Add a comment

^lol

F*CK RON PAUL AND HIS BORING, UNFUNNY SUPPORTER, CLAWG.

Do you know anything about public goods? Public goods suffer from the free rider problem, meaning that those who use the goods do not have to pay for them. Thus, public goods can exist without taxation, but they will be massively under produced. In order to provide the efficient level of public goods, you must have taxes. Income tax may not be legal, but if they remove the income tax they will levy heavier taxes on businesses which will have lover profit margins and decrease wages, with the same net effect.

What are talking about korf? You're kidding right? the only thing that's low is capital gains tax right now. Real competition of course with small businesses etc. is really unfair because the tax is like 25%

Calling the IRS the Gestapo is self defeating much like calling GW Hitler. Let me teach you a lesson in rhetoric. If you want to make something seem bad, you use understatement. If something less bad is evil, then something more bad is more evil. If you overstate, such as calling the IRS the Gestapo, people say, "Well, the IRS certainly isn't as bad as the Gestapo, so we're lucky. Go IRS! Protect our freedom from everything except taxes." That you are allowed to support Ron Paul...

Taxes are fine, for essential things like infrustructure and education, not supporting illegal immigrants on welfare. Taxing people more because they make more money is retarded, you shouldn't be punished for getting ahead in live.

Clawg- he said he'd support the FairTax, which is a large 30%-ish sales tax.

"or went to a pubilc school..." Public schools are so overrated. Our schools are actually quite mediocre compared to those of the rest of the world. American Students score 25th on standardized tests. http://youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA Worse, various sources have shown that American public schools have an effect of actually dumbing down the population. http://tinyurl.com/2m6h9y To add insult to injury, the problems AMPLIFIED after the department of education was added by Jimmy Carter. 0/2

"or like having a functioning economy..." Yes, I REALLY like a functioning economy, which is why the Federal Reserve should be shut down, taxes should be reduced, corporate welfare and privileges should be ended, and meddlesome bureaucrats removed from office. It has been proven by many economists that there should be as little government intervention as possible (with perhaps the exception of enforcing against fraud, larceny and contract violations). The silly 'progressive' ideas, along with the income tax and federal reserve, led to the great depression. The long discredited 'Keynesian Economics' policies led to the recession of the 1970's. And communism, as you know (well, maybe not you), fell apart, due to misallocation of resources, too much debt, inflationary currency and economic stagnation. And now, our country has the highest amount of government spending as percentage of GDP (44%), yet more people are going below the poverty line, with rising inequality. Well, imagine that. 0/4

Apparently you're one of those people that thinks free market capitalism works. It near the worst economic system possible, and very little separates it from feudalism. Your fallacious "appeal to expert opinion" without actually citing any expert opinion is a double fault. As for the "private roads" theory, yes, there would be private roads, and they would be severely under provided. You're making my points for me, yet claiming them as victories. I don't understand where your arrogance comes from.

All countries removing standings armies is obviously a prisoner's dilemma and I don't even have to address that one. That the superpower has the largest army is a result of past history and policy, but that doesn't mean that removing the American armed forces would a.) end war or b.) not result in other countries building up their own armies (which it quite obviously would result in, both friend and foe).

Yes Korf, the free market is a failure in keeping people poor. It is a failure in keeping people away from cars, homes, televisions, newspapers, computers, cell phones, airplanes, cheap food, gasoline, affordable property. The free market fails at stopping people from listening to new music, watching movies worth seeing, watching TV shows. It also fails in slowing down social progress. It fails at chasing away the wealthy and talented, who have a nasty habit of infesting places where there is freedom.

Therefore, you are an elitist. If any economic system is closely resembling feudalism, it is most certainly communism, as well as its siblings, Fascism and Naziism. In fact, those systems can be said to be WORSE than feudalism, due to the millions of lives extinguished by their masters. You should pay attention more in history class.

FREE MARKET CAPITALISM IS NOT PRACTICED IN AMERICA. The markets are not free, they are regulated to insure competitive balance and maximize consumer and producer surplus. And blaming the actions of a dictatorship on communism is quite silly, but I think you already knew that.

"FREE MARKET CAPITALISM IS NOT PRACTICED IN AMERICA." I understand. In fact, it has NEVER been practiced in America, but it has at least been MORE free. At the times of its greatest levels of freedom, it had the greatest levels of economic growth and innovation in the world.

Yes, and since the world exists in a vacuum, the greatest freedom produced the greatest growth and that is all that matters. Don't mind the recession or the massive abuses of under-regulated corporations or the growing gap between rich and poor during that period or the lack of SUSTAINABLE GROWTH which is what is actually desired in an economy.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a term employed by Marxists that refers to a temporary state between the capitalist society and the classless and stateless communist society; during this transition period, "the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." The term does not refer to a concentration of power by a dictator, but to a situation where the proletariat (working class) would hold power and replace the current political system controlled by the bourgeoisie...

""Considering that every nation that followed communism has done so, one could easily conclude that it is NOT silly, but rather, scientific fact." Considering that you are blatantly bastardizing empiricism, I'll just ignore this." Yeah, but EVERY SINGLE TIME??? Considering the horrific track record of communism, I should ignore YOU.

"Yeah, when they increase taxes, they will become stale and STOP developing." Actually, their development is split even worse than American development but since standards were so low to begin with, anything helps. When you read Oliver Twist and say, "Gosh, now that's the good life" then perhaps your country needs some growth just so that there is something to tax to begin with, but if we're talking about ending poverty it is not in the best interests of companies to feed the poor...

""Yeah, when they increase taxes, they will become stale and STOP developing." Actually, their development is split even worse than American development but since standards were so low to begin with, anything helps." All one has to do is look at the massively successful economy of Hong Kong, which grew from a poor fishing village, to one of the world's top economies, by itself, not including mainland China, in a short span of 50 years to see that your claim is nonsense.

Besides, I provided actual examples of the failures of socialism. You claim that a free market is the worst kind of system, yet you then claim no real world examples exist. Using this logic, you might as well be claiming that Dragons are the most disease infested creatures on earth!

And, again, communism is not dictatorship. That you are citing the flaws of various communist dictatorships which closely resemble the various flaws of non-communist dictatorships and attributing those flaws to communism is peculiar. That you are arguing against communism is also peculiar, as nobody is advocating communism. An economy doesn't need to be socialist in order to have public goods. Law enforcement is a public good, and every single country in the world has law enforcement of some variety.

However, it is certainly NOT in our favor to go BACK to laissez-faire capitalism as we have already seen the massive problems that arise from that. Laissez-faire capitalism failed in America a hundred years ago, and miserably at that. The reason that no country of any report runs a laissez-faire system is that they have learned from the mistakes of the past (not to mention the blatantly obvious theoretical problems which also happen to translate into the real problems experienced in the past).

"So you're saying that the key to the success of the American economy is to pattern it after a tiny island's economy?" A tiny island economy? More like the world's 19th largest economy, with a GDP equivalent to $258 billion dollars and a population of almost 7 million. You also have to take into consideration that the cities and towns in America that are rated most favorably for business and economic growth are the ones with the lower tax rates and minimum municipal/state bureaucracy: http://www.inc.com/magazine/20040301/top25.html Yet, at the same time, the big cities on the coasts with the high taxes and large amounts of city spending, like New York, San Francisco, Washington DC and San Jose are actually rated as the WORST metropolitan areas. "I'm sure that they have the blueprint for success in agriculture and manufacturing." Hong Kong has no natural resources, and relies purely on trade, yet has an economic growth factor of 7 to 8% per year. Geez, who would have thought?

This could also greatly improve economic relations between countries. We can end corporate welfare, which gives big business an unfair advantage over smaller ones, which has an effect of removing competition and driving up prices, not to mention our federal deficit. We can also end the pork barreling and the earmarks, like the 'Bridge To Nowhere', which any sane person could see as wasteful of federal money.

"You'll have to excuse me for treating your responses seriously, as they can't possibly be serious." You'll have to excuse me for taking you seriously at all, especially considering your obvious lack of study of economics, and all your apologetics towards an ideology that has historically always led to dictatorship. Seriously, you are like a pigeon who keeps pecking at the same mirror endlessly, thinking that he is somehow hurting another pigeon.

"I believe that living in the United Kingdom would be quite nice, and everyone seems to think Canada does everything right, yet these are socialist states." First of all, they are not socialist states. Socialism is where private property is absent. England and Canada have SOME socialism (the statist, Labour Party version), but they are mixed economies. The USA has some socialism as well. But that does not mean that it is socialist. Wikipedia is your friend.

I'm not being apologetic towards communism. I haven't said a single word in support of communism or in defense of communism. All I have said is that you're making ridiculous statements and pointing out their ridiculousness. Here's one, now: "We can also lower the overall tax burden on people, so that they will have more money to spend or save." Or, we can tax people so that their money will be spent on public goods which otherwise would not be provided at their efficient levels.

to provide an efficient outcome outright and claim that the only solution to solving the national debt crisis (brought about entirely under Republican Presidents) is by cutting spending, you have serious issues both in a broad sense and likely with your credit card debt.

is the best response without government regulation. The war and pork barreling aren't exactly points that anyone can argue with, nor are they relevant at all to the discussion at hand. I don't see how "NOT in our favor to go BACK to laissez-faire capitalism" means that the US practices laissez-faire capitalism. It explicity states that we do not. Note the capitalized word BACK which, refers to the previous system, which is not the current system.

I also fail to see how exactly Hong Kong is going to help Alabama's economy. Like you and I said, it basically has 1 industry. It does not have a complex economy, you cannot derive lessons from Hong Kong and relate them to anything but the port areas of certain large coastal American cities. The reason Hong Kong does so well is because it has such a comparative advantage in one single industry. Once China comes around then there will be no reason to ship to Hong Kong...

It seems like every time you fall back on something stupid like Hong Kong you go and point out irrelevant things that you support, as if this is a race to mention all the good things you support first. We're talking about your ridiculous statements that originated with your apparent denial of any benefits at all that stem from taxes: "Bullsh*t to English Translator: I believe in mooching and looting, which means I believe in taxes."

"All I have said is that you're making ridiculous statements and pointing out their ridiculousness." Oh, you mean like how millions of people have died from genocide and mass starvation in communist countries? Or the fact that their economies collapsed from too much spending and inflation? Oh no, those are not relevant points at all.How about the fact that China is currently enjoying its greatest periods of economic growth after adopting more and more capitalism and free trade? I suppose you would call that a 'ridiculous' point as well.

Then, Rudy Guiliani came in, reduced spending by 20% and taxes by 20%. New York actually had MORE money to work with afterwards. It even got away from deficits, and the city had less crime and filth. Welfare was reduced, and there was an increase in employment, as well as a rise of average income in NYC. The fact of the matter is, politicians are always trying to win votes, and their favorite way of doing so is spending taxpayer money, regardless of the economic situation.

The idea that increased government helps the poor out more is a complete myth. A lot of the increased taxes go to support a larger bureaucracy, which has the tendency to add more and more regulations. Yes, there is government money that trickles down, but it is inevitable when trillions of taxpayer dollars are spent. http://youtube.com/watch?v=z3WLj9Wckdg Another thing you should take into consideration is that government IS FORCE. When you say that more government is needed, you are effectively saying that people need to be forced around more. They need to be pushed around in order to have a functional society. http://youtube.com/watch?v=HtMbocEu5LY But if you go with that argument (originally postulated by Thomas Hobbes), you also have to take into consideration that the government employees are PEOPLE TOO, not superhumans, not space aliens. They are vulnerable to the same flaws that everyone else is exposed to. If you make the claim that people are too stupid to run their own lives, how c

"For someone who is so incapable of understanding simple economic concepts, you sure act as if you know a lot about it." Coming from you, that is a laugh. "You probably spend your dad's money and think that the tree where your dad got that money is available for everyone to buy whatever they want whenever they want it." No, pal. I spend my own money on a dirt cheap apartment (also somehwhat dirty), gasoline, car repairs, electric bills, gas bills, groceries, medicine, electronics, pest control, garbage bags, plumbing supplies, bathroom supplies, kitchen supplies, plates, utensils, phone service, internet service, etc. "Sorry, bro, but someone should have taught you in kindergarten that when resources are scarce, non-rival, and non-excludable, then it is optimal to levy a tax and provide the public good." Really? Why is that? Does the sudden appearance of taxes magically make resources multiply? Does gasoline go through mitosis and have gasoline babies? Do bana

"to provide an efficient outcome outright and claim that the only solution to solving the national debt crisis (brought about entirely under Republican Presidents) is by cutting spending, you have serious issues both in a broad sense and likely with your credit card debt." I have issues? I propose eliminating spending. You are saying that lowering spending will NOT lower the national debt? I think you are the one with issues. It seems like YOU are the one who should revisit kindergarten...

"However, to say that laissez-faire capitalism doesn't mangle an economy is quite a statement." Really? Do you have some evidence to support this?

"Note the capitalized word BACK which, refers to the previous system, which is not the current system." Oh, ok. Because I have heard from a variety of qualified sources that America has never actually had it, that there have always been times when government has helped out big business. Here is a free tidbit of information: The existence of corporations is proof that lazziez-faire capitalism does not exist, and has not, not since the mid 19th century. Why?

URL too long, go here instead: http://tinyurl.com/3cmclj

Because there is virtually no force involved in those hippie communes, they have met with great success. I fully support the right of all people to form any kind of organization that they desire, provided that they do not trample on the rights of others.

Honest or relevant? I have addressed every one of your points. (at least the ones I saw, Inform me if I missed any). I have provided references. I have provided statistics. What have you done? Attacked me with argument ad-hominems and unverified assertions.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/article_1915604.php

It's like saying that building houses is bad because if you build houses underwater nobody can live in them. It's a fallacy of composition. Just because some government spending is bad doesn't mean that government spending is bad. You can apply the same principle to your arguments about communism. You claim that communism is bad because it is inefficient and removes individual incentive to work. I agreed. Apparently that makes you the winner? That's just stupid.

"Nice opinion piece. It closely resembles your opinion pieces." Actually, it was more like a conclusion to all the other sources that I have provided throughout my arguments, which everyone can see. You don't fool anyone. Regarding communism, I have the history books on my side to prove that it has not only failed, but always been abusive of human rights. Perhaps you should read more on communism from a real expert on socialism (and self-described socialist): http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm

In fact, you are doing exactly what that article is blaming on anti-socialist propagandists: Confusing the Stalinist regime with their socialist ideals in order to promote your "capitalism is better than socialism because Stalin is a dictator therefore any government interference with private property and business is bad, look at Stalin, so laissez-faire is the best system otherwise you are a communist apologetic." Honestly, did you read the article? Do you read your own words?

Also, the reason why I showed you that Chomsky article was so you could see the mentality that LED to Communism, namely, the idea that government must be the great backbone of society and that everyone is subservient to it. In America today, there is more and more people who have this mentality, as if the lessons of the 20th century were not learned. Look at the so-called war on terror, the nanny state, the war on SOME drugs, warrentless wiretapping, so-called 'hate crimes', abusive eminent domain, etc.

Boy, it seems like your caps lock key is broken, better get a new keyboard. My previous post was a criticism of the mentality that leads to communism, rather than communism itself. I thought I made that quite clear. I also explained in the post prior that I have been criticizing various other forms of socialism throughout this thread. Try to read more carefully.

pssst.... No one gives a shït

WHAT THE F*CK IS A RON PAUL

"Well, the smaller the government the more you have govern yourself, right?" This might make some iota of sense if I was on welfare, which I am not. Or if the United States were a totalitarian state where the minutae of everyday life were micromanaged by some vaguely-titled unmedicated strongman, which it isn't.

^ Both of them are scary as f*ck.