A minimal central government is needed (or at least it seems that way to me)

AprilEast:

Math, science, logic, democracy, teamwork and control will always be better than "HUR DUR I WANTS MORE MONEYS LEMME DO IT MY WAY PLUS MY DADDY OWNS THIS LANDZ LOLZ."

 

Justin Spahr-Summers:

Altruism, by contrast, always results in a net loss to at least one party.

In the long run both participants will be at a net loss as generally speaking no or little new wealth will be created.

 

Where did you get these quotes Justin?

migkillertwo:

If you people really think that there would be no towns and communities with some kind of "government" running them, then I think we've stumbled upon another argument against anarchy, that being that Anarchism is a dangerous utopian idea.

Throughout history government did not just randomly spawn on its own. It was imposed on others through force. People are then coerced into it's idea via patriotism and such.

Rural area's however ironically tend to contradict your notion that governments will just arbitrarily form. Even in our own country in a rural area's where commerce concentrates in a small town no government is spawned with it. Only business and cooperating business's. The only government imposed on these towns is typically county and state. Government is not a tree that naturally grows in nature. 

Government is the equvilent to a band of theives. It can only be realized in violation of rights. 

On the other hand, saying that governments are a natural occurrence of a large city is akin to the statement that gangs somehow form naturally in dense urban areas. Both are false.

migkillertwo:

that being that Anarchism is a dangerous utopian idea.

Yet you don't explain why. You just simply say it's so. Should we just take your wise all mighty opinion?

Ironically anarchism is the only system where violation of rights has not occurred yet governance is a system where violation of rights must occur to be sustainable. So how is it you call us dangerous when our acts remain morally consistent but your acts are that of criminals. Again check your premise here, you are the one who is immoral. You are the one who condones thievery. Our conscious is clean. Did you read my earlier posts? I think you are scared of the truth and are desperately trying to hold on to your false reality. 

Don't confuse government with the state.

 

AprilEast:

THUS, any movement to a more logical, systematic, and scientifically controlled system, I support.

Free market capitalism is the antithesis of a scientifically planned and engineered economy. It SUPPORTS chaos because the MOST PROFIT is found in the act of ORGANIZING that chaos.

I support the system that cuts through the WEB of profit, and gets right down to LOGICAL ORDER.

Math, science, logic, democracy, teamwork and control will always be better than "HUR DUR I WANTS MORE MONEYS LEMME DO IT MY WAY PLUS MY DADDY OWNS THIS LANDZ LOLZ."

In fact, it is central planning using so-called "scientific" methods that is blatantly unscientific and illogical.  Somebody needs to read Hayek's "The Pretense of Knowledge."

 

filc:

Justin Spahr-Summers:

Altruism, by contrast, always results in a net loss to at least one party.

In the long run both participants will be at a net loss as generally speaking no or little new wealth will be created.

 

Where did you get these quotes Justin?

It's actually an excerpt from a writing of mine (originally intended to be part of a book, I just extracted the few chapters on egoism to make short essays). I have the whole thing if you're curious.

I am. Thanks!

Smiling Dave:

poppies:

Rio Tinto and Ivanhoe Mines, U.K. and Canadian mining companies, respectively, have partnered together to negotiate mining rights to a Mongolian gold deposit.  Mongolia has been very difficult to deal with for the miners, and talks have dragged out over 5 years.  Mongolia has a total GDP of c. $9.5 B, and the combined market capitalization of Rio and Ivanhoe is c. $55 B, so the miners have abundantly more financial resources than the country.  There is no world government which referees these sorts of issues, and yet, Rio and Ivanhoe haven't given up on discourse with Mongolia and taken the resource by force.

If you can think of some reasons why that might be, you'll see why violence has dire consequences apart from any coercive state "justice" system.

 

In the particular case you mention, I presume it is certainly a tremendous logistical problem to import an invading army and hope to keep them there long enough to make money from the mine.

In the OP's case, where the river and the enemy are just down the block, violence would be much easier.

There have been plenty of wars and invasions and violence over resources throughout mankind's colorful history. Hey. Lew Rockwell has a podcast telling everyone to buy a gun and learn to shoot because the gov may collapse.

I guess I didn't understand the point you are trying to make.

 

 

 

 

You're presuming wrongly.  It's logistically quite easy for any entity to take a property by force if it's defended only by another entity with almost six times less resources, especially if the property provides even more resources after being taken.  It's not easy to do so, however, and maintain a good reputation for fair, ethical dealing.  Reputational costs are a powerful incentive for peaceful interaction.

Note that resource wars are generally between states, and not private entities.

Any system based on the benefits of human greed will invariably fail or turn into an autocracy of some sort due to its very nature, anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. The simple fact of the matter is while you can apply the principles of healthy competition to a system, the fact of the matter is it will always be easier to cut your enemy's throat than to become better than them, so it becomes those who are most ruthless and evil who will become the dominating forces. However, if there were a system based on mutual aid where the greatest benefit comes to yourself by helping others instead of hurting them, then humanity could achieve true greatness. You ignore the possibility of such a system and pretend to be in support of "equality" and "freedom" when in reality the system you are a proponent of accomplishes neither.

Hey April, I suggest you start drinking bottled water.

AprilEast:

... where the greatest benefit comes to yourself by helping others instead of hurting them, then humanity could achieve true greatness

lolz, i guess you missed a few hundred years of economic science.

what you described is a market economy.

You don't give the state credit where it's due. You think it's dangerous. Is the state dangerous when it keeps a murderer from breaking into my house? How about when it keeps my boss from starving my family?

Or are you claiming that I should pay so others can make a profit (definition of externalities)? Isn't that theft more than taxes? By denying underproduced public goods you're depriving people of an economic benefit. Isn't that theft?

your name should be NonSequitur, son.

AprilEast:

However, if there were a system based on mutual aid where the greatest benefit comes to yourself by helping others instead of hurting them, then humanity could achieve true greatness.

nirgraham pointed out that this pretty much describes a capitalist society. Person A has a good that person B wants. Person B has money or a different good that person A wants. They trade. Sounds like they both benefited, yes?

AprilEast:

You ignore the possibility of such a system and pretend to be in support of "equality" and "freedom" when in reality the system you are a proponent of accomplishes neither.

Equality (at least in the common usage of the word) and freedom are mutually exclusive. I opt for the latter.

AprilEast:

Is the state dangerous when it keeps a murderer from breaking into my house?

Is the state dangerous when it decides to redistribute your house to those in need? (After all, that is what you're advocating, is it not?) What about when it forces you to sell your house because it needs a tract of land for a new interstate highway? What about when it bans you from keeping guns in your house to stop the murderer yourself? What about when it puts you out of a job because of stringent labor regulations? What about when it takes your money to fund the killing of innocents in a faraway land?

AprilEast:

How about when it keeps my boss from starving my family?

What about the boss' family? What about the consumers who now have to pay higher prices for the good that this company makes? What makes your family more important than all these other people?

You don't give the state credit where it's due. You think it's dangerous. Is the state dangerous when it keeps a murderer from breaking into my house? How about when it keeps my boss from starving my family?

Or are you claiming that I should pay so others can make a profit (definition of externalities)? Isn't that theft more than taxes? By denying underproduced public goods you're depriving people of an economic benefit. Isn't that theft?

Were you dropped on the head as a child? Do you ever question anything the state does? You should pay others to give them a reason to part with their goods and benefit you. And no, you've got no right to anything that doesn't belong to you, so so-called economic "benefits" that aren't in your possession aren't yours to begin with ergo are not stolen. Rocket science.

THUS, any movement to a more logical, systematic, and scientifically controlled system, I support.

Are you an aspie by chance btw?

We're also forgetting that while it is physically possible for the state to provide services we would buy anyway*, the state has no incentive to do so.

*maybe not because of the calculation problem

The problem with arguments for the state is they forget that while the state resolves the anarchic relationship between individuals, it creates a new anarchic relationship between the individual and the state because the latter is the judge in its own case. Any grievance with the state, even a democratic one, must be taken up on the state's terms.

We demonstrate the desirability of a poly-centric legal system by observing that competition between agencies is the one and only sure check on the abuse of power. Since there is a demand for security it is obvious entrepreneurs will try to meet this need. There are numerous modern examples of private courts and private security (See Kinsella) and many historic examples of polycentric free market courts such as the icelandic courts and the law merchant.

Jon Irenicus:

Are you an aspie by chance btw?

Aspies don't make statements like that.  I think people who are lacking knowledge, like to appeal to systems and science in an attempt to sound credible in discussion.

What you don't seem to understand is that not every field requires competition, and that competition alone is no guarantor of efficiency or innovation or low prices.

I turned on my water this morning and clean water came out. I peed and flushed it and the pee went away.  Or that time when my mom got cancer and the state paid to have her cured. Hmm, my house hasn't been robbed and when the fire alarm goes off, firefighters show up quite promptly.

There's a serious difference between consumer goods, especially those subject to fads and fashion, and infrastructure items which require far more investment, which are far more crucial to society's operation, and the construction and maintenance of which are so costly that competition becomes damn near impossible. You don't just build sewage pipes and then let them magically work forever. A large degree of centralizd maintenance is required, from central pumping and treatment plants to localized repairs and upgrades. Leaving this to a gallimaufry of firms would lead to a patchwork system or series of systems without any real sort of quality control. You average consumer good doesn't come close to the level of complexity of a sewer system. There have been clear analogues in the past--for example, deregulation of power systems. Any neophyte economist could tell you that there are classes of goods and services which are qualitatively different from one another. By assuming that a sewage system, army, road system, or any other such public good is equivalent to clothing, television sets, or beer, you betray a stunning ignorance of the subtleties of economics. It's obvious that you would prefer a simple solution to a staggeringly large set of difficult problems. 

AprilEast:

Or that time when my mom got cancer and the state paid to have her cured.

The state didn't pay.  Another person paid.  They were forced to pay.  If they didn't pay, they would have gone to jail.

You could have asked the other person to help your mom.  Instead, the threat of going to jail was used.

Depending on your ethics, one way was the right way, the other was not.

AprilEast:

It's obvious that you would prefer a simple solution to a staggeringly large set of difficult problems.

You nailed it.  We are guilty of wanting simple solutions.  If only we wanted complex solutions.  *sighs*

AprilEast:

Or that time when my mom got cancer and the state paid to have her cured.

How long has a cure for cancer been available?

AprilEast:

What you don't seem to understand is that not every field requires competition

So what sort of check replaces it then.

AprilEast:

competition alone is no guarantor of efficiency or innovation or low prices.

How is it not?

AprilEast:

I turned on my water this morning and clean water came out. I peed and flushed it and the pee went away.  Or that time when my mom got cancer and the state paid to have her cured. Hmm, my house hasn't been robbed and when the fire alarm goes off, firefighters show up quite promptly.

There are many examples of the free market providing clean water, health care and security. Simply because the state can provide something does not mean the market can't.

AprilEast:

There's a serious difference between consumer goods, especially those subject to fads and fashion, and infrastructure items which require far more investment, which are far more crucial to society's operation, and the construction and maintenance of which are so costly that competition becomes damn near impossible.

How are the goods different? In what way does rising costs render competition useless? Let me point out that oil companies routinely undertake multi billion dollar drilling projects they pay for out of their own pocket. No individual has this much money but investors will pool their resources if there is profit to be had.

Regardless, showing there are limitations to competition does not establish the validity of state provided goods.

AprilEast:

A large degree of centralizd maintenance is required, from central pumping and treatment plants to localized repairs and upgrades

If you take out "centralized" and "central" the  sentence is still true.

AprilEast:

Leaving this to a gallimaufry of firms would lead to a patchwork system or series of systems without any real sort of quality control.

Quality control comes from consumer demand and competition. There would probably not be "patchwork" of systems in this industry any more than there are a "patchworks" of inefficient firms in other industries.

Every time someone assumes the market won't work they preclude the possibility of entrepreneurs solving this problem. Just because you have no imagination doesn't mean others don't. I doubt anyone would have predicted all the ways in which the market has succeeded; Failing to explain how the market will work in a particular industry is no reason to expect the market will actually fail.

AprilEast:

You average consumer good doesn't come close to the level of complexity of a sewer system

er.... all technology?

AprilEast:

Any neophyte economist could tell you that there are classes of goods and services which are qualitatively different from one another

Most economists believe a lot of questionable things... articulate their argument or don't state it.

AprilEast:

By assuming that a sewage system, army, road system, or any other such public good is equivalent to clothing, television sets, or beer, you betray a stunning ignorance of the subtleties of economics. It's obvious that you would prefer a simple solution to a staggeringly large set of difficult problems

See the above point about predicting how the market will work... There are many historic examples of so called public goods being provided just fine on the free market. Rothbard gave several examples of how a free society could  easily coordinate large scale defense; One example is that insurance companies have liability for your property and thus have an incentive to pay to defend it rather than let it be destroyed.

Bottom line is that you cannot control government. It is the judge in its own case. No rational person would accept this scenario.

AprilEast:

Or are you claiming that I should pay so others can make a profit (definition of externalities)? Isn't that theft more than taxes? By denying underproduced public goods you're depriving people of an economic benefit. Isn't that theft?

So your saying that in order for it NOT to be theft coercion must be practice? Do you not see how ass backwards this is? With the same broken philosphy I could argue that government should provide all food straight to your doorsteps. To deny the deliver of food by government is theft!

Do you not see how ridiculous your argument sounds? Do you honestly think we would have a more diverse cheaper food industry if it was produced and delivered via government?

Also what is profit? Why do you hate it so? Profit nothing more then a consequence that occurs when new wealth is created. If society finds someone who generates large amounts of wealth we want to intice them into continuing. The more wealth that person creates the richer society becomes as a whole. Without the incentive for profit would we have $200 dollar computers today weight less then 5 pounds?(Netbooks)

The cheaper and more plentiful goods are the richer society is as a whole. So that is what is known as creating "REAL" wealth. Anyone who actually creates additional wealth for the world as a whole only as a side effect receives profit. What if we rewarded people who generated no wealth at all?(Government)

AprilEast:

You don't give the state credit where it's due. You think it's dangerous. Is the state dangerous when it keeps a murderer from breaking into my house? How about when it keeps my boss from starving my family?

The state doesn't keep murderers from your house, only you can do that by picking up your phone, calling the police, and hoping they get there soon. Or you can defend yourself(Much safer). But you cannot give credit to the gov in this regard as it has forcibly made itself the monopoly in the industry. They don't get credit by default. Had the production of security been allowed in the open market it's entirely plausible that the government wouldn't be providing that service to you at all. You would be paying a contractor for said service, would you still give government the credit then?

You cant give government credit when  it barres out it's competition. Thats like giving a track star a medal when wins a race, but only because he broke the legs of his competitors before the race. 

filc:

I'd like to hit on this point as well as I think this is a katrina reference. Katrina is entirely the governments fault. In the absence of the government no one would be stupid enough to buy and build property below sea level in hurricane alley. New Orleans as it exists today  may never have existed at all. Or it may have actually existed, oh I don't know, ABOVE SEA LEVEL like any common nonsensical human being would want.

Such a tragesty would never had happened in the first place. At worst there would have been some wind damage and marginal flood damage above sea level. It's this false sense of protection that people like you feel the state gives us. The truth is not even the collective body of superman you think live in the state can stop a walled in town below sea level from becoming flooded during a hurricane. Honestly the Gov's engineering corp should be ashamed they thought it would work in the first place. Complete idiocy. 

 It's un-economical and just downright stupid. All you have to blame for that is the Gov. In a free market land owners would be smart, and build their house on dry land. The idiots who don't will loose their home. We don't reward idiots.

So who pays for these idiots to continue building property below sea level? Perhaps we should devote your entire life's savings to maintain a sub level city. We should reward those peoples lunacy with your hard work. That sounds like a great idea! 

Actually, New Orleans is a viable place to put a city, in spite of the hurricane risk, because it is a ready port for trade.  However, it might not make sense to develop below sea level...

eliotn:

Actually, New Orleans is a viable place to put a city, in spite of the hurricane risk, because it is a ready port for trade.  However, it might not make sense to develop below sea level...

My point wasn't that New Orleans wouldn't exist at all. Only that it would have existed geographically in a different location. It would not likely have been fully developed below sea level either. It is more likely to have been developed farther away from the Mississippi tributaries and on dry land. It is state intervention that put the town in harms way to begin with. 

A private land owner without the state would never have placed his investment in such a location. Though I am speculating to say so, I think it's a fair assessment that there would be less incentive to invest in property that was below sea level as the risk of losing the property is much higher.

Lol april got fwned

What you don't seem to understand is that not every field requires competition, and that competition alone is no guarantor of efficiency or innovation or low prices.

There are no guarantees in life when it comes to certain things (a startling conclusion for socialists and other believers in "rationally planned" societies or garbage to that effect), only that if you want a sure way to stifle any of the above a legal monopoly is the best way to do it. Valuation is subjective including so-called needs, and always originates from the individual agent, consequently what you value or not will diverge from what others value, and thus whether you think a sewerage system is "superior" to "mere" consumers goods or not is irrelevant. Try again.

filc:

Do you think it was government who brought us out of the dark ages? You think government invented more efficient homes? Faster more efficient cars? Did government invent airplains? Did government find ways of producing food cheaper? Your blinded by your own creed.

Half the advancement's in society, the many amenities to you have. (Think TV Radio Satelite INTERNETS) The emergency numbers (911 411 whatever 11) should something happen. And hopefully emergency healthare.

Are all provided through the system of taxes.

A country needs taxes to run properly. Pure and simple. It's a careful balance. To little we go into debt and have terrible roads and services.

If you are in a prosperous society, you stand to make more. The more you make the more you're taxed. The more you're taxed the more prosperous the society. A very cyclic nature.

This is easily proven by looking at the worth of the American dollar on the international market.

During times of "higher than average" taxes. The American dollar goes up. American influence goes up, and we complete better in global markets. And the American GNP goes a lot higher.

During the years of the Bush tax cuts, our debt went higher. Our dollar went lower. Eventually the GNP declined harshly and mass layoffs began.

So taxes are fundamental.

And no... no private group is gonna run around and repair i95 or route 30, or 66 to keep trucks coming to your stores, so you get food from the farm land. Another tax subsidized program.

Private citizens and groups CANNOT handle national development such as multistate highway systems. Well, they technically can. But, I think the nationalization is important. "Sorry this highway's closed til' our workers are done striking cause they have no job security."

Also, taxes gave us the internet. DoD, colleges, Internet. Look them up if you want more details than that.

Actually anyone that uses internet shouldn't whine about taxes and the government.

'That's not right. It's not even wrong.' "^[2]

AprilEast:

If you are in a prosperous society, you stand to make more. The more you make the more you're taxed. The more you're taxed the more prosperous the society. A very cyclic nature.

AprilEast:

Also, taxes gave us the internet. DoD, colleges, Internet. Look them up if you want more details than that.

Actually anyone that uses internet shouldn't whine about taxes and the government.

 

Check please...I'd rather settle my bill before we delve into the world of fantasy

AprilEast:

This is easily proven by looking at the worth of the American dollar on the international market

Maybe not the best time to make this argument, April.

AprilEast:

And no... no private group is gonna run around and repair i95 or route 30, or 66 to keep trucks coming to your stores, so you get food from the farm land. Another tax subsidized program.

No private group would've squandered a generation's worth of productivity on highways that stretch thousands of miles like that, either.  So we'd have a completely different infrastructure, to which our talents and productive resources would be suited.

AprilEast:

Also, taxes gave us the internet. DoD, colleges, Internet. Look them up if you want more details than that.

There were plans to develop internets  (or something quite like them) long before DARPANET, thanks for playing.

AprilEast:

If you are in a prosperous society, you stand to make more. The more you make the more you're taxed. The more you're taxed the more prosperous the society. A very cyclic nature.

Except the thing about such circular reasoning is that it has neither beginning nor end.  You presume that someone starts off in a "prosperous society" and therefore earns more and therefore is taxed more.  But where did the prosperity come from in the first place?  If the prosperity exist in the first place, then its evident that the taxes were not the cause, because taxes never precede prosperity.

Up until the early part of the 20th century, the taxes in the U.S. were by today's standards, effectively ZERO.  And the U.S. economy was a job-creating dynamo, absorbing immigrants by the millions all-the-while increasing influence in global manufactur, and finance, and service, etc.

 

OOo ooo let me get it first!

AprilEast:

Half the advancement's in society, the many amenities to you have. (Think TV Radio Satelite INTERNETS) The emergency numbers (911 411 whatever 11) should something happen. And hopefully emergency healthare.

We're claiming that the government takes tax money and thus slows down the growth of the private sector. If government wants to use that money to fund its interests that is at best a zero sum game. However, since the government cannot predict and often does not even try to predict what consumers want, it invariably invests in things we could care less about.

Onto specific examples

Tv/radio/satellite/internetz are bad examples, because while government may have funded the latter 2, these were invented by thinkers trying to get from pt A to pt B as efficiently as possible; this is not something the government explicitly tries to do. More precisely, there was never an "internet" plan. Researchers in Europe just needed a way to share data sets with eachother and the web was born. At BEST government plays the role of accomplice in these inventions. And government has done nothing but regulate and destroy the shit out of these services. Tv/radio and internet provision is monopolized by a few companies, holding these technologies back so that special interests can profit.

The reason "911" was so important was because the gov initially set it up so that all phone numbers had to be 7 digits and area codes and bla bla. They didn't let private companies construct the system so of course its going to be wildly inefficient for private businesses to use it. Learn history. Please.

I know you have no imagination, but the private sector invents amazing things all the time. As a petroleum engineer, I have come across operations many times more expensive than launching a satellite into outer space, all payed for by private dollars.

At worst gov has slowed our society down 10s maybe hundreds of years. Think how much further we'd be down the line if we didn't waste money on <insert your favorite criticism of USG here>

AprilEast:

A country needs taxes to run properly. Pure and simple. It's a careful balance. To little we go into debt and have terrible roads and services.

No, a government needs taxes to run properly. Too little government funding means government collapses and private interests start filling in for public goods and services. Toll roads are typically cheaper and better maintained than government roads (you pay for gov roads w taxes). Actually I'd challenge you to name one service the gov provides that a private industry hasn't done better in. None. You can't. Learn history.

AprilEast:

During times of "higher than average" taxes. The American dollar goes up. American influence goes up, and we complete better in global markets. And the American GNP goes a lot higher.

During the years of the Bush tax cuts, our debt went higher. Our dollar went lower. Eventually the GNP declined harshly and mass layoffs began.

So taxes are fundamental.

Lol. All I can say is that the difference between a 25% tax rate and a 30% tax rate would cause a lot of projects to be shut down. If you can't make money producing something you don't produce it, plain and simple.

AprilEast:

And no... no private group is gonna run around and repair i95 or route 30, or 66 to keep trucks coming to your stores, so you get food from the farm land. Another tax subsidized program.

.................................. Its just the same old song and dance with you isn't it. Let me spell it out for you. Government does not spend its own money. Our problems are not government's problems. Therefore, government has no incentive to solve our problems efficiently even if it is forced to. I love how people like you just say "you need government to repair roads etc" and I bet you don't even know how much they spend on roads.

Would you be okay with it if gov spent 10 billion dollars/year on roads in your city? 20 billion? 30 billion? How does this compare to private contractors? Do the research and get back to me.

AprilEast:

Private citizens and groups CANNOT handle national development such as multistate highway systems. Well, they technically can. But, I think the nationalization is important. "Sorry this highway's closed til' our workers are done striking cause they have no job security."

Workers typically don't strike.... especially in a truly free market.... Ugh... Did you know in italy most of their roads are private? And it is just smashing. Here is the link. Go nuts baby.

Oh and thank you for thinking nationalization is important. We would be so lost if you didn't tell us what you thought about nationalization.

AprilEast:

Also, taxes gave us the internet. DoD, colleges, Internet. Look them up if you want more details than that.

You telling us to look things up? Rich... just rich. Okay. I'm pretty sure we all know that the dept of def is funded by government. As we all know this is a giant source of waste in the economy. Bill Clinton ordered the DoD to audit itself and give a financial report annually. It has failed every year since, claiming that it is in such a state is disarray as to make any audit impossible. But it doesn't matter because its taxpayer money.

Austrian thinkers have had the issue of national defense under control for a while now... here is one example.

I think the free market has demonstrated time and time again it can provide education... Even now, when everyone has to pay for public schools (which average 8000 USDs/student-years) private schools thrive at around 2000 USDs/student-years. That's right. EVEN THOUGH government provides this service for free and EVEN THOUGH they pay 4x more on average, public schools are completely inferior to private schools and people choose the latter despite having to pay more.

AprilEast:

Actually anyone that uses internet shouldn't whine about taxes and the government.

Anyone that uses anything invented by free thinkers shouldn't go around vomiting this kind of nonsense.

AprilEast:

If you are in a prosperous society, you stand to make more. The more you make the more you're taxed. The more you're taxed the more prosperous the society. A very cyclic nature.

So we should have a 100% tax rate then.

AprilEast:

Half the advancement's in society, the many amenities to you have. (Think TV Radio Satelite INTERNETS) The emergency numbers (911 411 whatever 11) should something happen. And hopefully emergency healthare.

An arbitrary statement and false at best. Most "Governmental" Derrived technologies were adaptations from pre-existing private enterprise technologies. For example Arpanet would never had existed had Xerox not had their  failed Ethernet experiment. 

Also inventions and creations are made by individuals, not governments. A government does not create anything.

AprilEast:

Are all provided through the system of taxes.

My TV, Internet, and Radio are provided by private firms thanks. Not sure what country you live in but at least in Liberal Washington State those items you mentioned are managed by private firms.

AprilEast:

A country needs taxes to run properly. Pure and simple. It's a careful balance. To little we go into debt and have terrible roads and services.

At some point I imagine you'll stop speaking out of your rear. At any point our country runs in deficit with or without taxes so whats the point? Furthermore our country doesn't "NEED" to run anything. What is "Our" country? It certainly isn't my country and is no representation of my beliefs. 

This is akin to a Mafia lord proclaiming the wonders of his "Neighborhood" and reaping the benefits of coerced security.

AprilEast:

If you are in a prosperous society, you stand to make more. The more you make the more you're taxed. The more you're taxed the more prosperous the society. A very cyclic nature.

Are you saying that prosperity grows linear to tax payments? IF thats the case why don't we all just pay 100% in taxes and live in nirvana?

AprilEast:

This is easily proven by looking at the worth of the American dollar on the international market.

During times of "higher than average" taxes. The American dollar goes up. American influence goes up, and we complete better in global markets. And the American GNP goes a lot higher.

This is a symptom of our monetary system. From the sounds of it you have no idea what your talking about. You've managed to see a coorelation and while in many cases is correct you fail to see why the relation is relevant. You don't know why higher taxes causes the value of the dollar to go up you just know that it does. Therefore without understanding the underlying mechanics you just assume that taxes should always be high to ensure a valueable dollar. So again it comes back to my proposal, why not then have 100% taxes?

AprilEast:

During the years of the Bush tax cuts, our debt went higher. Our dollar went lower. Eventually the GNP declined harshly and mass layoffs began.

The tax cuts by bush were a marginal effect on our Dept, Dollar value, and GNP at best. Again you reveal your lacking in understanding of our monetary system. During the Bush years the Fed lent at record numbers. There are reuters articles explaining how the Fed was lending on average 380+ billion dollars a day. That is the real reason we had problems, the tax cuts were next nothing to compared to that.

AprilEast:

So taxes are fundamental.

In New York Homocide coorelates to the outdoor tempurature. The hotter it is the more murders there are. Cooling New York with a gigantic fan is fundamental to prevening murder. 

Do you see how ridiculous your argument is? Taxes are fundamental to nothing accept perpetuating errors and causing more harm to our economic status.

AprilEast:

And no... no private group is gonna run around and repair i95 or route 30, or 66 to keep trucks coming to your stores, so you get food from the farm land. Another tax subsidized program.

They would if they owned them. :)

Does the store clerk not keep his store tidy?

AprilEast:

Private citizens and groups CANNOT handle national development such as multistate highway systems. Well, they technically can. But, I think the nationalization is important. "Sorry this highway's closed til' our workers are done striking cause they have no job security."

Yet the internet exceeds the complexity of the state run highway system and is almost entirely managed cooperatively by private firms.

What about airlines? How is it that we can have international travel managed and operated succesfully while under the oppresion of the state and still succeed?

AprilEast:

Also, taxes gave us the internet. DoD, colleges, Internet. Look them up if you want more details than that.

MY fiber network is privately owned. My Datacenter down town rents server cabinet space all on the open market. I live next to the largest datacenter on the westcoast and to my knowledge the government rents no floors. My college was private. DoD is a legal monopoly what do you expect?

Thats like the mafia Lord stating. "What defense will you have from goons if you don't by my security services? You DO want my security services don't you? I'D HATE FOR SOMETHING TO HAPPEN TO YOUR DAUGHTER IN HER SLEEP TONIGHT, EH TONI?? MY services offer Security, why would you not want them?"

So in effect your defending the Mafia Lord? 

In Summary. You should read a book, and for God Sakes turn off your TV.

april got fwned again

Also, taxes gave us the internet. DoD, colleges, Internet. Look them up if you want more details than that.

Actually anyone that uses internet shouldn't whine about taxes and the government.

Is she (?) high or something? Looking them up reveals that the government potentially defrayed nevermind assisted in their emergence.

Snowflake:

april got fwned again

Stay classy please.