Personally I feel good investing in my country.
No one would stop you from "investing in your country." You just want to force everyone else to "invest" as well.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
So private companies "gouge" but the government doesn't? I think you have it exactly backwards. What private companies are "gouging" you right now?
Really? What lesson did they learn from the railroads? Did they learn that 90% of them weren't actually private but crony capitalist weasels that syphoned off money and privileges and land from the government? That most most of them were well connected to politicians who happily handed over tax-funded rents to these "private" companies? There's only one that I know that was nearly as truly private (and profitable and successful) as can be and that was James J. Hill's Great Northern Railway.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
No. They don't. The cost gets passed onto customers one way or another.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
You're serious using a corporate crony, government contractor as an argument for government? Surely you can do better than that!
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
You're confusing price and cost. The cost of those taxes are borne by the customers of the companies. This is so obvious a first grader could see it.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Well sorta. It's really using the government to gouge taxpayers. But this is my central point. It is the government and its power to tax (steal) that is being used. Reduce or eliminate that power and Haliburton (et al) has to go out and earn a living by providing valuable products and services to customers that will willingly and voluntarily pay them.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Yes.
Correct.
Unproven claim.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Service. Quality. Features. Etc.
The customers pay those taxes whether you see, think it, want to admit it or not.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
You don't get it. Pay attention: They don't pay taxes. It doesn't matter what it looks like, they are not paying the taxes. Period. The customers (that's you and me) are paying those taxes. Raise taxes on corporations, you raise taxes on customers.
Make it illegal. Problem solved. Now pay up.
Here's an idea for you. Why doesn't every person in the country claim themself as a self proprietor business and open offshore accounts in other countries? Then no one will ever pay taxes. Sound good? Probably to you yes.
If the rich have so much money they can buy the gov't, who's job it is to represent you and me and not the corps and rich buying them, then tell me again how that's good?
I am not for 'big government' but I am completely against buying our gov't and I think most of the country would agree.
Reading your posts I don't seem to understand your points. I'm guessing you're libertarian? Tell me how you think taxes and gov't should work.
Make it illegal. Problem solved. Now pay up.
Make what illegal?!
Here's an idea for you. Why doesn't every person in the country claim the,sf as a self proprietor business and open offshore accounts in other countries. Then no one will ever pay taxes. Sound good? Probably to you yes.
Yes, it does.
If the rich have so much money they can buy the gov't, who's job it is to represent you and me and not the corps and rich buying them, then tell me again how that's good?
It's not good. That's why I want a government with much less power and much less power requires and means much lower taxes.
I am not for 'big government' but I am completely against buying our gov't and I think most of the country would agree.
And so do I. But as long as the government has power (and more of it) and power to collect more and more money it will attract those who want to use it for their own ends. It's as it always was and always will be.
Reading your posts I don't seem to understand your points. I'm guessing you're libertarian? Tell me how you think taxes and gov't should work.
Technically I'm an anarchy-capitalist...which is a bit more extreme even than your typical libertarian.
I'd like to see no State and no taxes.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Make what illegal?!
Yes, it does.
It's not good. That's why I want a government with much less power and much less power requires and means much lower taxes.
And so do I. But as long as the government has power (and more of it) and power to collect more and more money it will attract those who want to use it for their own ends. It's as it always was and always will be.
Technically I'm an anarchy-capitalist...which is a bit more extreme even than your typical libertarian.
I'd like to see no State and no taxes.
Interesting. So tell me how the country would look then.
Out of curiosity, are planning on voting for Gary Johnson?
Also, since that seems like an extreme version of libertarian, tell me how we would thrive in such a country, as all I can ever see at the end of a libertairan utopia is the rich owing us all.
I assume that you presume a) that's the only way to get those things, and b) that the State does theme best.
...
Yeah. I'll bet the correlation isn't what you think though.
Since you seem to be the expert, could you enlighten us wandering in the dark? Or may it be that the correlation isn't what you think? (don't really know since you didn't say)
If you look at Rich's link's original source: (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/04/happiness-world-bhutan-meeting-denmark.html?track=icymi) it would seem to correlate with wealth, but that's a very simplistic answer. A telling question: why are the less wealthy nordic nations above the more wealthy U.S. of A?
If you read the actual report, they say "these inter-country differences can be attributed to the same few variables measuring material, social and institutional supports for a good life". Two of those are socialist ideas, only one a capitalist one. You on the other hand seem to advocate that there should be minimal institutional support for a good life and by proxy social as well?
As to the state does best theme: Which country tops the world education system? What kind of schools does it have almost exclusively? Which countries have the best bang for buck in their healthcare? How do they operate?
Government isn't the best at offering all services, but neither is a corporation and a corporation is not even necessarily more efficient for the citizen. Both are needed to be used smartly but the funding almost always comes from the citizens.
Please watch this TED talk. It kind of proves a point if you are willing to look for it: http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
P.S. GDP per Capita: Denmark 37kUSD, USA 49kUSD.
Well sorta. It's really using the government to gouge taxpayers. But this is my central point. It is the government and its power to tax (steal) that is being used. Reduce or eliminate that power and Haliburton (et al) has to go out and earn a living by providing valuable products and services to customers that will willingly and voluntarily pay them.
What would happen when corporations become really big to form monopolies when there is no mechanism to curb their behavior? The corporations become the de-facto government.
Look at what happened for example in mining camps at the beginning of the century. They owned the workers and the workers ended up owing more money to the company that they were being paid due to having no other option than buying their goods from one source at extorcionate prices. That also happened in European monarchies (especially in Russia). There the aristocrats owned everything and the masses were effectively land slaves that owed the lords more than they could make off the land that they were renting from the aristocrats. That is one reason the communist ideology flooded many of the monarchist countries in Europe at that time. Russia being the extreme example.
I can easily see a case, when you go for anarchy-capitalism, that it will end up with an extreme form of communism in the end. (Liberalism -> corporate monopoly -> de-facto slavery of the people via extorcionate pricing and debt -> Revolt and redistribution of wealth and property via communism)
Interesting. So tell me how the country would look then.
Out of curiosity, are planning on voting for Gary Johnson?
Also, since that seems like an extreme version of libertarian, tell me how we would thrive in such a country, as all I can ever see at the end of a libertairan utopia is the rich owing us all.
More free and prosperous.
No.
Very well.
I'm sorry (but not surprised) to hear that. Most people have been trained (by State schools) to have rather dystopian views of the world without the State.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
What would happen when corporations become really big to form monopolies when there is no mechanism to curb their behavior? The corporations become the de-facto government.
Actually it is the State that creates monopolies. Generally speaking monopolies cannot and do not last without State protection.
Look at what happened for example in mining camps at the beginning of the century. They owned the workers and the workers ended up owing more money to the company that they were being paid due to having no other option than buying their goods from one source at extorcionate prices. That also happened in European monarchies (especially in Russia). There the aristocrats owned everything and the masses were effectively land slaves that owed the lords more than they could make off the land that they were renting from the aristocrats. That is one reason the communist ideology flooded many of the monarchist countries in Europe at that time. Russia being the extreme example.
I'm not sure what you're referring to in regard to the "mining camps at the beginning of the century." Can you be more specific? As for the others, you are simply referring to other forms (e.g., monarchies) of State suppression, not freedom.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
More free and prosperous.
No.
Very well.
I'm sorry (but not surprised) to hear that. Most people have been trained (by State schools) to have rather dystopian views of the world without the State.
I think myself and the last couple people are asking very similar questions. I've yet to hear from a Libertarian how this could work. With no regulations and no protection from corporate expansion, explain how the world would look where the rich don't own us all?
You do realize btw that government is there to represent us. Now I know in modern times it's become increasingly owned by the rich. But if scaled back and money removed I see a better outlook than one where corporations and the rich can turn us all into slaves.
I asked this before and you didn't respond. What 'Freedoms' do you think you'll have when the rich own the planet, me and you?
Actually it is the State that creates monopolies. Generally speaking monopolies cannot and do not last without State protection.
I'm not sure what you're referring to in regard to the "mining camps at the beginning of the century." Can you be more specific? As for the others, you are simply referring to other forms (e.g., monarchies) of State suppression, not freedom.
A state can create monopolies, but an unrestricted capitalist economy, where companies have no rules to abide by are practically guaranteed to create monopolies (why else would we have anti-monopoly legislation in place practically everywhere?). What you apparently didn't grasp (perhaps being blinded by the concept of a state=bad) is that any unit that has too much unrestricted power, will enslave citizens for their own profit be it a monarchy, dictatorship (a la russian communism for example) or a corporate monopoly.
You see the problem is not with the form (government, corporate or monarchy) per se, it's with human nature and the people in power. They become corrupt and greedy to an extent that has no boundaries if they hold a too powerful position for too long. It's one of the reasons many countries have a limit as to how long a president can stay in office for example. Perfect example of this corruption would probably be robert mugabe, who started out as a intelligent benefactor, but stayed in power for too long. If you look at current successful monarchies, none of them have any real power anymore and are in fact democracies with a head of state to keep the yellow press going.
"mining camps" referred to places like the mines in the UK or the US midwest, where the workers had no choice but to pay rent for their accommodation, buy foods and other goods from the company store etc. This created a local monopoly which in practice enslaved their own workers. I believe this still happens in Africa, where the goverment is not strong enough to regulate it.
But you wanted an example: http://www.heritage.nf.ca/society/company_towns.html is a quick one I found. Read the second paragraph.
BTW: Did you watch the TED talk? It should give you some proof that goverment isn't all that bad.
Now could you in turn provide an example of a case where an anarchist-capitalist system actually works or didn't work?
More free and prosperous.
Hah. Just as blind an ideological view as the communist had. You're only forgetting the nasty sides of human nature just like the communists did.
If you'd take human nature's bad sides into account, you'd see that your anarchistic-capitalist systems has no chance of working until we as humans evolve a bit further. That should only take some tens of thousands of years at minimum.
I've yet to hear from a Libertarian how this could work. With no regulations and no protection from corporate expansion, explain how the world would look where the rich don't own us all?
What makes you assume they could expand indefinitely and would own us all?
You do realize btw that government is there to represent us.
That's the claim (and maybe even the intent) but it hasn't really worked out that way.
Now I know in modern times it's become increasingly owned by the rich.
Bingo!
But if scaled back and money removed I see a better outlook than one where corporations and the rich can turn us all into slaves.
How?
I asked this before and you didn't respond. What 'Freedoms' do you think you'll have when the rich own the planet, me and you?
I reject you're premise that they can or will.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
A state can create monopolies, but an unrestricted capitalist economy, where companies have no rules to abide by are practically guaranteed to create monopolies
How?
why else would we have anti-monopoly legislation in place practically everywhere?
So less successful competitors can use the State to hamstring their more successful competitors.
What you apparently didn't grasp (perhaps being blinded by the concept of a state=bad) is that any unit that has too much unrestricted power, will enslave citizens for their own profit be it a monarchy, dictatorship (a la russian communism for example) or a corporate monopoly.
What you have not demonstrated is how, in a free market, these enslaving corporate monopolies would come about and persist.
You see the problem is not with the form (government, corporate or monarchy) per se, it's with human nature and the people in power. They become corrupt and greedy to an extent that has no boundaries if they hold a too powerful position for too long. It's one of the reasons many countries have a limit as to how long a president can stay in office for example.
Agreed. And the State is the entity that is "given" more power than any other and thus attracts the very people who lust for power and are corrupted by it.
BTW: Did you watch the TED talk? It should give you some proof that goverment isn't all that bad.
Not yet.
Now could you in turn provide an example of a case where an anarchist-capitalist system actually works or didn't work?
No.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Hah. Just as blind an ideological view as the communist had.
You're only forgetting the nasty sides of human nature just like the communists did.
Not at all. I'm just saying that if it is as widespread as you seem to think it is, the last thing you want to do is create some entity (the State) that has a monopoly on the use of force. That would be bad.
If you'd take human nature's bad sides into account, you'd see that your anarchistic-capitalist systems has no chance of working until we as humans evolve a bit further.
If you take human nature's bad sides into account, you'd see that creating an entity that is given a monopoly in the use of force will turn out badly.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
So less successful competitors can use the State to hamstring their more successful competitors.
Hmm. So you are saying that all the antitrust lawsuits pushed by governments against uncompetitive practices of companies in a commandeering or otherwise powerful role are bad for competition? Or did I get your gist wrong somehow?
Look for example at the Intel case where they denied processors to companies that wanted to use the cheaper and faster (thus better) processors. Is that bad legislation? If it isn't, how would you do that without a state?
What makes you assume they could expand indefinitely and would own us all?
That's the claim (and maybe even the intent) but it hasn't really worked out that way.
Bingo!
How?
I reject you're premise that they can or will.
This is what is happening. The rich will own us all, regardless of whether they just keep throwing money at our politicians or not. At least with government on our side and fighting we have a chance.
Your idea that corporation will self-reguate have been proven not to work. Leek at where we are. Look at the stock market. We are living the proof that corporations will destroy the planet and buy the country. I completely agree with the other poster.
Did you say you're voting for gary johnson? I know it's not Mitt, who 100% bought and paid for and wants to create even bigger gov't- right?
Hmm. So you are saying that all the antitrust lawsuits pushed by governments against uncompetitive practices of companies in a commandeering or otherwise powerful role are bad for competition? Or did I get your gist wrong somehow?
What I'm saying is that the history shows that State anti-"monopoly" action has been at the behest of less successful competitors in an attempt to tear down a more successful competitor.
In other words: Less successful competitors use the State as a bully against the alleged "anti-competitive" actions of their more successful competitors because they we unable to compete on their own.
So, yes, it is bad for competition.
Look for example at the Intel case where they denied processors to companies that wanted to use the cheaper and faster (thus better) processors. Is that bad legislation? If it isn't, how would you do that without a state?
I'm not familiar enough with the instance you're referring to to be able to comment on it.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
This is what is happening.
What is?
The rich will own us all, regardless of whether they just keep throwing money at our politicians or not.
Unproven claim.
At least with government on our side and fighting we have a chance.
You don't even seem to notice the irony in what you're saying. You're saying the rich and the corporations own the government, but the government is "on our side" and somehow protecting us.
Your idea that corporation will self-reguate have been proven not to work.
No one claimed that they would.
Did you say you're voting for gary johnson? I know it's not Mitt, who 100% bought and paid for and wants to create even bigger gov't- right?
Not voting for either. Don't even know if GJ is on the ballot in my state anyway. Romney is a crony capitalist, big government Keynesian. I'm not optimistic about the futur eno matter who wins today.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
I'm not familiar enough with the instance you're referring to to be able to comment on it.
My bad, I left out the name of the other company: AMD.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/intel-tentatively-settles-ftc-antitrust-suit/
My bad, I left out the name of the other company: AMD.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/08/intel-tentatively-settles-ftc-antitrust-suit/
So the bottom line here is that Intel said they would not sell their processors to some companies that also bought processors from a competitor. Is that basically it?
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
So the bottom line here is that Intel said they would not sell their processors to some companies that also bought processors from a competitor. Is that basically it?
Yes. Basically a practical monopoly tried to limit end user choice to be able to buy a better product at a cheaper price. So they acted as a market entry barrier.
Yes. Basically a practical monopoly tried to limit end user choice to be able to buy a better product at a cheaper price. So they acted as a market entry barrier.
Your characterization aside, I don't see a problem. If a company doesn't want to sell their product to another or put conditions on the sale of that product, they should be free to do that. No one is compelled to accept those terms.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Your characterization aside, I don't see a problem. If a company doesn't want to sell their product to another or put conditions on the sale of that product, they should be free to do that. No one is compelled to accept those terms.
And yet you fail to see how companies in an unrestricted country would gain monopolies, where they could set prices at will without competitions. 
