{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/4/2016 1:07:14 AM
16
[quote]He hasn't paid taxes in almost 20 years and was almost a billion dollars in debt[/quote]
(http://www.usdebtclock.org/)
If $1 billion in debt qualifies somebody as an abysmal businessman, I wonder what we should label the U.S. Government as, seeing as how we're almost [i]$20 trillion in the hole.[/i]
English
-
A businessman and a country are two different concepts, but I agree that is a massive number.
-
[quote]A businessman and a country are two different concepts[/quote] They sure are. A businessman collects his wealth through voluntary transactions, and he risks his own neck with his own endeavors. A state collects wealth through forceful coercion, takes out public loans on citizen's behalf (without their consent), and uses unborn children as collateral for extended credit.
-
I don't get why libertarians and conservatives are so vehemently anti-tax. Taxes pay for the roads you drive on, the emergency services you rely on, the education you give your children; essentially everything you don't pay yourself. Governments need taxes.
-
[quote]I don't get why libertarians and conservatives are so vehemently anti-tax.[/quote] It isn't just about taxes. It's about the initiation of force, as well as the immorality of public debt. [quote]Taxes pay for the roads you drive on, the emergency services you rely on, the education you give your children; essentially everything you don't pay yourself.[/quote] They don't need to. The state's monopoly on roads is needless, and public education is 1) unnecessary, and 2) not at all cost-effective. "Emergency services" would vary from person to person. An An-Cap would say that voluntary transactions and contracts can/should cover these things, whereas certain minarchists would argue that the NAP is best upheld when the defenseless are protected from major aggression with a cost of minor aggression. [quote]Governments need taxes.[/quote] Governments need taxes, but do I really need a huge government?
-
[quote]...and public education is 1) unnecessary, and 2) not at all cost-effective.[/quote] How can we be certain that a private school won't prioritize profits over the quality of a child's education?
-
[quote]How can we be certain that a private school won't prioritize profits over the quality of a child's education?[/quote] Where do profits come from? Shitty businesses aren't exactly known for turning high profits.
-
Actually he got you on the roads bit.
-
Damn roads! Far too complex for any private enterprise to ever construct!
-
Aha! So you admit defeat!
-
Roads - the all-too-obvious Achilles' heel of libertarians.
-
It's no wonder there's never been a documented Libertarian society. No government; no roads!
-
Whenever it's tried, we all get lost. There's no road to guide us to utopia.
-
Edited by NeverAlfredo: 10/4/2016 2:58:22 AMLol but for real I can just picture like a libertarian cabinet just gather the top minds of the world all in a room trying to crack the case of roads. "The numbers, Mason. What do they mean?!"
-
Ideally yes. A large government doesn't have to be oppressive and authoritarian like you believe. Look at Canada and many Nordic countries, which are very libertarian on social issues and take care of the people with an advanced welfare state.
-
[quote]Ideally yes. A large government doesn't have to be oppressive and authoritarian like you believe.[/quote] By definition, it does. State power is rooted in force. Outlawing marijuana takes force, just as collecting taxes and enforcing regulation takes force. The only economic-left policies that aren't rooted in force come from An-Coms, but that's far from your position. [quote]Look at Canada and many Nordic countries, which are very libertarian on social issues and take care of the people with an advanced welfare state.[/quote] I can also look at Switzerland, which does the same thing but 1) does it without a giant welfare state (not even a minimum wage), and 2) is far more solvent than the other Western nations. It's also worth noting that these Scandinavian countries are only able to "afford" (because let's be honest, their debt-to-GDP ratios are climbing, which means the systems aren't sustainable) their welfare states because of their large degrees of economic freedom. This means less state-involvement in the economy, as far as the means of production are concerned. We can also look at Greece. Greece's welfare state is also quite lavish, but it's falling down the fiscal cliff at a faster rate than the other European countries. Why do you think that is? Despite astronomical tax rates (25% corporate rates, almost 50% personal rates, and a 23% value-added tax), they still run an unsustainable deficit.
-
Stall with the logic
