It's pointless to bicker about those political labels, so I'll pose some simple questions instead.
1) Does society at large benefit when productive people are free to produce?
2) Does society at large benefit when productive people are burdened by taxes, licenses, tariffs, fees etc, thus demotivating them from producing?
3) Does society at large benefit when money is taken from productive people and given to unproductive people (thus demotivating them from producing)?
Note that I'm not calling "unproductive people" any names. This is not about hostility, it's just that some people actually do produce goods and services and wealth in general, and others don't.
Note also that all tax revenues come from the economic surplus generated by productive people. Yes, even when an employee pays taxes out of his salary, the money for his salary had to first be generated by the business paying that salary, but I'd count normal employees as "productive people" too.
Unproductive people is such goddamn vague terminology. If we left it simply as a matter of if they contribute more than they take, then the infirm elderly, and all minors would fall under that category and it doesn't consider the emotional wealth that "unproductive people" add.
Community is too complicated to apply such a binary as "productive" and "unproductive".
1) Does society at large benefit when companies are free to exploit everyone and everything in any way they want to maximize their productiveness?
2) Does society at large benefit when successful businesses mainly make their owner richer?
3) Does society at large benefit when money is taken from productive people and given to poor people (thus ensuring the poor won't die early or turn to crime)?
Does society at large benefit when productive people are free to produce?
Yes.
Does society at large benefit when productive people are burdened by taxes, licenses, tariffs, fees etc, thus demotivating them from producing?
Your loaded question is noted, and the answer is still "yes." We have historical evidence that these things have a slight "demotivation" effect but the benefit of regulating industry outweighs the costs.
Does society at large benefit when money is taken from productive people and given to unproductive people (thus demotivating them from producing)?
Again with the loaded question. Societies that establish a minimum standard of living tend to be very successful, ranking higher in health, happiness and a host of other rankings examining the human condition. Productivity and growth are not and should never be the only measures of a successful society.
We have historical evidence that these things have a slight "demotivation" effect but the benefit of regulating industry outweighs the costs.
You say "slight demotivation", but compared to what? Look at historical evidence of what happens in relative freedom, like the early United States for example. Massive prosperity followed, and that can't be explained through a slight difference in motivation.
What is the benefit of "regulating industry", and what are the regulations that produce the benefit? You need to be able to back that assertion up.
Societies that establish a minimum standard of living tend to be very successful
Anyone can understand that taking money from some and giving it to others is a zero-sum game. In fact, the net result is negative because of the costs involved in "redistributing" people's property.
But when you say "successful", do you mean that compared to early United States, or compared to.. The Soviet Union, or perhaps something in between?
You say "slight demotivation", but compared to what? Look at historical evidence of what happens in relative freedom, like the early United States for example. Massive prosperity followed, and that can't be explained through a slight difference in motivation.
Compared to "normal" economic growth. The claim that taxes and regulation are holding back our freedoms is a common Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist claim but it's not one that's backed by evidence. The early United States was a good example of extreme economic instability, brutal working conditions and prosperity that was not widely shared by the people helping to create it. Our middle class was strongest when taxes and regulation were highest, not the least. The more we've repealed regulation and reduced taxes the more income inequality has resulted.
What is the benefit of "regulating industry", and what are the regulations that produce the benefit? You need to be able to back that assertion up.
Anyone can understand that taking money from some and giving it to others is a zero-sum game. In fact, the net result is negative because of the costs involved in "redistributing" people's property.
I see, so I have to back up my assertions but you don't? In fact, your assertion is demonstrably wrong.
I mean when you examine factors other than GDP and economic output, the US ranks behind all other industrialized nations for how happy and healthy our people are. In many categories like health we rank behind many third world nations.
Look, don't just slap me with a wall of links. Make some claims in your own words, and back them up.
Let me give you an example here..
The claim that taxes and regulation are holding back our freedoms is a common Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist claim but it's not one that's backed by evidence.
The definition of "freedoms" is kind of vague here, so unless taxes can be considered a violation of our "freedom" to use our property as we see fit, let's move on to regulations.
There is no need for evidence here. Regulations are laws, and laws are commands that say either that you must do X, or that you can't do Y. As such, laws are clearly "holding back our freedoms", because they all limit our choices.
See? Was that so hard?
I see, so I have to back up my assertions but you don't? In fact, your assertion is demonstrably wrong.
I pointed out that taking money from some and giving it to others, minus "costs", is actually a negative sum game.
How is the minimum wage related to my claim?
Again, if you have points to make, make them in your own words. Don't just invite me to wade through reams of text looking for an argument you might be making, if you were inclined to actually make one.
Evidence is how we separate opinion from fact. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. I have backed my opinions with data on how we know what works and what doesn't, at least when it comes to human outcomes. As Roosevelt reminded us nearly a hundred years ago, "necessitous men are not free men."
The policies you endorse do not promote freedom for any but an elite few. You are full of claims for how you think the world should work but that has no bearing on what is actually true. For that you need evidence.
So don't complain to me that you're bringing a knife to a gun fight. Present your evidence or get out of the way.
@shiranaihito - Evidence is how we separate opinion from fact.
There's no such thing as a square circle. Do you want evidence, or is logic enough?
I have backed my opinions with data on how we know what works and what doesn't
No, you haven't. That's what I'm saying. You have pasted a shitload of links at me, inviting me to go read them to find support for your case, whatever it might be. That's not how you debate people.
The policies you endorse do not promote freedom for any but an elite few.
That's complete horseshit, considering I haven't endorsed any "policies". In fact, I endorse having no policies at all, i.e. a free market. That's also horseshit because what I actually do endorse, promotes freedom for everyone.
So don't complain to me that you're bringing a knife to a gun fight. Present your evidence or get out of the way.
So you demand evidence from me, but don't hold yourself to any sound debating standards, as shown by your false claim above about the "policies" I endorse. Does that sound fair?
The definition of "freedoms" is kind of vague here, so unless taxes can be considered a violation of our "freedom" to use our property as we see fit, let's move on to regulations.
There is no need for evidence here. Regulations are laws, and laws are commands that say either that you must do X, or that you can't do Y. As such, laws are clearly "holding back our freedoms", because they all limit our choices.
See? Was that so hard?
I see, so I have to back up my assertions but you don't? In fact, your assertion is demonstrably wrong.
I pointed out that taking money from some and giving it to others, minus "costs", is actually a negative sum game.
There's no such thing as a square circle. Do you want evidence, or is logic enough?
Mathematics and logic can only take you so far. When you're talking about policies that have real-world consequences then you need to support your claims with evidence. Square circles are not relevant to this conversation, the impact of economic and political policies are.
No, you haven't. That's what I'm saying. You have pasted a shitload of links at me, inviting me to go read them to find support for your case, whatever it might be. That's not how you debate people.
Yes, I have. I have made claims, and then I have provided sources for how I know those claims to be true. Furthermore, I have provided sources for how I know your claims are not true. I have done my due diligence. Whether or not you care enough to follow through is your concern.
That's complete horseshit, considering I haven't endorsed any "policies". In fact, I endorse having no policies at all, i.e. a free market. That's also horseshit because what I actually do endorse, promotes freedom for everyone.
The "free market" is, in fact, a policy position. I have presented evidence that your "free market" is a utopian fantasy, that the closer we get to creating it the worse off everyone's lives become except for an elite few. I have furthermore presented evidence that carefully managed economies -- not the Soviet-style Communist dictatorships that you like to reference as the only example of a managed economy -- not only create better results for everyone but they create more freedom for everyone involved. You "know" your free-market ideals are true because you have faith. I know your free-market ideals are wrong because I have evidence.
So you demand evidence from me, but don't hold yourself to any sound debating standards, as shown by your false claim above about the "policies" I endorse. Does that sound fair?
I held myself to the same standards I hold you to. Your problem is that you don't have anything to support your claims, merely assertions. I know this because if you did have anything to back up your claims you would have presented them already. Consequently, this discussion is finished, barring any evidence in support of your assertions.
It's not, and especially not because I didn't even bring it up before you made your claim about the "policies" I endorse. You're being (intellectually) dishonest again.
Also, a policy is based on "regulations", which are laws, which are commands that you're punished for disobeying.
In other words, a policy is based on coercion, and a free market requires an absence of that.
I have furthermore presented evidence that carefully managed economies [..] not only create better results for everyone but they create more freedom for everyone involved.
"Managing" an economy involves coercion, because without it, people would just do whatever they wanted. So basically you're saying that intervening in people's freedoms "creates more freedom". Black is white. Up is down.
But I'll just stop here because I think you're a psychopath and just playing games with me.
You're just shaming me for not jumping through your bullshit hoops. You want me to go read some bullshit and to refute arguments you haven't even made, while you watch from the sidelines and laugh.
But nope. I'm not doing that. If you can't debate me in your own words, then you lose by default.
It's pointless to bicker about those political labels, so I'll pose some simple questions instead.
1) Does society at large benefit when productive people are free to produce?
2) Does society at large benefit when productive people are burdened by taxes, licenses, tariffs, fees etc, thus demotivating them from producing?
3) Does society at large benefit when money is taken from productive people and given to unproductive people (thus demotivating them from producing)?
Note that I'm not calling "unproductive people" any names. This is not about hostility, it's just that some people actually do produce goods and services and wealth in general, and others don't.
Note also that all tax revenues come from the economic surplus generated by productive people. Yes, even when an employee pays taxes out of his salary, the money for his salary had to first be generated by the business paying that salary, but I'd count normal employees as "productive people" too.
Unproductive people is such goddamn vague terminology. If we left it simply as a matter of if they contribute more than they take, then the infirm elderly, and all minors would fall under that category and it doesn't consider the emotional wealth that "unproductive people" add.
Community is too complicated to apply such a binary as "productive" and "unproductive".
1) Does society at large benefit when companies are free to exploit everyone and everything in any way they want to maximize their productiveness?
2) Does society at large benefit when successful businesses mainly make their owner richer?
3) Does society at large benefit when money is taken from productive people and given to poor people (thus ensuring the poor won't die early or turn to crime)?
Yes.
Your loaded question is noted, and the answer is still "yes." We have historical evidence that these things have a slight "demotivation" effect but the benefit of regulating industry outweighs the costs.
Again with the loaded question. Societies that establish a minimum standard of living tend to be very successful, ranking higher in health, happiness and a host of other rankings examining the human condition. Productivity and growth are not and should never be the only measures of a successful society.
You say "slight demotivation", but compared to what? Look at historical evidence of what happens in relative freedom, like the early United States for example. Massive prosperity followed, and that can't be explained through a slight difference in motivation.
What is the benefit of "regulating industry", and what are the regulations that produce the benefit? You need to be able to back that assertion up.
Anyone can understand that taking money from some and giving it to others is a zero-sum game. In fact, the net result is negative because of the costs involved in "redistributing" people's property.
But when you say "successful", do you mean that compared to early United States, or compared to.. The Soviet Union, or perhaps something in between?
Compared to "normal" economic growth. The claim that taxes and regulation are holding back our freedoms is a common Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist claim but it's not one that's backed by evidence. The early United States was a good example of extreme economic instability, brutal working conditions and prosperity that was not widely shared by the people helping to create it. Our middle class was strongest when taxes and regulation were highest, not the least. The more we've repealed regulation and reduced taxes the more income inequality has resulted.
http://www.epi.org/publication/regulation_emp..._the_economy_fears_of_job_loss_are_overblown/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/government-regulation-is-good-for-business/
http://www.dol.gov/dol/aboutdol/history/mono-regsafeintrotoc.htm
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/03/1...epa-regulations-massively-outweigh-the-costs/
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/history-of-food-and-drug-regulation-in-the-united-states/
I see, so I have to back up my assertions but you don't? In fact, your assertion is demonstrably wrong.
http://economics.mit.edu/files/4316
http://www.skollfoundation.org/economic-growt...social-advancement-new-social-progress-index/
I mean when you examine factors other than GDP and economic output, the US ranks behind all other industrialized nations for how happy and healthy our people are. In many categories like health we rank behind many third world nations.
Look, don't just slap me with a wall of links. Make some claims in your own words, and back them up.
Let me give you an example here..
The definition of "freedoms" is kind of vague here, so unless taxes can be considered a violation of our "freedom" to use our property as we see fit, let's move on to regulations.
There is no need for evidence here. Regulations are laws, and laws are commands that say either that you must do X, or that you can't do Y. As such, laws are clearly "holding back our freedoms", because they all limit our choices.
See? Was that so hard?
I pointed out that taking money from some and giving it to others, minus "costs", is actually a negative sum game.
How is the minimum wage related to my claim?
Again, if you have points to make, make them in your own words. Don't just invite me to wade through reams of text looking for an argument you might be making, if you were inclined to actually make one.
Evidence is how we separate opinion from fact. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts. I have backed my opinions with data on how we know what works and what doesn't, at least when it comes to human outcomes. As Roosevelt reminded us nearly a hundred years ago, "necessitous men are not free men."
The policies you endorse do not promote freedom for any but an elite few. You are full of claims for how you think the world should work but that has no bearing on what is actually true. For that you need evidence.
So don't complain to me that you're bringing a knife to a gun fight. Present your evidence or get out of the way.
What did you think all those links were for? Decoration?
I guess? At least they were not him backing up his claims in his own words.
There's no such thing as a square circle. Do you want evidence, or is logic enough?
No, you haven't. That's what I'm saying. You have pasted a shitload of links at me, inviting me to go read them to find support for your case, whatever it might be. That's not how you debate people.
That's complete horseshit, considering I haven't endorsed any "policies". In fact, I endorse having no policies at all, i.e. a free market. That's also horseshit because what I actually do endorse, promotes freedom for everyone.
So you demand evidence from me, but don't hold yourself to any sound debating standards, as shown by your false claim above about the "policies" I endorse. Does that sound fair?
Also, you conveniently ignored these:
The definition of "freedoms" is kind of vague here, so unless taxes can be considered a violation of our "freedom" to use our property as we see fit, let's move on to regulations.
There is no need for evidence here. Regulations are laws, and laws are commands that say either that you must do X, or that you can't do Y. As such, laws are clearly "holding back our freedoms", because they all limit our choices.
See? Was that so hard?
I pointed out that taking money from some and giving it to others, minus "costs", is actually a negative sum game.
How is the minimum wage related to my claim?
Mathematics and logic can only take you so far. When you're talking about policies that have real-world consequences then you need to support your claims with evidence. Square circles are not relevant to this conversation, the impact of economic and political policies are.
Yes, I have. I have made claims, and then I have provided sources for how I know those claims to be true. Furthermore, I have provided sources for how I know your claims are not true. I have done my due diligence. Whether or not you care enough to follow through is your concern.
The "free market" is, in fact, a policy position. I have presented evidence that your "free market" is a utopian fantasy, that the closer we get to creating it the worse off everyone's lives become except for an elite few. I have furthermore presented evidence that carefully managed economies -- not the Soviet-style Communist dictatorships that you like to reference as the only example of a managed economy -- not only create better results for everyone but they create more freedom for everyone involved. You "know" your free-market ideals are true because you have faith. I know your free-market ideals are wrong because I have evidence.
I held myself to the same standards I hold you to. Your problem is that you don't have anything to support your claims, merely assertions. I know this because if you did have anything to back up your claims you would have presented them already. Consequently, this discussion is finished, barring any evidence in support of your assertions.
It's not, and especially not because I didn't even bring it up before you made your claim about the "policies" I endorse. You're being (intellectually) dishonest again.
Also, a policy is based on "regulations", which are laws, which are commands that you're punished for disobeying.
In other words, a policy is based on coercion, and a free market requires an absence of that.
"Managing" an economy involves coercion, because without it, people would just do whatever they wanted. So basically you're saying that intervening in people's freedoms "creates more freedom". Black is white. Up is down.
But I'll just stop here because I think you're a psychopath and just playing games with me.
[This comment was removed]
[This comment was removed]
So because you can't debate me in your own words, you resort to linking to some propaganda bullshit?
You're just shaming me for not jumping through your bullshit hoops. You want me to go read some bullshit and to refute arguments you haven't even made, while you watch from the sidelines and laugh.
But nope. I'm not doing that. If you can't debate me in your own words, then you lose by default.