Morality of Wealth Redistribution

[kaz]

Brian calls himself an anarchist,

an anarchist is simple a lib commie who wants anarchy chaos as a necessary step toward communism.

Pizza is a rotund mound of California igloo slobber

 

[kaz]

And you think we have free trade when government regulates and taxes the crap out of it..

If I said that I'll pay you $10,000. Bet?

I'll pass, no one as stupid as you are has $10,000, but here you go.

We have fewer jobs at less pay and the most free trade ever. Sorry to rock your world.

 

[Uncensored2008]

an anarchist is simple a lib commie who wants anarchy chaos as a necessary step toward communism.

Utter nonsense. An anarchist seeks no government at all - a Communist seeks total government.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

an anarchist is simple a lib commie who wants anarchy chaos as a necessary step toward communism.

Utter nonsense. An anarchist seeks no government at all - a Communist seeks total government.

so how would that work anyway?

 

[Uncensored2008]

so how would that work anyway?

Nature abhors a vacuum. Anarchy leads to gangs and then warlords. I don't support anarchy and will not defend it.

Civil societies require a means of defense. Civil societies require a system to arbitrate disputes, this means courts and the officers of the court, better known as police. Honestly, I see very little else that government is needed for. Easements must be maintained for public travel, but courts can define and enforce them. I see no reason that roads should be public. I see nothing but reasons that schools should NOT be public. I hold that local communities can do as they please, within the limits of respecting civil rights. If Santa Monica wants full Communism, it is their right within their city to institute it. If Riverside wants a Laissez Faire system, that is the right of the people of that city. I oppose the idea that the state or federal government can impose on either the rules for their community. I support self-rule.

 

[bripat9643]

so how would that work anyway?

Nature abhors a vacuum. Anarchy leads to gangs and then warlords. I don't support anarchy and will not defend it.

Civil societies require a means of defense. Civil societies require a system to arbitrate disputes, this means courts and the officers of the court, better known as police. Honestly, I see very little else that government is needed for. Easements must be maintained for public travel, but courts can define and enforce them. I see no reason that roads should be public. I see nothing but reasons that schools should NOT be public. I hold that local communities can do as they please, within the limits of respecting civil rights. If Santa Monica wants full Communism, it is their right within their city to institute it. If Riverside wants a Laissez Faire system, that is the right of the people of that city. I oppose the idea that the state or federal government can impose on either the rules for their community. I support self-rule.

The quote below shows why your trust in so-called "limited government" is misguided. Government never allows itself to be limited.

Private Law – LewRockwell.com

As noted, the government is the ultimate judge in every case of conflict, including conflicts involving itself. Consequently, instead of merely preventing and resolving conflict, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making will also provoke conflict in order to settle it to his own advantage. That is, if one can only appeal to government for justice, justice will be perverted in the favor of government, constitutions and supreme courts notwithstanding. Indeed, these are government constitutions and courts, and whatever limitations on government action they may find is invariably decided by agents of the very same institution under consideration. Predictably, the definition of property and protection will be altered continually and the range of jurisdiction expanded to the government’s advantage. The idea of eternal and immutable law that must be discovered will disappear and be replaced by the idea of law as legislation — as flexible state-made law.

Even worse, the state is a monopolist of taxation, and while those who receive the taxes — the government employees — regard taxes as something good, those who must pay the taxes regard the payment as something bad, as an act of expropriation. As a tax-funded life-and-property protection agency, then, the very institution of government is nothing less than a contradiction in terms. It is an expropriating property protector, “producing” ever more taxes and ever less protection. Even if a government limited its activities exclusively to the protection of the property of its citizens, as classical liberals have proposed, the further question of how much security to produce would arise. Motivated, as everyone is, by self-interest and the disutility of labor but equipped with the unique power to tax, a government agent’s goal will invariably be to maximize expenditures on protection, and almost all of a nation’s wealth can conceivably be consumed by the cost of protection, and at the same time to minimize the production of protection. The more money one can spend and the less one must work to produce, the better off one will be.

In sum, the incentive structure inherent in the institution of government is not a recipe for the protection of life and property, but instead a recipe for maltreatment, oppression, and exploitation. This is what the history of states illustrates. It is first and foremost the history of countless millions of ruined human lives.

 

[bripat9643]

an anarchist is simple a lib commie who wants anarchy chaos as a necessary step toward communism.

Utter nonsense. An anarchist seeks no government at all - a Communist seeks total government.

so how would that work anyway?

Private Law – LewRockwell.com

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

so how would that work anyway?

Nature abhors a vacuum. Anarchy leads to gangs and then warlords. I don't support anarchy and will not defend it.

Civil societies require a means of defense. Civil societies require a system to arbitrate disputes, this means courts and the officers of the court, better known as police. Honestly, I see very little else that government is needed for. Easements must be maintained for public travel, but courts can define and enforce them. I see no reason that roads should be public. I see nothing but reasons that schools should NOT be public. I hold that local communities can do as they please, within the limits of respecting civil rights. If Santa Monica wants full Communism, it is their right within their city to institute it. If Riverside wants a Laissez Faire system, that is the right of the people of that city. I oppose the idea that the state or federal government can impose on either the rules for their community. I support self-rule.

so then nobody is willing to support anarchy? Its sort of idiotic to even have it around for discussion given that just a hand full in the entire country support it and they are mostly communists tryng to start a revolution that might lead from anarchy to communism. Many communist anarchists opposed Marx because they thought is far slowly methods would never work.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The quote below shows why your trust in so-called "limited government" is misguided. Government never allows itself to be limited.

Private Law – LewRockwell.com

Yes, we disagree on this. Which is the main reason I noted that I am far more liberal than you. Anarchy is mob rule - until a strongman seizes power and imposes his will on others.

 

[Uncensored2008]

so then nobody is willing to support anarchy? Its sort of idiotic to even have it around for discussion given that just a hand full in the entire country support it and they are mostly communists tryng to start a revolution that might lead from anarchy to communism. Many communist anarchists opposed Marx because they thought is far slowly methods would never work.

I like you Ed, so no insult intended by this, but you are out of your depth here.

 

[kaz]

The quote below shows why your trust in so-called "limited government" is misguided. Government never allows itself to be limited.

Private Law – LewRockwell.com

Yes, we disagree on this. Which is the main reason I noted that I am far more liberal than you. Anarchy is mob rule - until a strongman seizes power and imposes his will on others.

That is the thing. The anarchists have this idea of rugged individuals fiercely independent, and they probably would want to live that way. Most people would want to be taken care of, like the sheep they are. Look at all the liberals, they're going to join up with whoever manipulates them, form armies and start conquering. Then the rest of us would band together because that's the only way to protect ourselves. Then we end up with government again.

Better to just fight for the protection from mob rule without the wealth distribution now. Even with one government, the left is all about mob rule. You can't escape it. Any of these goals are going to lose anyway, liberals breed like rabbits.

 

[dnsmith35]

actually the opposite, we have more free trade than ever. That is why wages are down and unemployment is up. Sorry

You obviously don't own a business or work in management. I'm not sure how you believe that liberal lawyers telling you what's in their own self serving interest know more about economics than economists, but you obviously are unshakable in your belief that they do.

economists all agree the u6 is at 12.3% and wages are going down. Sorry to rock your world.

Strawman

we have fewer jobs at less pay and the most free trade ever. Sorry to rock your world.

Actually Ed, our national prosperity has gone up. Another thing, it is not so much a stagnation of wages of the middle class as it is the increasing prosperity of the top .01%. The recession cut into the wages of everyone, and the jobs available for everyone, but the economy has been surging since the recession. And personally, since I throw out even the semblance of a "zero sum" concept of wealth, I don't see the top .01% taking any wealth away from the less wealthy. I earned what I got in blood and sweat. The rich did not hold me back a dime.

 

[dnsmith35]

The quote below shows why your trust in so-called "limited government" is misguided. Government never allows itself to be limited.

Private Law – LewRockwell.com

Yes, we disagree on this. Which is the main reason I noted that I am far more liberal than you. Anarchy is mob rule - until a strongman seizes power and imposes his will on others.

That is the thing. The anarchists have this idea of rugged individuals fiercely independent, and they probably would want to live that way. Most people would want to be taken care of, like the sheep they are. Look at all the liberals, they're going to join up with whoever manipulates them, form armies and start conquering. Then the rest of us would band together because that's the only way to protect ourselves. Then we end up with government again.

Better to just fight for the protection from mob rule without the wealth distribution now. Even with one government, the left is all about mob rule. You can't escape it. Any of these goals are going to lose anyway, liberals breed like rabbits.

Tyranny of the majority seems to fit your description.

 

[dnsmith35]

an anarchist is simple a lib commie who wants anarchy chaos as a necessary step toward communism.

Utter nonsense. An anarchist seeks no government at all - a Communist seeks total government.

Effectively, there cannot be Communism or real Socialism without an autocratic/dictatorial government.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

an anarchist is simple a lib commie who wants anarchy chaos as a necessary step toward communism.

Utter nonsense. An anarchist seeks no government at all - a Communist seeks total government.

Effectively, there cannot be Communism or real Socialism without an autocratic/dictatorial government.

yes, and pure anarchy is idiotic

 

[Ernie S.]

actually the opposite, we have more free trade than ever. That is why wages are down and unemployment is up. Sorry

You obviously don't own a business or work in management. I'm not sure how you believe that liberal lawyers telling you what's in their own self serving interest know more about economics than economists, but you obviously are unshakable in your belief that they do.

economists all agree the u6 is at 12.3% and wages are going down. Sorry to rock your world.

Strawman

we have fewer jobs at less pay and the most free trade ever. Sorry to rock your world.

Actually Ed, our national prosperity has gone up. Another thing, it is not so much a stagnation of wages of the middle class as it is the increasing prosperity of the top .01%. The recession cut into the wages of everyone, and the jobs available for everyone, but the economy has been surging since the recession. And personally, since I throw out even the semblance of a "zero sum" concept of wealth, I don't see the top .01% taking any wealth away from the less wealthy. I earned what I got in blood and sweat. The rich did not hold me back a dime.

The rich have provided me with the opportunity to succeed in my field and to live fairly comfortably in my semi-retirement.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

the economy has been surging since the recession.

China is surging with about 7-10% GDP for 30 years. Care to think again.

 

[kaz]

The rich have provided me with the opportunity to succeed in my field and to live fairly comfortably in my semi-retirement.

I've owned my business for five years, and no one has ever quit. Business owners know if we hire the right people and take care of them, they will take care of us. I can go on vacation for a week and not worry about the business at all. However, that is because I have hired the right people, trained and supported them and worked with them to establish and document procedures. I also deal with staff who can't cut it and get rid of them. That is critical to a healthy business. None of my good employees were ever threatened by my firing the bad ones.

Without great ownership and management though, it all falls apart. The employees can't do those things themselves. Government sure as hell can't do it. Even when you do it well and have great staff, they have no idea how much hits me dealing with government, financing, doing deals, making payroll. And if I am not compensated for it, I am not going to do it. Period. Liberals are idiots.

I'm glad you get it, Ernie.

 

[KissMy]

China is surging with about 7-10% GDP for 30 years. Care to think again.

China is a Communist Country that has been growing at 15%.

November 2013 The Chinese ruling Communist Party said it plans to let markets play a “decisive” role in allocating resources as part of a significant economic overhaul, marking a shift from past statements that described a “basic” role for the markets in the country’s tightly-regulated economy. They pledge for economic and overall reforms by 2020.

Now China is only growing at 7.5% in 2014.

 

[dnsmith35]

actually the opposite, we have more free trade than ever. That is why wages are down and unemployment is up. Sorry

You obviously don't own a business or work in management. I'm not sure how you believe that liberal lawyers telling you what's in their own self serving interest know more about economics than economists, but you obviously are unshakable in your belief that they do.

economists all agree the u6 is at 12.3% and wages are going down. Sorry to rock your world.

Strawman

we have fewer jobs at less pay and the most free trade ever. Sorry to rock your world.

Actually Ed, our national prosperity has gone up. Another thing, it is not so much a stagnation of wages of the middle class as it is the increasing prosperity of the top .01%. The recession cut into the wages of everyone, and the jobs available for everyone, but the economy has been surging since the recession. And personally, since I throw out even the semblance of a "zero sum" concept of wealth, I don't see the top .01% taking any wealth away from the less wealthy. I earned what I got in blood and sweat. The rich did not hold me back a dime.

The rich have provided me with the opportunity to succeed in my field and to live fairly comfortably in my semi-retirement.

Me too. I have been retired for 27 years, went back to grad school to get a Masters degree and an Ed.S, then did free lance consulting when I felt like it. Stopped doing that 15 years ago because it was eating into my play time. Cast, reel in, jerk, STRIKE, fight, reel in, clean fish, eat!