Would you ever consider donating to help relieve your country's debt?

Considering there are people in this world who are actually starving, um, no.

Not until the lawmakers are actually serious about eliminating the deficit spending.

people, yes At least I have a chance of knowing where it goes not the heirarchy deep pockets

government, no Too much fraud goes on within the government you know..the rich get richer

I can’t assume they would use the money appropriately because well….they wouldn’t. Not to mention I couldn’t even make a dent so I feel it wouldn’t be worth it when I could use the money for something else.

47% or so of my income, in one form or another, already goes to my country. Somehow, that seems to be more than enough of a donation.

I already donate to people and projects that I know are run well. The government does not qualify for that.
like @12Oaks said, they get enough of my money already.

The government would have to cut spending. Politicians at the state level and below will always have an incentive to get more money and services for their district so they can be re-elected. Unless we can set up a different system of incentives, it probably won’t happen any time soon.

@12Oaks, taxes are not actually a donation, since you get services out of them.

Likewise, paying dues to a country club is not a donation.

@KhiaKarma,

No. As the old English proverb stated “if there’s is a will, there’s a way.”

@Qingu,

I went to private school, so I didn’t get service from public school.
I have private healthcare, so I didn’t get service from public health care.
I have private pension, so I didn’t get service from public pension.
I work, so I didn’t get service from welfare.

If I didn’t get service, then how exactly are taxes not a donation (forced donation at that) ?

No chance in hell.

@Qingu Maybe, but I sure don’t get back nearly what I put in. Of course, the less government in your life, the better, so whatever. Anyway, my point was, I pay more than enough to the Government, so they shouldn’t wait for the mailman to bring any more from my address.

Technically, that’s what my taxes are supposed to do. But I get what you’re saying. I donate to a few charities whose cause I care about directly. They get more of my intended contribution that way.

”(Assuming you knew your money would be handled in a legit manner.)”

Assuming anything let alone a government handling money in a legit manner is dangerous at best.

I think there are a couple people that should donate before I do – starting with Bloomberg.

No. The 30% they’ve enjoyed taking from me should be plenty.

If we paid off the debt, there’d be no more money left. All money is created by creating debt.
Our economy is a Ponzi scheme and like all Ponzi schemes, it requires constant growth.
I’m all for paying off the debt, but we would need to establish a new system to replace our current debt based system.
One alternative system is presented in the movie Zeitgeist:Moving Forward. It explains how our current system is not an economy at all. It is an anti-economy, as a growth-based economy requires inefficiency and does not economize anything as an economy should.

Sorry but NO. And the gov’ment knows why.

@12Oaks, you said you don’t get back what you put in (through taxes).

I’m curious as to how you concluded this. Since it sounds like you put a lot in, I’m assuming you have a lot of money, and/or expensive property. How much are you willing to pay for police protection, and a legal system to prosecute thieves?

I also wonder if your job, capital, whatever is dependent on roads and electric utilities existing, and how much you would value those things.

Maybe if politicians took a pay cut.
But no, no other charities need it more.

@Qingu,

Who says a government is the only entity that can offer police protection and a legal system to prosecute thieves?

Who says that entrepreneurs can’t do the same and would run it just as efficiently, if not more, via competition?

Who says roads, and electric utilities can’t be run by entrepreneurs and would run it just as efficiently, if not more, via competition?

After-all, the government is the people. Why have a middle man? Why not let the people(entrepreneurs) handle it direct?

Certainly, but only if they showed me that they were taking actual steps to spend within their budget. I will not donate to a government that insists they must endlessly borrow trillions of dollars so they can gvve more and more tax breaks to billionaires and the world’s largest multi-national companies pay no taxes at all.

@cackle, certainly there are alternatives to police departments. Colonel Gadaffi appears to be using one such alternative in Libya right now—imported mercenaries. I’m sure the entrepeneurs in charge of such mercenaries are making handsome profits, too. Blackwater also worked out well for American security needs.

I’m also confused as to your last statement. You do realize that in America, we elect our government, right? Or is your problem with the fact that we’re merely a representative democracy, so we don’t necessarily directly elect our tax-funded government servants?

In any case, now I’m curious. Absent a police department to catch criminals, and a legal system to sentence and punish them—how much money would you pay for a group of mercenaries to protect your stuff from thieves and looters and dole out street justice to perpetrators?

@Qingu,

Libya has a government, so I don’t see how that example applies to what I just said.

America has a government, so I don’t see how that example applies either.

Yes, we elect our government. The government is a representation of the people.

The fundamental problem is that the government governs all the people. If those who elect a government want a government to represent them, then let it govern only them. Let the government mind its own business when it comes to those who do not wish to be governed by it.

The next fundamental problem is why do the people need to elect a government to represent them?

Libya doesn’t have much of a government anymore… hence the mercenaries hired to “keep order.” It seems to be working, too, for the people that hired them at least.

Somalia doesn’t have a government, so maybe you should move there if you really want to try this experiment.

As for your suggestion about who the government should govern, I’m not really sure how that would work. If you don’t vote for the person who appoints a police chief, you don’t get police protection? If you don’t vote for whoever wins the presidency, you don’t get to use the nation’s roads and Internet?

To answer your last question, “why do we need to elect a government,” because it’s better than the alternatives… though the more you write, the more you seem to be in favor of a de-facto oligarchy.

The government hired the mercenaries, not the people. That’s tyranny. This doesn’t apply.

Somalia does have a government. A Coalition government.

All that is required fair exchanges to occur is property rights and contracts.

If there is no government, then who says who owns the roads?

I’m going to ask you again. Why can’t the people do what they want to do. Why do you need a middle entity? If you want to give some charity, why can’t you physically go over and give it to him/her yourself. Or mail it to him/her. Why do you need the middle man to handle your money?

Also, what’s with you and assuming my thoughts? Did you just take a psychology 101 course and now understand how the world operates? If I didn’t state something specific, then why must you assume anything?

LOL, how are you getting property rights and contracts without a government?

What is preventing “the people” from doing what they want to do all the time is that people often want to take advantage of other people. Hence laws. The thing with laws is, they need to apply—and be enforced towards—everyone. I’m not sure why you’re having trouble understanding this concept, since it’s been around since the Code of Hammurabi.

As for “why can’t you give money directly to charity,” I’m confused as to why you believe you can’t.

By the way, it’s interesting that you called Libya “tyranny.” Gadaffi and his family are indeed tyrants, but they are also plutocrats.

Consider what happens in your ideal scenario, where there’s no government and people pay for whatever services they want, including police protection and contract enforcement. This means that only wealthy people can make and enforce contracts, can afford protection against thieves, and can afford mercenaries to hunt down violent criminals to threaten them. It’s as if there is a government, but it only works for wealthy people.

You may also be familiar with such a system as it exists in the Mafia.

Via entrepreneurs. They provide the service. We pay for the service. If the service is poor, we go to it’s competition. It’s in the entrepreneurs interest to satisfy the people otherwise he/she lose money to sustain his/her business which means he/she will be out of business. Competition will keep it running efficiently.

Why can’t you apply this to laws, protection, and everything else?

I believe I can’t because a part of my money (taxes) go to the middle man(government), and then the government distributes it to welfare, public school, etc.. to which I didn’t want to donate too and did not benefit from personally.

So in your universe, does a gangster running a protection racket counts as an “entrepreneur”?

Also, do you not have any remaining money to spend on charity after taxes? I mean, that’s like saying the government takes away your right to buy food of your choice, because your tax dollars pay for food stamps.

No, he/she is a gangster. If there are enough complaints of wrong doing then the entrepreneurs will step into answering the needs of the people. Note, I wrote plural, that competition will keep things running smoothly without corruption otherwise it’s bad for business and the competition would put them out of business. They will setup businesses to make sure that no gangster cause corruption. Through entrepreneurs, the needs of the people, and competition, overtime, this new system will develop and over time it will develop a lot quicker, run more efficiently after the fundamentals are established.

I do have remaining money after taxes, but why do I need to give the government taxes to begin with. I don’t want their funding and do not wish to support their funding. I want full control over my money and how I spend it. I don’t want to be forced to pay taxes, it’s against my will.

@cackle Since this total laisez-faire capitalism you yearn for works so well, why hasn’t it ever been established and proven effective anywhere on Earth. Every state that has failed has descended into chaos instead of this new Eden order and perfection you claim would break out. Why? And please don’t try a “No true Scotsman” response. If this is the natural perfection for life, how come no failed state ever slipped into perfectin instead of a bloodbath, lawlessness and the rule of the war lord?

Because everywhere on earth there is a government. Always was. The government is the biggest problem the world has ever known. No one knows a life without a government because no one ever allowed it. No one ever allowed the people to truly decide for themselves without representatives.

@cackle That is simply flase. Everywhere on Earth there was no government. Government evolved over thousands of years to deal with the very problems you keep denying would exist if only government went away. Right now, much of Smmalia is free of government of any kind. There are no taxes levied. If you truly thought this made sense, and if you have all the wealth you have claimed, you could be there tomorrow and experience your idea of heaven on Earth. I truly wonder if you are serious or just a troll.

The government only evolved because people didn’t want to deal with the problem themselves. If you have a complaint at your job, do you call the government to complain, or do you complain to your boss? If enough people complain to the boss, or another person sees enough people complaining about the work environment, don’t you think the person who’s viewing this will take advantage of the situation by creating his/her own working environment to pull in all those people to come work for him instead so that he/she can now profit? And when the first boss see’s that his/her workers are leaving, will he/she not fix the problems that the workers were complaining about in order to get the workers back?

Read this, then comment on Somalia.

Edited. ^

So fine. I guess the pirates are just an exception. They don’t want to prosper with all the thriving Somali entrepreneurs that are making small fortunes in legitimate business ventures. If you believe that the Ludwig Von Mises Institute is giving you the straight dope and Somalia is an idyllic paradise, bon voyage. If it works out well, write and tell us we were all full of it.

Answer my edited part.

I’m very well off here in America because I can take advantage of the corrupt government. The financial districts control this country because the government allows them too. Since I work for these financial districts as a financial analyst, I’m in part control. I wouldn’t be able to do this in Somalia. I still wish to change this corrupt government as much as I can, but that’s a different story.

Finally we have a point of agreement. I would like to change the corrupt government too, and it is set up to let certain people who are well positioned or connected siphon off wealth. That’s wrong and I’d love to change it. But I do not want to completely destroy government altogether and trust all will be well.

Now, to the edit you added. Government evolved because before there were organized governments, groups and tribes strove with one another till a warlord arose to organize them and go out to rape and pillage. Battle was constant and brutal. The only law was lawlessness. There is ample evidence that humanity has not evolved to such an advanced stage that we wouldn’t see an immediate repeat of that of all constraints were removed and it was every man, woman and child for themselves. The strong would dominate the weak and seize whatever they wanted by brute force.

You’re not giving me any rebuttals on why a no government system can’t work. The historical problems were only solved via promotion of governments. Governments cause just as much problems as they solve, and even the one’s they solve are not really solved, it still a broken system. As you can see, your Somalia example doesn’t work. It actually a work in progress of what I was currently proposing.

No one ever let the entrepreneurs (which is essentially the people) provide the solutions themselves. Read my example of the complaint to the boss. Business(entrepreneurs) are in it for the money. They provide what people want. As long as people have wants, someone will want to give them what they want. If there is wants for fixing corruption, then businesses will open up to solve corruptions. What keeps it all prospering and corruption free? Competition. If you screw up your business, you lose clients, and you go out of business. The clients go to the competition next door instead. Therefore, it’s vital to the business to produce quality service.

It works if people give it time and allow it to work. If people start crying they want a government after one bad incident which is what was done in the past, then it will never work. The system needs time to develop. Just like if you destroy all the taxes in America. A lot of people will suffer for it, but over time it will get better, much better then it is.

As for moving to Somalia, as I said, I’m well off here, there is no reason for me to move. Doesn’t mean I can’t complain either.

I have rebutted every point you have offered except that the US government is corrupt and needs changes. which I agreed with. You’ve dismissed every rebuttal with arm waving.

You;ve every right to stay here and complain. If you succeed in making our government better, I will be standing in the front row to applaud your effort. Nothing could be more American than raising your voice for positive change. But you are going to have a hard sell trying to push the idea of the self driving car being safer than having someone at the wheel. Lots of Americans see problems with the present government. But very few want to do away with all government.

I didn’t wave my hand. I sent you a very thorough argument on Somalia. As you saw, a no government system works there. Over time it got better. Over more time it will get even better. I also know you didn’t fully read it because you responded to quickly.

I’m not going to have a hard time selling a no government society. Look at the massive movements of cutting taxes. It’s already happening. As people start to wake up, they will see that the government needs to have very little to no power. The more social benefits get cut off, along with cuts to other government funding, then private business’s will take over and competition will take its toll as I stated. The peoples wants will be answered via the entrepreneurs.

For the most part America is a pretty free market, but these government spending and the fed have to go and will go as people get pissed off enough.

@cackle No, that is not what I see when I look at Somalia. That is what I read when I go to the Ludwig Von Mises Institute website. I have to ask myself, am I going to believe Von Mises or my own lying eyes. You and Von Misses lose. I’m trusting what I see when I look at the actual country.

I think the massive tax cutting movement is about run its course. It has worked wonderfully only because we have borrowed 14.6 trillion dollars to keep government doing everything people want it to do while not paying for it. You start letting police and fire fighters go, laying off teachers, letting the bridges fall down and the dams burst and the ari traffic control system grind to a halt and the people aren’t going to be so happy as they were under “Don’t tax, just spend.” that the Republicans have used over the last 30 years.

You were in Somalia? No. So all you’re seeing is biased media coverage. No more or less biasd then Mises. Mind you, the Austrian school of thought, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, etc… has a collective of Nobel prize winners and awarded PHD professors. Brushing them off so lightly is not justified given the point that you have no note worthy credentials. Why don’t you actually try reading what they have to say before you dismiss it so easily. My proposition is based on their work. Obviously they present it better then I can. I might of even messed up some points.

You don’t get it. After the fire fighters, teachers, bridge, dam, mechanics as well as the traffic controllers get cut, it will all be replaced by entrepreneurs. The wants of the people will get answered by a new entity. They will compete with each other to answer the wants of the people.

Also, didn’t I mention that it’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better? All new systems take time. Adjustments, etc… People are suffering now with the government in place. It won’t be anything new if they suffer without the government in place.

@cackle The media coverage is good enough for me. I believe that reporters for the BBC and NBC’s Richard Engle are telling the truth. I trust the veteran French Journalist who risked his neck to shoot this segment for PBS Frontline

I don’t have to stick my head in a furnace to find out if the fire in there is hot.

You’re naming me liberal biased medias…

Anyway, I’m done here. Like I said, it doesn’t matter what we say here. You will see the practical end result soon enough.

Why do you think I’m good at analyzing financial markets? Because I’m able to have a feel of how the future will develop. A big government can’t sustain itself. It’s illogical. You can’t have unlimited funding and low taxes. Since people don’t want high taxes and want their funding, they’re fucked. Why do you think I keep my money in offshore accounts? When the shit hits the fan here(and it will), my money will be safe over seas. Only a limited government will solve this debt issue, and in this current messy system, you can only live well by staying on top of the chain which is exactly why I chose this profession.

I agree to disagree—except you’re right the US government needs major fixing.

I’ll agree to disagree as well. Here is a Link (Mainly Rothbard) in case you’re interested on how a no government can really work. My points were based of this school of thought, so they obviously present the information a lot better then I can.

Our current broken economics system is Keynesian. It’s been proven time and time again to not work. The new Keynesian is no different. It’s time for a new system. Link

@Qingu I’m not going to discuss my compensation package with my employer here. But you ask “How much are you willing to pay for police protection, and a legal system to prosecute thieves?

I also wonder if your job, capital, whatever is dependent on roads and electric utilities existing, and how much you would value those things.”

I’ll tell you what, make those things the only thing that government does, and then we’ll see just how low taxes could get. I don’t mind paying taxes, I just hate paying taxes for things that the government really has no business being in. Still, I would bet 15% would be more than enough for the government to operate on.

@cackle, I’m still confused as to how gangsters running protection rackets don’t qualify as “entrepreneurs.”

They’re providing a government-like service that people are more than willing to pay for. In fact, in many communities, gangster-run protection rackets work better than the government (police protection) does.

@12Oaks, okay, so we agree that the government should provide things like roads and utilities, police and fire protection. Should the government (for example) regulate the meat that is sold in supermarkets?

Also, @cackle, you claimed to be “good at analyzing financial markets.” Are you an investment banker or something?

Edit: I see that you are. I’m curious as to how you believe you deserve the money you earn, in a moral sense, like your mythic “entrepreneurs.” It almost seems like you are willing to admit that you’re just gaming the system, which is of course what your industry mostly does.

It’s always interesting to see wealthy people with jobs that contribute nothing to society make arguments for laissez-faire economics. One wonders how long such people would last without a government to protect them.

@qingu Around here all utilities, except for water, are private companies. Water has the worst rates by far. The roads are also built and maintained by a private company hired by the local government. As far as meat, their arguments on both sides of that Fence. My main point is 47% seems like more.than enough in taxes. However, if someone believes they should pay more, they are surely allowed to. I think I’ll pass on this voluntary tax hike.

Where is “here”? It seems like your assertions could use some data to back up. (Also, just to be clear: I understand that public utilities are often private companies, but the essence of a public utility is not the same as what we think of when talking about “private companies” ... they tend to be very highly regulated monopolies, for instance.)

And didn’t you say you have an employer? I’m curious as to how you’re paying 47% in taxes.

Here is Indiana. I am counting all taxes I pay, from income to property to gas to sales. All are taxes, all count. 47% is well considered anybody’s fair share.

Oh, and all utilities here, aside from the city run water, has competition and are no longer monopolies.

Would you mind walking me through your math? You said you pay “47% of your income” ... but now you’re talking about gas and sales and property taxes.

Also, would you mind specifying which electric utility you’re using? Because in NW Indiana, it’s certainly a public utility (NIPSCO)...

@Qingu,

Gangsters offering protection might dissatisfy another group of people. You would have a new big want of the people. That want would be answered by the law system (court house), (police) via entrepreneurs through competition. etc…It all depends on the peoples wants. The entrepreneur would only step in if there is that want, otherwise it’s a given that the majority is alright with the gangster. Don’t forget, this isn’t a Utopian society, you’re dealing with people after all. The point is, the people solve problems not the government. You see how much people are suffering with our current government? Yet you still pay tons of taxes only to see the government screw up the country. So when you say the government is the best alternative, you’re clearly wrong. As you can see I also knocked down your Somalia example. They’re thriving better without a government and doing a lot better then it’s neighboring countries.

With the following questions you shall see why the government doesn’t work and since it doesn’t work, us investment banks take advantage. If you had no government, then you wouldn’t have this issue. In a moral sense? What is immoral about investment banking? Who defines morals? Christianity? Judaism? Islam? You? Why don’t I deserve the money that I get? What law says banks have to contribute to society? The fact that the government is there to bail us investment bankers out, is exactly why we can do what we want. To big to fail. They tried to make an example out of Lehman brothers, but look what happened. You see? It’s a loophole that’s being taken advantage by investment bankers thanks to the government. You might complain about morals or the law being unjust, but you can thank the government for that. This is why entrepreneurs (at least in the financial district) stop answering peoples wants. You wouldn’t have this inside of a no government system because it would be bad for business. The way the government is running now, I wanted to be on top of the money/food chain which is the financial district. The way the government is running now, if you’re at the bottom, then you generally live a mediocre to bad life style.

Again, you want details on how a no government system would work best, then check out the link in my previous reply (Rothbard). See what Austrian school of thought is all about. These are Nobel prize winners and awarded PHD professors. They have a good idea of what they’re talking about. You see yourself the government system doesn’t work, to much people are unhappy.

I can’t possibly simplify such a complex topic into a few short sentences nor can you.

Look at the housing bubble. Perfect example of how poorly the government runs the country.

The buyer becomes seduced by the seller’s promise. He buys and buys, thinking he can afford it and someone else will pay if things go wrong, then the shit hits the fan and who do they blame? The one that sold them the dream they wanted to buy; the one that manipulated their stupidity.

This is how weaklings accuse others for what they are responsible for and blame others for their own weak judgment.

This is the mindset when you have a government.

@Qingu BTW, I do apologize for misspelling your name earlier. That was done on a cellular phone thing and the touchpad this is touchy.

NIPSCO/NiSource isn’t the only option for gas and electricity arounds here. However, I will happily concede that I have no problem with not only paying for my usage of electricity and gas on time each and every month, but also for my share of the infrastructure costs associated with its delivery to my property.

As far as the other thing, now. If you take every tax, fee, permit, license, charge, toll, and whatever else term one could come up with that really ends up as more money going to the government, add them all together ( including the $56.16 on my this months gas/electric utility bill) and compare that to the amount on my W2s at the end of the year, it’s just abouts 47%. I’ll paste here what dictionary.com defines as Tax so we’re on the same page.
And just to be clear, I really don’t mind paying taxes (I actually do pay more to the Library because I use it more than the average person may) I just would like to pay a fair share.

tax   /tæks/ Show Spelled
[taks] Show IPA

–noun
1. a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
2. a burdensome charge, obligation, duty, or demand.

@cackle, I’m afraid I don’t know quite how to talk to someone who has such a religious-like faith in the market. I mean, you believe that protection rackets will somehow evolve on their own into perfect states because of competition. You believe Somalia is some kind of ideal state. You also seem to have a weird admiration for the Austrian school of economics, an appeal to authority that is not really based on its standing in the real-world field of economics.

You are advocating a system that exists nowhere in recorded history (except perhaps Somalia, which you also have parallel-universe ideas about). You’ve also bizarrely admitted that you act without morals in your profession (you’re only doing your socially worthless task so you can be “on top of the food chain”), yet tried to pin this somehow on the government enabling you to act without morals.

I don’t really know why you expect anyone on here to listen to what you have to say, and I hope someday we can occupy the same (real) universe.

@12Oaks, I’m sorry, but I didn’t really see an answer about the utility you use. Also, the fact that you happily pay for your gas/elec doesn’t really enter into the question about whether they are a public utility.

As for your taxes, again, you originally said you pay “47% of your income” in taxes. If you would like to rescind that comment, please feel free. But nothing you’ve said in your last post really supports this assertion at all. Like, you included your gas/electric bill in your calculation. That’s not your income tax, that’s not even a tax.

I’m sorry if I’m coming off as nitpicky, but if you’re going to throw numbers around like that to make an argument, I think it’s important for those numbers to be at least loosely based in reality.

@Qingu I never said “Income tax.” I said 47% of my income goes to taxes.
It may be a nuanced difference, but it is a difference. In my previous answer, I said “If you take every tax, fee, permit, license, charge, toll, and whatever else term one could come up with that really ends up as more money going to the government, add them all together ( including the $56.16 on my this months gas/electric utility bill) and compare that to the amount on my W2s at the end of the year, it’s just abouts 47%.”

As far as my gas/electric provider, that is irrelevant. I don’t count usage or delivery charges as a tax. I do count, and it does count, the line items that do say Tax.

NIPSCO, BTW, if a publically traded company. Oh, and I do count taxes on stock dividends in that 47%. NIPSCO

47% of income, not a 47% income tax rate. Nuanced, maybe, but an important distinction.

…so is this still a productive conversation between you two?

@Qingu,

I do believe that a free market works best. No one mentioned Idealism. I said a better system. This world will never be perfect because humans aren’t perfect. The Austrian school of thought is not mainstream because it would minimize the corruption of the wealthy. The only reason the current system is still around is because of top of the chain wealth. Otherwise, in a no government system they would have to conduct businesses responsibly or they would be out of business quickly.

I act by the law of the land. Anything outside of the law, “morals”/“ethics” are subjective values. How do you justify morals vs no morals? It’s only about the law of the land.

You seem to be quickly dismissing my alternatives, but you’re not telling me how wonderful our government system is. It’s wonderful for me and those that are on top, but is it wonderful for the rest of the Americans? Why is it only the top of the chain live well and everyone else lives mediocre/poorly?

I understand that, for example, payroll taxes aren’t counted in “income tax,” so I’m with you on distinguishing between tax and income tax.

That said, consumption taxes are fundamentally different than income/payroll taxes. Likewise with property taxes. I would say you’re comparing apples and oranges in an attempt to make yourself look as though the government is taking the maximum amount of your hard-earned money as possible.

@cackle, again, I don’t really know what planet you are writing from. I mean, do you wonder why Austrian/laissez-faire style economics are typically championed by wealthy, entitled people such as yourself?

Do anticompetitive monopolies, labor abuse, false advertising, and “buyer beware” markets exist in your “better system,” or does the market magically erase these things? I mean, this isn’t even a rhetorical question; we can look to history to find the answer to it. Chicago meatpackers in the 1800’s, Rockefeller’s trusts… I don’t really know how any thinking person could say the things you’ve said with such clear counterexamples.

@Qingu I had a good time, really. I just learned what Lurve means here, and would consider this experience a Lurve. I hope you don’t mind, but I agree with @KhiaKarma in thinking all has been said that could be said about this between us. In answer to the original question, I may “consider,” but it is really unlikely I’d pay more than I have to for reasong stated time and time again here. Hope to see you somewhere down the line, @Qingu, but for this string, I’m calling it quits. Thanks for the discussion. :-)

@Qingu,

Wow, you really didn’t understand anything I said. In this case, if you want to understand my premise better, I linked you to the right direction. If you don’t care about my premise, and dismiss it as a poor alternative, then tell me how great our government is?

Explain the wonders of our government. How it helps everyone and everyone is equally happy. How there is no violence, no poverty, and no unemployment. How gangsters don’t exist. How there is no corruption in the courts or anywhere else. How people are healthy and living well. How everything is moral and ethical. How everyone has equal rights. Tell us how regulations protects everyone.

@cackle, the line of argument is fallacious. You’re basically proposing that if X is flawed, the absence of X is ideal.

Again, I’m not really sure how to respond to this. It’s like arguing that because you have a leaky pipe and poor water pressure, we should do away with indoor plumbing.

Just to be clear: I don’t believe any modern system of government is ideal. I think some clearly work better than others. I also think it’s easy to point to flaws in any system of government. What’s a lot harder is showing that an alternative system (or lack thereof) would actually work better.

@12Oaks, yeah, I don’t think we’re actually that far apart in our beliefs, when it comes down to it. Cheers.

@Qingu,

No, I’m suggesting alternatives to a broken system. An attempt at a better system. Attempting to re-fix a broken system hasn’t work for some time. How about trying something new for a change?

If you really wanted to understand this alternative system I propose, you would go and learn about it in detail rather then expect me to give you an entire dissertation of my premise. This is a very complex subject. A couple of sentences won’t justify anything.

As I wrote earlier, you’re seeing my proposal in action anyway. People want spending cut and taxes cut which in turn limits the government. No one wants high taxes, and only a minority want government spending. If the government won’t be completely dismantled, it’s defiantly heading in a direction of becoming limited in it’s governing power. At least return back to the time when the constitution was written, were the governments role at the time was only to maintain peace (protection and defense). No pension, health care, education, welfare, transportation, research. All of this was handled by the people.

A minority want government spending until you ask them if they still want their SS and Medicare.

And I don’t want to return to the time when the constitution was written. Life expectancies weren’t so hot back then; not to mention the fact that slavery was legal and women and propertyless men did not have the right to vote.

You really sound like a cultist. You are preaching an esoteric system that I have to “learn about” to understand that it’s not the nonsense it appears to be, a return to mythic origins, all the while providing absolutely zero evidence that your alternative system works, and ignoring multiple instances where it has utterly failed. I’m sorry, but I believe social policy should be evidence-based, not cult-based.

@Qingu,

Everything takes time to develop. It wasn’t the government that raised life expectancies, it was the ideas of the entrepreneurs and the entrepreneurs via competition developed these ideas more rapidly over time. As with law, over time it got developed and the peoples wants were answered. Slavery was abolished. You can’t expect things to work out over night.

Interesting. What do you do for a living, and what are your educational degrees? You just labeled Nobel prize winners and awarded PHD professors as nonsensical thinkers. I have given you my evidence, with great credentials to boot, yet all you have given me are logical fallacies. It has never failed because it has never truly existed, nice try.

One thing I’ll give you is you’re great at being sarcastic and baseless name callings, which in my opinion are poor traits to have.

@cackle, I don’t understand why you are playing the appeal to authority game with a group of economists who make up a grand total of one Nobel Prize winner. Why don’t you believe the other 40 nobel laureates besides Hayek (who wasn’t remotely in favor of abolishing the government, by the way)? Even Friedman wasn’t an Austrian.

It’s like asking me why I believe in evolution when two PhDs and a whole foundation say intelligent design is true.

I’d rather keep anonymous on here, but I would appreciate if you pointed out what logical fallacies you think I’ve committed.

As for “entrepreneurs” raising life expectancy, how many of those entrepreneurs were scientists and medical researchers funded by the evil government? Pasteur and Fleming didn’t work in the private sector. They were funded by their respective governments.

That said, surely for-profit medical companies today are making all sorts of life-saving discoveries. Oh wait, they’re more interested in marketing pharmaceuticals that make you less fat and have shinier skin. Competition favors makers of superficial drugs you can market repeatedly. Better yet, nicotine is where the real profits lie.

@Qingu,

Only a few of those 40 are popular and out of those few such and Friedman, although his philosophy is good, his economics has problems. Keynes and new Keynes doesn’t work, as you can see practically. Out of the rest of the few popular one’s I feel Austrian works best. If you propose otherwise, I’m all ears. However, you’re calling it nonsensical thinking, “without evidence”, when you read none of it. You just brushed it off. Your logical fallacious are your incorrect assumptions. Your answers simply don’t apply to the topic of a no government society.

I’ll ask you again, what are your alternatives? What do you propose? You already mentioned taxes are not donations, they provide services, but I told you I don’t benefit from the services accept for roads which can easily be operating by businesses rather then the government. Why must I be forced to pay(donate) for services I don’t use and don’t want to contribute to? The people that work for the government to provide these programs, can provide these programs themselves without the government. Why have a middle man(government)? The middle man(government) can protect us with law to prevent fraud, protection and defense, that’s it. Answer these questions. Or propose solutions.

Let’s recap this argument.

I said the Austrian school, and more specifically your idea about abolishing government and relying entirely on the private sector, is nonsensical because it fails to account for monopolies and trusts, abusive labor practices, false advertising, and buyer beware (i.e. poisoning consumers), among other things. I’ve pointed out that all of these things actually happened during laissez-faire economics. I’ve also challenged you to provide a single instance where your idea has ever worked (I’m still waiting.)

Your response to this was to ask me how I could dare doubt the authority of PhD’s and noble laureates.

I then pointed out that only one out of ~40 nobel econ laureates belong to the Austrian school, that the vast majority do not. I could also point out that many nobel laureates believe the Austrian school is ridiculous.

Your response? You don’t “feel” that they are correct. So I guess you are rescinding your earlier appeal to authority.

Now I’ll answer your questions. Why should the government use your money to distribute services to people other than you? Because you don’t earn your money in a vacuum. You’re a financial analyst; you don’t “earn” your money in some sealed bubble apart from government structures and the rest of society. You rely on the government-created Internet, the telecom system, the firms you bid on rely on roads, their workers rely on public transportation, etc. Human society is interconnected.

I also don’t even understand your arugment that the government is a “middleman” moreso than private sector corps who employ sometimes dozens of middlemen to provide services. The problem of efficiency is separate from the problem of taxes being used to pay for services. Medicare, for example, is more efficient than the private sector insurance companies.

So there. I’ve answered your questions. Now please answer mine.

Firstly, I have a couple of questions before I respond. Give me details for the failing to account for monopolies and trusts, tell me the abusive labor practices, and what false advertising’s, and the buyer beware, etc…You say it all happened during the laissez-faire economics? Give me details. When, how, what.

Secondly, everything you just named still isn’t fixed with the government in control. The same problems still happen.

Thirdly, you pointed out incorrectly because Nobel laureate James. M. Buchanan is considered part of Austrian school. That makes it 2 Nobel laureates, not 1. I agree there are those who disagree, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be advocated for its installment. Keynes is mainstream but there are those that feel it’s ridiculous. What economics do you propose? Keep in mind that any one you propose, I will label you as part of their cult as that’s the way you seem to assume it works.

I’ll explain my middle man argument. When I want to give charity, do I hire a middle man to provide my service? Or do I provide it myself? Do I/don’t I have a choice to hire/fire the middleman? Now apply this to government.

Why can’t the people (entrepreneurs) run these services? Why can the government only do it? If the people (entrepreneurs) would run these services the competition amongst them would drive down prices, and would operate more efficiently, as well as motivate new ideas to remain/beat competitiveness. The most important part is that people would be able to choose rather than be forced to participate.

You also didn’t answer my question regarding, welfare, public schooling, healthcare, and pension. What interconnection is this?

@cackle, are you at all familiar with the state of the American economy during the 1800’s? At this point, you might want to stop arguing and spend some time reading basic American history.

Here you go…

The Popular Interpretation of the Industrial Revolution

The Factory System of the Early Nineteenth Century

The Revolution Was

The Trouble With Child Labor Laws

The Child Labor Amendment Debate of the 1920s

How Sweatshops Help the Poor

Prelude to Depression: Mr. Hoover and Laissez-Faire

Hoover’s Attack on Laissez-Faire

The Hoover New Deal of 1932

Democracy and Laissez-Faire: A New York Case Study

The Myth that Laissez Faire Is Responsible for Our Present Crisis

Monopoly and Competition

Monopoly Prices

A Critique of Neoclassical and Austrian Monopoly Theory

Forgotten Facts of American Labor History

A History of Labor Unions from Colonial Times to 2009

Now, please answer the rest of my questions.

In our government operated society, why are people sick, poor, dying early, dying despite prevention warnings, false advertising, crime, frauds, monopolies, etc…? What exactly changed?

What economics do you propose?

Why the middle man(government)? See my example. When I want to give charity, do I hire a middle man to provide my service? Or do I provide it myself? Do I/don’t I have a choice to hire/fire the middleman? Now apply this to government.

Why can’t the people (entrepreneurs) run these services? Why can the government only do it?

Why am I forced by the government to donate to welfare, pension, healthcare, public schooling, when I don’t benefit from either of these? What is the inter-connectivity?

I should probably make this clear up front: I don’t argue with websites on here. If the people in charge of the Ludwig von Miser society wish to come on Fluther and have a discussion with me, I would be delighted. Otherwise, please make your own arguments—don’t outsource the debate to websites that can’t interact.

As for your question, you are asking me how I can support government when utopia doesn’t exist. I don’t really know where to begin to explain why this is a stupid question; maybe an analogy will suffice (how can you support Western medicine, when there is still disease??? therefore we should revert to stone-age magic medicine!)

I shouldn’t need to point out that there were more sick, poor, dying, unnecessarily dying people, false advertising, crime, fraud, and monopolies now than in the 1800’s during poor regulation, than there are now… but again, it really feels like I’m arguing with someone from another planet. I don’t really know how, or why, to continue this discussion, either, since you’re basically repeating your assertions and ridiculous questions and mindlessly quoting from your cult manual when I challenge them.

@Qingu,

Haha, I see what you’re doing. You’re not interested in my arguments nor the scholarly one’s I presented. I’ve tried arguing with you practically, but you avoid my arguments and questions. Based on your reply’s, you also seem to not understand them at all. Now I linked you to well written structured arguments for all the points you asked and you refuse to read them. You basically want to hear your self talk instead of arguing the points. In order to argue the points, you have to understand what they’re. You already failed with your baseless Somalia example as I showed you. You don’t even answer the questions I ask you. You revert to metaphors unrelated to the topic. Also, where are your proofs that the past is worse then the future. All I see is mindless talk. I gave you a response to each one of your points, and you give me cop outs “oh, I’m a cult”. I’m starting to think you’re just trolling me as most of your dialogue is condescending and sarcastic with light remarks of insults. See fallacy

Sorry chief, I’m done wasting time with you. The only way you will learn is if you actually educate yourself with diversified knowledge, but it seems the only way you’re going to learn now is seeing the practical end result of the near future of America. Why is it you think I’m able to bid well on markets? Could it be because I have a high probability of predicting a future event? That’s what financial districts do. They’re good at predicting future events. What makes you think I won’t be right about a limited to no government? Just wait and see…

Paying my taxes I really owe does relieve my country’s debt.

I think we should all consider giving taxes a more positive connotation. The biggest problem is related to giving taxes a negative connotation, a quite selfish act because increasing today’s debt is making our grandchildren pay even more taxes.

So how about we all stop anti-tax polemics? How about we stop the cheating of people who transfer their money and hide it in offshore locations? Then we won’t need extra donations.

How about we stop the cheating of people who transfer their money and hide it in offshore locations?

I’m all for that, but it seems every time we close/tighten a loophole or flaw in the system (generally through costly and debatably effective regulation), people just find a new way to cheat the system.

Human nature is full of greed and selfishness. People respond to incentives far more often than altruistic pleas. How do you provide incentive for people to want to pay into a system that could help others if they don’t actually care about others? There has to be a clever incentive. The person who comes up with that one should get a Nobel Peace Prize.

How about to support simple notions like having building inspectors so my foundation doesn’t legally crumble, or my electrical work isn’t up to code? How about having health inspectors so my food is more likely to be properly handled? Or the CDC to monitor and assist in the controlling of the spread of disease?

While I’m not always a huge fan of the idea that regulation will solve all problems (it obviously doesn’t), the private sector won’t necessarily demand lots of safety departments.

Think about it. What happens to a business that produces poor service/produce? The customers leave and never come back. The business goes out of business. Not only that, but the customers go to the court house and sue. Don’t you think it’s in the business’s best interest to satisfy the customer rather then cause harm? The business’s also have competition, so if one business behaves bad, the customers will just go to the business next door.

The problem is government intervention. That’s what all businesses take advantage of. They wouldn’t behave in such shady manners if there was no one to help them out. The whole idea behind the housing bubble, is that wall street can leverage as much as they want, and if they lose, the government will bail them out as it did in the past. The government tried to set an example of Lehman brothers, but that’s what caused the entire kill. What business does a government have in a private business? None. They should of let all the banks fail. It would’ve been a necessary fail despite the consequences.

Also, if you want these services, by all means, go pay into it but don’t force me to make sure your building doesn’t fall apart. We all have our own problems. I’m sure you heard the saying “mind your own business”. You can ask, but don’t force. It’s a choice not an obligation. It’s in the constitution…freedom of choice.

Look, I’m not a financial analyst, but I got a solid A in macroeconomics and I get the basics of a free market system. That last post wasn’t the first time I’ve considered this specific argument. I did consider what would happen if occasionally I got raging diarrhea eating at various places, and decided that it would be to tough to prove in court, so that system wouldn’t be great. If I stopped eating out and only bought stuff from the grocery store, I could get the screaming shits from their food just as easily. So definitely the health inspection and oversight is useful in my opinion. We can debate whether we can let that be a gov’t agency, or if consumers should demand to see the current health certification in the window of the restaurant, declaring their compliance with a “reputable” private health inspection firm, but I really don’t care. It is a service that provides jobs both ways.

The problem is government intervention.

It isn’t the only problem, nor the greatest one.

They wouldn’t behave in such shady manners if there was no one to help them out.

Are you implying that the $600 trillion worth of mortgage-backed derivatives in an unregulated market was only due to the fact that everyone knew for the last 10 years the gov’t would prop them up no matter what? I’m honestly asking. How could they all have known for sure?

The government tried to set an example of Lehman brothers, but that’s what caused the entire kill.

You’re probably correct, from what I understand of the situation. Out of curiosity, why do you think they propped up Merrill-Lynch (or rather, coerced BofA to do it)?

What business does a government have in a private business?

I disagree with this statement since gov’t needs to correct for negative externalities. Not saying they do it perfectly at all, but if a local mine can ruin my water supply with impunity, that is crap. Corporations can gain monopoly power and continue to shuttle money from the bottom to the top of the economy even faster than they have the last 40 years. Competition would be totally lost, and the consumers would get totally screwed.

_ They should of let all the banks fail. It would’ve been a necessary fail despite the consequences._

What do you think would have happened in that event? Maybe the upper class would have weathered it fine (like yourself), but what about the health and safety of the rest of the nation? Just survival of the fittest?

but don’t force me to make sure your building doesn’t fall apart.

Tough shit, give me lots of money then, easily made through clever financial manipulations by brilliant quants.

They knew for sure that they would get bailed-out because it was done in the past and because they knew how much they’re worth (to big to fail) scare tactics, and because they had the government in their pockets with all the lobbying.

Paulson warned Merrill-Lynch that they’re going down next after Lehman Brothers. Merrill-Lynch looked at the books and knew he was right, so the CEO went over to BofA to save his ass and the company.

If you’re really interested in hearing arguments on externalities then read this The Externalities Argument

Need I remind you of unintended consequences?

As for what would happen if banks fail? Don’t Bail Them Out

If you want to know more about the bailout arguments. The Bailout Reader

Look at NPD and tell me your statement doesn’t fit right in. “Tough shit, give me lots of money then” This is exactly why the bush tax cuts exist as well as offshore banking.

They knew for sure that they would get bailed-out because it was done in the past

When? I’m not much of a historian.

Paulson warned Merrill-Lynch that they’re going down next after Lehman Brothers. Merrill-Lynch looked at the books and knew he was right, so the CEO went over to BofA to save his ass and the company.

Yes, I’ve read about this. Thane pissed a lot of people off wanting massive bonuses in the buyout too. But I was wondering why you thought they let Lehman fail but not Merrill. Sorry, I didn’t make that too clear. Because Merrill was bigger? I’m pretty fascinated (not really in a good way) by how Paulson sat down the large bank CEOs and told them they’d better take the stimulus payments “or else.”

I’ll read those links later, they look interesting. I didn’t read any of the links you provided in your debate with @Qingu , but if I enjoy the articles I’ll go ahead and learn more about this Austrian school of thought.

I don’t know what NPD stands for, and can’t determine it from the context either. My comment was (mostly) tongue-in-cheek anyways.

Bailout In 1989, U.S. Savings and Loan Crisis.

Any answer I give you in regards to why Lehman was allowed to fall is speculation. You could say that since Paulson was with Goldman Sachs prior to his new career in office, he wanted to take out his colleagues competition (Bear Sterns and Lehman). Or if they keep bailing people out it would look really bad on Paulson. Paulson felt that he had to draw the line somewhere and it happened to be when Lehman was going under. Obviously he made a poor judgment call and afterwords requested the massive bailout. Lehman was going under before Merill so it wasn’t a matter of choosing Lehman or Merill. It was Lehman first, and Merill quickly got bought out.

They have an introductory section for Austrian school of thought on the site and articles on any event that one wishes to argue. Just browse through the site. My friend is taken online courses with them about the FED. Fed is the worse thing that ever happened to this country. I can’t repeat what NPD is. Someone flagged me on my previous comment from flame bait so it was removed.

I have no clue why that comment was removed, that makes no sense to me. Nothing you said in there was inflammatory by my standards. Seems silly or accidental that it was removed. I wish I could just know what NPD is.

Why do you think the Fed is awful? Lots of nations have a central banking system.

@cockswain – Human beings invented exchange and trade based on fairness. Suppose a company gets greedy selling vitamins which are in fact colored sugar pills. An unfair trade that doesn’t last. Same happens on eBay because of rating sellers and buyers. So what’s missing right now is full exposure of people and companies hiding assets in offshore locations. We can boycott unethical banks and support ethical banks. Millions doing this will get the banks’ attention. Greed is about win-lose. Trade is about win-win.