LOL "unfettered democracy"

What planet are you on?

And if you're not an ancap, how do you justify and fund government?

I’m not anti taxation. I’m anti discriminatory taxation. For example, if the collective decides we should do more to help the poor, provide tuition-free college, etc. and we need to raise taxes to do so, I think everyone’s tax rate should increase as opposed to having a majority determine a minority should foot the bill.

Define "collective" please.

And this sounds like flat taxing. Where am I wrong?

What about the molecules your body is made up of?

So the best predictor of wealth is wealth? Ok, and what is the best environment in which one can create wealth? Do I have to say it? Ok I will, THE FREE MARKET! Where private property and individual rights are upheld and protected! How would an economy even flourish or work without private property?

I agree, I just think we disagree on the size and power they should have.

Yes, you think you have a point here, but you don't.

It partnered with private industry, if I paid you to build a house, I wouldn't go around saying I built the house.

Yeah I appreciate the responses but you guys are doing a lot of mental gymnastics, I guess it just comes down to you not willing to hold the State to the same standard as everyone else. Which is why I'm in favor of privatizing almost everything, because none of you would tolerate this stuff from a private company.

It's a little overrated, especially the fake kind we have. Also its a borderline religion to you people.

So let me clear this up a little, I probably didn't explain it well enough. I didn't intend to create any sort of dichotomy, I was just trying to get you to be a little more specific on reducing inequality, and how far you would take it and where you draw the line on fair or unfair inequality.

WRT creating wealth, the free market just does a better job plain and simple. I don't see the point in the State trying to micromanage the economy. Even if they do fund something that turns out to be successful, a broken clock is right twice a day, and they waste a lot of money. And I never said either or, I just asked if the gov't ever created wealth, and the response was they funded private industry to develop TCP/IP.

Yes I hold the state to a different standard to a person. That's because it's a different sort of thing. For example, I do believe we should have some people in prison but there's no way a person should be able to imprison someone in the way the state sometimes should.

I d like mental gymnastics but I don't think any of this really qualifies

a) I'm agreeing with you to some extent about property rights (more than most here will because it has a bad name) because property is a very powerful natural phenomena which can't be wished (or rhetoriced) away. However they are just part of the picture and they are not inviolate.

b) redistribution will always be a fierce battle that ebbs and flows because it runs head first into these property rights. Those who like me, think many at the bottom end have too low an income and many others have too high an income need to address the income curve rather than accept what is, in our view, unacceptable inequality in income and trying to redistribute it afterwards.

I accept you disagree with b) completely because you don't mind the inequality - such is politics. My point is whether you like it or not, you will accept a flatter income come if that's the norm far easier than you will accept a large proportion of your income being taken away

So if a private company takes your money against your will its theft, but if your lord and savior Uncle Sam does it its ok? Please enlighten me.

I agree with that and I think providing more equal access to opportunities through education and whatnot will compress the wage scale. But we’ll still be left with the productive output of some being worth more than others just due to how we value some things over others and skill scarcity. For example a person may determine that an air conditioner repair it took someone 1 hour to do is worth 8 hours of yard work in exchange. So in effect we’ll end up with some people making $12.50/hr and others $100/hr. Are you ok with that or do you think we either need to regulate what people charge for goods and services?

I'm very okay with regulating the market so that the relatively (and often absolutely) low paid hospital/care/etc/etc staff earn a lot more than they do relative to PR, marketing, management etc. The market is rubbish at this because value is not determined by demand and supply alone. There's an oversupply of people able and willing to do some jobs but those jobs are still hard work and vital. Covid is at least making this more appreciated.

I totally agree that education helps. As does healthcare and many other things. I'm definitely in the camp that addressing these issues is superior to regulation and I've argued quite a lot in the past that the aim should be to not need a lot of the regulations/interference that are currently needed.

I'm an atheist. I have no lord or savior. And government isn't a private company We can go through the social contract. Molyneux does the best job of tearing it down, but he's still full of shut. If you want to argue the social contract, start a thread, we'll do it.

I also used to be an ancap. I'm well-versed in the fictional-planet argumentation. How do you think I pulled Hoppe out of my pocket?

LOL "you people". I still don't really believe in democracy. Stop straw manning me. People are gonna think you're dumb.

Didn't say gov't was a private company. So I guess you missed my point, or dodged it.

The social contract argument is hilariously bad. I'm not starting a thread on it though.

Strawmanning is a stretch, but my bad. You said you were an ex libertarian and when you added that 'they' don't believe in democracy it seemed to imply that you did.

The State is made up of people though.

This is completely backwards, and shows you don't know much about the US. The State has a monopoly on education but decides to brainwash kids into thinking they are bad? No.

The government funded the research and people have made a boatload off of the results.

For a guy who thinks levying taxes is stealing you sure don't value someone else's IP.

Wanted to add something to this even though I already responded.

That's the problem with it, its a win-lose outcome, as opposed to the free market where it is win-win. That's why I favor solving problems in that environment. Also I didn't consent to any of it, try telling a Hillary voter that they consented to Trump. It's a forced choice, not consent.

Looks at his avatar and laughs.

Sure and you and I are made up of cells but we don't confuse people with cells either.

My kids go to private school and the local elementary school busses in half their kids because half the neighborhood sends their kids to Jewish Day School. That's not a monopoly.

The states (small-s) otoh actually do have huge influences on education but even then municipalities have more autonomy than I think you think they do, luckproof.

That's a view. Not one I agree with at all though. There's losers in both systems - neither is all win win.

On consent, by consenting to democracy we pool our individual 'sovereignty' and consent to the democratic outcome. You may not consent to democracy, in which case, as I said before, I sympathise but tough.

Funding is not creating/developing. How do I not value IP? Still waiting for you to enlighten me on the tax/theft question, you won't though, because you dodge and change subjects and never really add anything valuable.

Another brilliant response with 0 substance, keep dodging

Nope, I'm comparing people to people

I'm aware of Private schools, it is still VERY monopolistic. You are forced to pay for it, it's only getting more expensive while the quality is dropping or staying the same, this would not happen in a competitive market. And most kids don't even have a choice, i'm glad to hear yours do though.

So when you got out and by a TV or a meal, who loses?

Yeah and they are receiving some more recognition and appreciation. The issue at hand though is they aren't getting more money. So maybe the trade-off solution is a value schema where others get more recognition for their economic contributions but less money:

It is true, of course, that your talents are an intimate part of you, and that any attempt by the state to prevent you from exercising and developing them would be intolerable. Like beauty, talent and excellence also attract recognition, admiration, and gratitude, and such responses are among the natural rewards of human life. But the economic rewards which some talents are able to command, if properly developed, are another story. They cannot be said to be merited just because the recognition of excellence on which they are based is merited. To try to sever the connection between talent and admiration would be wrong. But to sever the connection between talent and income, if it could be done, would be fine. Those with useful talents do not naturally deserve more material benefits than those who lack them.[35]

[35] Could income be construed as the "natural" reward of certain talents—talents to produce what others are happy to pay for? It is a nice question, but I don't think so. The concept of a natural reward should be restricted to those advantages that are strictly inseparable from the recognition and appreciation of a quality by others, and I doubt that this is ever true of money. People's willingness to pay for something is a direct manifestation of their valuing it. But it needn't take the form of payment to the producer. (Thomas Nagel. Equality and Partiality)

Because they know where the money comes from !
If bad players can’t survive in a poker games because the blinds ( expenses compare to their salary/bankroll) is too high , they won’t be able to play and so the good poker players will see their income diminish.

So they rather see a good redistribution of wealth instead of the game crash and disappeared .

Nash equilibrium isn’t only useful in poker but it is in economy .
Too much money for the poor or too much money for the rich isn’t good .
And it’s obvious that in today’s age, the rich benefits way too much than the the rest Which creates a bad economy.

And please don’t mix up a good real economy ( the reality of most Americans and citizens around the world ) with the financial economy (top 1%).

Social peace in a country is good for the economy and it protect the elites ....
They do benefits from it .
A revolution cause by too much inequality of wealth is never good news for the richest ....

You want to draw false distinctions for some reason.
You don't want to contribute to government but want the benefits that government affords.

I don't know why some of you Rand worshipers love big impersonal corporations that will suck society dry but hate government that can sometimes do the same thing. In reality both need to be controlled by the people they serve and who's lives they impact. That's just common sense.

It's like someone but bad thoughts into your brain and you can't get rid of them.

Anyway, the question was did government ever make people rich and the answer is yes. Quite often. The rest is just you dodging and whining because your world view is challenged and you can't accept that.

If you think no brilliant people work in government and no goof balls work in the private sector you should probably get more. Just sayin'.

+1
The funny thing is , the most adamant supporters of the concept of :
Government is evil
Corporation are good
(Basically trump supporters)
Is that on the 15th poorest state in the United States , around 13 to 14 are republicans states ...
How come , if government intervention is so bad , where is the least government is where they are the poorest ?
Following Blindfold ideology is not a good thing .

Most likely the last time I will respond to you, this is just run of the mill State-ist BS, straw-manning and more dodging / non answers.

I don't want to contribute and I don't want their "benefits." You made that up.

Not a Rand worshiper, you made that up. I don't love big corporations, you made that up.

Large corporations are 'controlled' by a free market, as long as the State stays out of the way. They don't suck society dry by offering products and jobs to people. The 'corporation' who sucks society dry would be the institution that debases the currency, takes money out of your check every week and puts the country in trillions of dollars in debt.


I never said they didn't make people rich, of course they did. How else would D.C. be the richest territory in the US. Don't worry, they aren't extracting wealth or anything. I asked when did they create wealth, and if they did, let me know when it starts to put a dent in all the debt they created.

Didn't say that, you made it up.