the maintenance of social hierarchy and state violence to protect private property. Libertarianism of your persuasion is the type example of right wing politics.

    The fact that you might disagree with the Evangelical bent of the GOP's social platform has nothing to do with the right-left spectrum. Those guys are just used as useful idiots to turn out the vote in election years anyway - the real GOP platform is all about economic issues. And your incoherent rants about monetary policy and banks would fit right into any given tea party event.

    That might be true of real libertarians writ large, but - like most American "libertarians" - you're simply a propertarian and there is nothing unambiguous about the hard-right orientation of that ideology. Indeed, the only reason you even seem to resist the "right wing" label is a total misunderstanding on your part as to what it even implies, along with some desire to be seen as "independent" or "unbiased" (those likewise being tell-tale signs of standard GOP concern trolling).
     
  14. Carcano Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,865
    This is an advantage for the Austrian school...seeing as economics itself is not a science.

    The words 'social' and 'political' dont belong anywhere near the word 'science'.



    And aren't we glad...that the state does show up to apply violence to the perpetrators. when our property is being violated.

    Would you have it any other way?

    Even in socialist Scandinavia they still have police and property rights.

    Many forms of hierarchy are very beneficial...you wouldnt want students voting for teachers, any more than soldiers voting for generals.
     
  15. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Yes it is.

    So anthropology, linguistics, psychology, sociology and history are not sciences either?

    The problem with propertarianism is not that property rights should be done away with, but that they are not the whole of socioeconomics or governance and the pretense that they are simply end sup enabling various bad actors and handicapping vital functions of the state and society.

    It is interesting that you would imply that those analogies are applicable to the relations between social classes and economic sectors generally.
     
  16. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    It's quite simple, provide evidence that Austrian economic models "pointedly reject science" in favor of 'faith'. Because I'm pretty sure like most anyone, they want to model what's going to happen accurately so as to best determine how to invest for the future.

    That aside, macroeconomics can not utilize the Scientific Method - which states that any hypothesis can be repeated anytime, by anyone with means, to independently retest via identical data gathering methods. This is the processes of deductive reasoning. If you can not retest a hypothesis independently then you are not talking about the Hypothetico-Deductive Scientific Method. One would instead be trying to, at best, describe past events through mathmatical modeling - which is not the Scientific Method. That would instead be inductive reasoning. All macroeconomics is therefor inductive. This isn't to say the theories are wrong, only that they are not arrived at via the Scientific Method.

    More ad hominin attacks I see. This seems to be your MO.

    What I've persistently appealed to is the use of *gasp* Ethics as a crucial aspect to understanding society including economic modeling.

    Income tax is not paid voluntarily.
    That's a fact.

    Income tax is a tax on labor - something owned BY the laborer.
    That's also a fact.

    You claim you're in favor of the worker - yet you support taxing the worker of their own labor. I find that a bit demented, but, whatever.
    Some people think things are "moral" because their God said so in some magic book others think things are moral because, well, that's just the way it's always been done, still others think things are moral because it's for the good of the "community" and that's what the government says is moral.

    If you can not understand that stealing is immoral even when it's in a magic book, always been done and what the government says is legal - then that's OK. Maybe you were spanked? :shrug:
    Children Who Are Spanked Have Lower IQs, New Research Finds

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    Until recently we did not have an income tax and we did not have a central bank and life for most Americans was quite good as prices came down and our standard of living increased.
    Thanks Democrips! We've had >400% increase in productivity over the last 50 years and yet have only seen a 25% increase in our standard of living as our money is inflated, regulated and out right stolen to pay for War of Make-believe and oh-so wondrous "Governmental Services".

    Thank the Gods we don't live in a Social Democracy. Maybe you don't understand that? Our nation was created with the express interest of the INDIVIDUAL over that of the Community. This is why the "Bill of Rights/the first ten amendments" protects the individual FROM the majority.

    Take the freedom of speech. Here we have an example of a single individual being given the legal right to FREELY express his or her opinion even if it is at odds with the other 299,999,999 American Citizens.
    Get it yet?
    We do NOT live in a Social Democracy. Just because the other 99.999999% of society doesn't want to hear an opinion they don't get to vote and make it illegal. Our nation was founded to protect that 1 American to express that 1 opinion even if it's 'over' the perceived 'communal interest' of the other 300 million.

    Big God, Little Government.
    Little God, Big Government.

    People do like their superstition, don't you?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Well, if we didn't have a system where those who get elected get to steal and boss us around it probably wouldn't matter now would it? So, you got what you wanted, don't cry about it now.

    And I really don't care what the Rethuglican or Democrips platforms are. I'm going to vote for Gary Johnson.

    Lucky for you then, because people like me make up 0.4% of the voting electorate. People like you make up the vast majority. When Obamney get's elected and nothing at all changes you can complain about the Rethuglicans in another four years and how they 'just didn't work with the Democrips' and if only if only .... meanwhile the 'Hopes and Dreams' of a few more generations of Americans will be flushed down the toilet.
     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,910


    There was nothing new in all that verbose hogwash. Unfortunately for you verbosity is not a substitute for reason. You still cannot define your notions in any meaningful and practical way.

    Libertarianism and the Republican Party advocate the same positions. Your “Libertarian” POTUS candidate, Ron Paul, ran on the Republican ticket this year.



    First that is not the issue. The issue is that the very interests you claim to oppose are the very people who have been and continue to fund your political ideology. And that has been previously proven to you. Your choosing to ignore that fact does not make it any less real.

    Republicans/Libertarians receive more corporate money.​
     
  18. Eflex tha Vybe Scientist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    190
    Privatize profits, socialize losses. Crony capitalism has left many of us disillisioned with the system as it stands now. Until someone, ANYONE is held accountable for the latest financial crises (Phil Gramm, AIG, Fannie/Freddie,Goldmann Sachs,) then I think people will continue to call for radical changes to the way we do business.
     
  19. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    ? It's the cornerstone of Austrian economics. You yourself invoke exactly this stuff two sentences later in your response.

    They might "want" that, but they have gone down a road where they reject the tools required to do so.

    See, there you are agreeing that Austrian economics rejects the scientific method.

    That is not strictly required by the scientific method. You can still use empiricism without the ability to exactly repeat any particular measurement. It does make things more difficult, but the Austrians throw out the baby with the bathwater here, and instead dive headlong into nonsense.

    You're silly. All aspects of the relationship between a citizen and a legitimate democratic government are voluntary. You are not compelled to subject yourself to said government in the first place.

    All taxes are on entities "owned" by the taxpayer. What else could they be? What is the relevance of these recitations of ideology to anything I've said?

    You would.

    Too bad you are addressing me, and not these convenient strawmen.

    Pure idiocy.

    Our standard of living is vastly higher today than it was back then.

    Stilted. The Constitution that was being amended in the first place is entirely about how the populace is to be collectively empowered through majoritarian mechanisms.

    Likewise, the Constitution says that the other 299,999,999 American citizens get to set the policy over the objections of the one. They just can't stop him from complaining about it.

    But they do get to ignore that guy's opinion and have the government do exactly the opposite of it, and that guy has to go along with it.

    Sure, that guy's opinion gets protected, but the other 300 million get to ignore it and do what is in their interest. They just don't get to silence the one guy.

    So you are free to blather ad nauseum about Austrian economics and income taxes, and the rest of us are free to ignore you and demand that you pay income taxes.
     
  20. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    You asked for a definition and I provided you with one that was meaningful and practical. What in it don't you understand?

    Libertarians and Republicans advocate some similar positions. And so to do Democrats and Republicans.

    It's the differences that define the party.

    This is idiotic. Libertarians have their own party and their own candidate. The FACT is this year Democrips (just Obama alone) will receive WAY MORE money from their Corporate Paymasters (and hence do their bidding like the bitches they are) than ALL of the Libertarian candidates added together for all of the history of the Libertarian party.

    What you may want to ask yourself is why you feel a compulsion to lie about that Joe?

    I mean, everyone knows this is a fact. Libertarians make up less than 0.4% of the voting public and hold only 1 seat in the lower house of one State assembly.
     
  21. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    We don't even have Crony Capitalism... all we have left is Crony Corporatism and an Banking Oligarchy and an electorate only all to willing to lick their boots.
     
  22. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    The Scientific Method is Empirical. Think of it like this, suppose you gather the following empirical data: On days when more ice cream cones are sold in the park, more murders occur. Based on your "Empirical Data" you conclude that ice cream sales causes murder as this fits a model of the observations. Each time you record more ice cream sales, your model (linear regression model) predicts that more murders will occur. And they do! You strengthen your conviction that ice cream sales are indeed causing murders to increase.
    See the problem?
    Next you begin to think your 'model' is "Scientific". I mean .... the data IS 'empirical' after all. You are awarded the Nobel Prize. You next apply for and are given the job as Chairman of the Federal Reserve. With the dopamine induced ego trip you really feel "you understand it all". Anyone who questions you must be sidelined (or worse). You run our economy into the ground. You blame Rethuglicans or Democrips (depending on which Mafia family you were hired to work for).

    AND all of society quietly sinks into a putrid cesspool of ignorant rot.

    Macroeconomics can not follow the Scientific Method. Yes, that includes Austrian macroeconomics. Which, unlike some Keynesian economists, Austrian economists freely admit to. As a matter of fact they admit that yes this is a fundamental weakness in ALL of macroeconomics. Actually, I can't think of any Keynesian Academic who if asked directly at a conference wouldn't entirely agree. Who would they be kidding? The only time they lie is when they have to front up to an ignorant public demanding free stuff and want a guilt free means to steal from their children, neighbors and grand kids. This is when some crooks posing as serious 'Economists' pass off their models as being derived through the "Scientific Method" and therefor 'Science'.

    I mean, if the man in the White Lab Coat said I can steal from my kids, then surely it must be OK to do so (See Cambridge Authority experiment or the Yale Milgram experiment).


    Oh, back to Ad Hominin sandwich without the cheese, meat or ... well, anything of substance.

    Nice use of the qualifier "Legitimate".

    Do tell: Was SLAVERY voluntary or was the US government illegitimacy? Well, which is it? The US Government was illegitimate......... or was Slavery 'voluntary'? Was it moral? Was it legal? Slaves weren't compelled to subject themselves to their government from the very day they were born INTO slavery? What? At the age of 5 they should crawl away to the woods and die?

    You really may want to stop and think before posting this tripe.

    Holding a person down and cutting out their kidney "for the good of the community" / "America is Great USA! USA! USA!" is a hell of a lot different than a person volunteering to sell their kidney.

    And your point? Life in America circa 1750 was 'vastly superior' compared with life in the middle ages. As a matter of fact, life for the Slave might have been vastly superior - access to medicine, a house, food instead of living in a malaria forest or starving in the Savannah. It doesn't matter if things got better. Slavery was and still is immoral.

    Ever wonder how some Slaves could side with their owners? I mean, obviously a lot were appreciative for the nice house and food. Many (most) probably didn't question their own enslavement. It was the way things just were. Master. Slave. Ever hear of Stockholm Syndrome? When you do - you might want to take a look in the mirror.

    And?

    We're NOT a social democracy - that's the point.
    We A.R.E. N.O.T. A. S.O.C.I.A.L. D.E.M.O.C.R.A.C.Y.

    The Founding Fathers was VERY wary of populism and democracy in general. Which is why they limited who could vote to property owners. And why they quickly amended the Constitution. They probably didn't think it'd last as long as it did (our republic) and.... it might not last much longer. Without a culture of individualism, there really is no "America". There's a geopolitical smear across a landmass on the globe, but, the concept called "America" would be gone.
    And if the State held a vote to enslave the individual? Then what? Suppose Black Americans were put in chains and forced to work on a cotton farm. And this was the 'Will" of the majority. Would you think this is then what? Good? Bad? Moral? Immoral?

    See, ALL Libertarians will say that this, may be legal, but will always be IMMORAL. Why? Simply read the definition I posted for Joe. You can see how much he did NOT like that! The idea of 'Liberty' chafes against his Progressive hoofs and pitchfork

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Yeah, we're not a social democracy. The 'good of the community' is worth LESS than the rights of the individual. This is why in highly socialistic societies the individual is often imprisoned for 'disrupting social harmony'.


    See, that's not our culture - as much as I'm sure you and other social minions wish it were. We're a culture of individualism. This is what made our nation great.




    Want to know why Ayn Rand is so popular? Or at least why I think she's been popular in the USA. Is because she hit upon an idea that sits somewhere in our culture - that we live by the same sort of ideals our nation was built upon: Small unintrusive government, free-market capitalism, private property rights, free speech and the that the State should mainly concern itself with protecting the rights of the Individual (hence the great importance of property rights). Why (I wonder) are American children not taught these ideals in public school? That's interesting. Maybe because public school teachers are generally the University students who liked to party a bit hard and not work too much - so, what better job than "Public School Teacher". Plato would be proud. Then again, I also wonder if much of our past is not purposely left out of our education. Thankfully, through familiar culture (well, what's left of it's rotten corpse) Americans are still drawn to the last embers of the individual personal Liberty - like Jedi to the Force

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And while poor public schooling and corporate owned mass "media" will attempt to make personal Liberty sound cartoonish, passé (even criminal) it's still rooted deep in our culture. In a way you probably can't quite 'get'. You'd have to live for many many years in other countries and maybe you'll see it. Or maybe not.


    Let's Ban Profits! Is an interesting look, into an American subculture and their deeply flawed and childhood damaged psyche.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2012
  23. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Nothing about the scientific method requires anyone to confuse correlation with causation.

    Yes: you have no real grasp on the subjects you pretend to expound upon.

    Straightforward descriptions of the vacuity of Austrian economics are not "Ad Hominin."

    Are you asserting that our democratic government is illegitimate?

    Unless, of course, we decide that we are, and instruct our representatives to govern accordingly.

    Anyway your response is mostly vacuous table-pounding and silly, outlandish charicatures of arguments - as usual. You are doing more than I ever could to discredit your viewpoints with this inanity.
     

Share This Page