i am certainly not equivocating, in the way you claim i am.
i am equivocating between things which are not significantly different, things that warrant equivocation, for the purpose of clear thinking.
getting paid X and handing back Y, is not significantly different from being paid X-Y and not handing back anything.
hence it is proper to equivocate between the two.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
laminustacitus:No they are not, there are no economic reasons why the difference is insignificant, though many political ideologies seek to equivocate the two.
laminustacitus:Blah, blah, blah.
nirgrahamUK:getting paid X and handing back Y, is not significantly different from being paid X-Y and not handing back anything.
No, because the action X happens, and the action Y is completely different in character than the character of action X. The paying of taxes is a very specific act, and tax-consumption is a very different act; surely, to assert that government-employees consume more from the tax-pool than they contribute to it is correct, but to assert that they do not pay taxes is incorrect. Indeed, the latter assertion is a needless obfuscation that completely shoves aside the entire depth of the economics of tax-consumption in order to suit a certain point of view.
nirgrahamUK:hence it is proper to equivocate between the two.
Equivocations are never proper, they serve only to obfuscate the debate by confusing terms.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
nirgrahamUK: laminustacitus:No they are not, there are no economic reasons why the difference is insignificant, though many political ideologies seek to equivocate the two. well i gave you some
No, you gave political arguments, do not equivocate between politics, and economics.
income withholding? anyhow, i tire of this two and froing, you're desire of mere pedantry merely serves to obfuscate and smokescreen 'what is going on' vis production and consumption.
*technically* you are right. as right as saying when i loan you a penny for 5 pecoseconds, that i loaned you a penny for 5 pecoseconds. and it was . no-joke. but significant.
I suppose insisting that insignificant charades are significant will win the day. and occams razor will lie on the floor dull and rusty.
such is life, with all the anti-libertarians here on mises forums these days.
laminustacitus: No, you gave political arguments, do not equivocate between politics, and economics.
no, the argument are economic, they sharply contrast the productive with the parasites. with no room to hide. no smokescreen.
laminustacitus: nirgrahamUK: laminustacitus:No they are not, there are no economic reasons why the difference is insignificant, though many political ideologies seek to equivocate the two. well i gave you some No, you gave political arguments, do not equivocate between politics, and economics.
I dunno, 'not equivocating' sounds like work. I think we should stick to popular consensus lest we get any crazy ideas.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
nirgrahamUK:*technically* you are right. as right as saying when i loan you a penny for 5 pecoseconds, that i loaned you a penny for 5 pecoseconds. and it was . no-joke. but significant.
It is significant even though it is 5 pecoseconds, action happened, and action should not be equivocated away.
nirgrahamUK:I suppose insisting that insignificant charades are significant will win the day. and occams razor will lie on the floor dull and rusty.
Occam's razor is of no significance here, Occam's razor, in economics esspecially, cannot be used to slice away action. Occams razor does not obfuscate; rather, its role is to ensure that the theory describes the phenomena in a manner that is economic with the evidence, it does not slice away the phenomena to be described.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
nirgrahamUK: laminustacitus: No, you gave political arguments, do not equivocate between politics, and economics. no, the argument are economic, they sharply contrast the productive with the parasites. with no room to hide. no smokescreen.
No, because being a "parasite" depends on an individual's tax-consumption, but your model completely cuts away, with "Occam's razor", the depth of tax-consumption.
Juan:No, you gave political arguments, do not equivocate between politics, and economics. lol. A stratton clone ? Another person clueless about the nature of political economy ? a troll ? ... ?
Strange, many of the greatest works in political economy, Wealth of Nations, and Human Action included, do not obfuscate the economics of a situation to forward a political agenda.
laminustacitus:It is significant even though it is 5 pecoseconds, action happened, and action should not be equivocated away.
i dont think it will set off any ABCT boom bust. what say you?
laminustacitus:No, because being a "parasite" depends on an individual's tax-consumption, but your model completely cuts away, with "Occam's razor", the depth of tax-consumption.
how does it do this ?!?! the opposite !!! government employeers are all tax consumers to the depth of the difference between their 'official income' and their joke of a taxable amount.
need i spell it out to you , that civil servants will go on strike and say things like, 'we are tax payers too, we have rights, blah ,blah'
and we say shut up tax consumers who dont pay taxes, you cant fool us with your charades
nirgrahamUK: laminustacitus:It is significant even though it is 5 pecoseconds, action happened, and action should not be equivocated away. i dont think it will set off any ABCT boom bust. what say you?
Economics is not merely about boom, and bust cycles. Economics is about the whole plethora of human action in society, and that 5 pecosecond long transaction may very well have lasting consequences.
please now take the time to describe to me something that is insignificant.
I would just like an answer to my question concerning who pays the incomes of government employees.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Juan:LOL. Did you read wealth of nations ?
Notice the qualifier:
laminustacitus:Strange, many of the greatest works in political economy, Wealth of Nations, and Human Action included, do not obfuscate the economics of a situation to forward a political agenda. (emphasis added)
Wealth of Nations was very much openly critical of the mercantillist policies of its day, but it did not abuse Occam's razor to slice out entire parts of an economic analysis (as is being done here with tax-consumption) to suit its agenda. If I am wrong, please give me the quotation from Wealth of Nations that proves me wrong.
Yes thieves can organize their deceptions.
laminustacitus: Economics is about the whole plethora of human action in society...
Economics is about the whole plethora of human action in society...
And yet you said a few posts back that economics has nothing to do with politics, so, politics using your logic isn't human action... Makes it difficult to figure out what you're trying to say at times. But go on, I'm merely making a minor point.
Anarchist Cain: I would just like an answer to my question concerning who pays the incomes of government employees.
workers
Anarchist Cain:I would just like an answer to my question concerning who pays the incomes of government employees.
well: those earning income through commerce, and also government employees .......
no wait, thats not what i think, thats someone elses answer.
nirgrahamUK: laminustacitus:No, because being a "parasite" depends on an individual's tax-consumption, but your model completely cuts away, with "Occam's razor", the depth of tax-consumption. how does it do this ?!?! the opposite !!! government employeers are all tax consumers to the depth of the difference between their 'official income' and their joke of a taxable amount.
Paying taxes, and tax-consumption are two different things that must not, for the sanity of economics, equivocated because by doing so you are left with only paying taxes, yet that leaves out the fact that all who pay taxes are tax-consumers, but they are tax-consumers of different magnitude. While every single, American citizen (for simplicity's sake) is a tax-payer, American citizens differ as to their tax-consumption. The world is not a manichaen conflict between government-employees, and private citizens, tax-consumption is something that every single citizen does, and ergo the model, and depth of tax-consumption must be able to be applied to every single citizen. Your abuse of Occam's razor leads to the fallacious conclusion that it is only those who are paid directly by the government are tax-consumers while, in reality, tax-consumption is far more ubiquitous: every singe time a citizen drives down a government-owned road, he is a tax-consumer.
nirgrahamUK:and we say shut up tax consumers who dont pay taxes, you cant fool us with your charades
In the modern state, everybody is a tax-consumer.
laminustacitus: everybody is a tax-consumer.
not everyone is a NET tax-consumer. why the fetish for petty accounting?
wilderness:And yet you said a few posts back that economics has nothing to do with politics, so, politics using your logic isn't human action... Makes it difficult to figure out what you're trying to say at times. But go on, I'm merely making a minor point.
Politics can be understood in two general senses: either the running of society, or the judgments of value related to the running of society; politics need not be an action, it can be an idea alone (for instance, when speaking of that person's politics).
nirgrahamUK: laminustacitus: everybody is a tax-consumer. not everyone is a NET tax-consumer. why the fetish for petty accounting?
Because I demand a very robust analysis of a situation that takes into consideration every small factor possible.
laminustacitus:Because I demand a very robust analysis of a situation that takes into consideration every small factor possible.
ok, well lets just make sure that we are only quibbling and not radically disagreeing.
are government employees without private means NET tax consumer , or not, can you not say?
nirgrahamUK: ok, well lets just make sure that we are only quibbling and not radically disagreeing. are government employees without private means NET tax consumer , or not, can you not say?
Under most circumstances, government-employees are net tax-consumers.
oh look. peace has broken out again.
Peace has 'broke' out
So my comment about the economical class structure of tax-providers and tax consumers still stands.
Anarchist Cain:In one of Dr. Roderick T. Long's lectures he stated that he liked to call the libertarian revolution a proletariat revolution. Whither he was serious about this statement or was saying it in tongue in cheek I do not know. However, it made me think: Is the libertarian revolution also a proletariat revolution? Really ponder this question.
Why not?
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Anarchist Cain:So my comment about the economical class structure of tax-providers and tax consumers still stands.
Its fallacious because everyone, in the modern state, is a tax-consumer.
You just admitted that there are net tax consumers. Also please explain how everyone is a tax consumer.
laminustacitus: Harry Felker:The Government that Cain was talking about, I am sure, are the elected officials that do not pay taxes.... All elected officials, at least in the United States pay taxes just like private citizens; public officials like the president, and congress members must publish their tax returns.
Harry Felker:The Government that Cain was talking about, I am sure, are the elected officials that do not pay taxes....
All elected officials, at least in the United States pay taxes just like private citizens; public officials like the president, and congress members must publish their tax returns.
You know I peed a little laughing....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
The proletariat workers....
the whole paradigm of proletariat has been discredited by marxists themselves (frankfurt school). the immeseration theory is BS. as you can see the reason pizzaboys are immeserated and unix sysadmins are not is because of supply and demand. sure there's state-capitalist shananigans- but dentists are never gonna be bayoneted by troopers while asking for a living wage- NOT because they have access to means of production- but because they have leverage in terms of their skills.
so essentially there is no such a thing as all workers compromising a class of the proletariat. and frankly proletariat can never run the show- many of them are narrow-minded petty idiots ( i worked with many and most of them are very ignorant of economics). sure they physicly build bridges and tunnels, but without finance and capital investment all that manpower is useless.
Without manpower, all your investments are useless.
I think that yes, a libertarian revolution could be called a worker's revolution. Libertarians believe we have a right to exclusive ownership of our earnings. The labor theory of property is an important part of libertarian ideas.
See also my post called "I am a socialist"
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
in a libertarian sense, all producers are workers. capitalists are workers too. in a marxist sense only workers are the producers and capitalists are appropriators. confusing the two is dangerious.