I'm sure there are worse out there, but I got this gem in my inbox.
Me (regarding Democrats as being more selfless than Republicans): "Yes, the definition of being selfless is extorting people out of money that they earned to pay for things that other people want."
This guy: "we all work. We all earn an income. No one is taking property we have acquired and giving it to someone else--that's just a conservative narrative designed to elicit a visceral emotional response. What are taxes? States levy a property tax, which is used to finance transportation and public education--things we ALL benefit by. The federal government taxes income. Corporations & the rich have it rigged so they often pay a smaller percent that the middle class."
WOOOO 300TH POST
THIS
IS
MISES.ORG!!!
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Yeah I think Mises needs a Facepalm smiley
Here's another bright bulb in the same comment section:
"In an argument about this very topic, that libertarianism tends to be about selfishness, I had a person argue with me that it were not him that were selfish, but rather I were the one being selfish. I tried to understand what he meant, but basically, he redefined "selfish" to qualify for me wanting to take his stuff and help other people with it... the desire for the control to do so is what were to make me "selfish". I honestly couldn't understand his incoherence..."
I swear these people have to be doing this on purpose as trolls.
When I first started my neo-con to libertarian conversion with a friend of mine, we made shirts that had a Walter Williams quote on the back that said, "In order for the government to give one American one dollar, it must, through threats, intimidation, and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. I'd like to hear the moral argument for taking what belongs to one person in order to give it to another." I still use that quote a lot.
To go along with one of the comments above, this is my face when I read the original response.
Some girl responded to one of my columns a few weeks ago and told me that she hopes I get hit by a car hahaha. People are so nice.
Here is a good one in response to one of my own comments:
"No, this is a micro issue (I teach micro btw). Tax money can come from multiple sources (not just individual tax payers). There is no way multiple companies can run a fire dept. Its too costly. These companies would have to duplicate services. If you want to look at it that way, its a natural monopoly. In that case, its actually more efficient to have a monopoly. It would be a waste of resources to have multiple companies make expensive upfront capital investments to do the same job"
Oh and here's another one, sorry I had to include both of these :p (Btw this is not a response to one of my comments)
"Great Statement. I agree with you wholeheartedly. We don't properly recycle, companies, only thinking of the bottom line create poor product which don't last. Unemployment due to companies only thinking of the bottom line do not want to hire people. I doesn't matter who's in office they will all take money from the people. Most importantly it's ironic that when Michael Moore makes movies similar to this move it get's slammed."
Isn't that Marx' argument about innefficiences in the capitalist system?
Tell him you are Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek, then go on to explain why he is wrong.
Isn't that Marx' argument about innefficiences in the capitalist system? Tell him you are Adam Smith, Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek, then go on to explain why he is wrong.
This was an old debate I had. I'm still new to an-cap, so my arguments are still not very strong strong, but my responses:
"ME: I am looking at this issue from the context of macroeconomics, dealing with the entire economy as a whole, in which case I propose multiple singular private companies servicing the entire country within their respective local communities. I didn't say taxes only came from individuals but tax relief i.e. lower business taxes leaves more money in the hands of individuals through now cheaper products (less taxes). When you look at the whole economy you can see how this works." "HIM: Micro covers industries, industrial organization, and the provision of services by the government. Anyways, take a look at natural monopolies. One company would likely run your private fire dept--there would be no competition. The good thing about a govt. run agency is that WE THE VOTERS get to call them out when they are misusing our funds." "ME: Macro Def: "a study of economics in terms of whole systems especially with reference to general levels of output and income and to the interrelations among sectors of the economy" This is exactly what I am talking about with taxation etc, how money flows through the entire system. The concept of the "Natural Monopoly" is a myth and has been already been repudiated, for ex. see this book: "Direct Utility Competition: The Natural Monopoly Myth". Time to update the syllabus? :)"
"ME: I am looking at this issue from the context of macroeconomics, dealing with the entire economy as a whole, in which case I propose multiple singular private companies servicing the entire country within their respective local communities. I didn't say taxes only came from individuals but tax relief i.e. lower business taxes leaves more money in the hands of individuals through now cheaper products (less taxes). When you look at the whole economy you can see how this works."
"HIM: Micro covers industries, industrial organization, and the provision of services by the government. Anyways, take a look at natural monopolies. One company would likely run your private fire dept--there would be no competition. The good thing about a govt. run agency is that WE THE VOTERS get to call them out when they are misusing our funds."
"ME: Macro Def: "a study of economics in terms of whole systems especially with reference to general levels of output and income and to the interrelations among sectors of the economy" This is exactly what I am talking about with taxation etc, how money flows through the entire system. The concept of the "Natural Monopoly" is a myth and has been already been repudiated, for ex. see this book: "Direct Utility Competition: The Natural Monopoly Myth". Time to update the syllabus? :)"
Being still fairly new to all this I'm sure I didn't give the best counterarguments, but I tried.
Altruism = taxation now?! God, the lengths one will go...
In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!
~Peter Kropotkin
Altruism = taxation now?!
In retrospect I could have provided better answers. Just yesterday I was in a debate about someone that was espousing the same belief as the equation you talked about. He went on about how 3% of our income should go in a pot to help the poor because it's for the "greater good" and he's doing it so I should have to as well. By now though after reading much more literature I was easily able to destroy that train of thought. Although was struck me was even after I spoke of the immorality of taxation he still didn't believe it was immoral to steal through taxation. How do I deal with the person that just shrugs to my logical arguments and says it's not immoral? I've provided all the logical points I could at this point.
Freeradicals: Here is a good one in response to one of my own comments: "No, this is a micro issue (I teach micro btw). Tax money can come from multiple sources (not just individual tax payers). There is no way multiple companies can run a fire dept. It's too costly. These companies would have to duplicate services. If you want to look at it that way, its a natural monopoly. In that case, its actually more efficient to have a monopoly. It would be a waste of resources to have multiple companies make expensive upfront capital investments to do the same job"
"No, this is a micro issue (I teach micro btw). Tax money can come from multiple sources (not just individual tax payers). There is no way multiple companies can run a fire dept. It's too costly. These companies would have to duplicate services. If you want to look at it that way, its a natural monopoly. In that case, its actually more efficient to have a monopoly. It would be a waste of resources to have multiple companies make expensive upfront capital investments to do the same job"
Man, you should have destroyed that guy. Almost every company duplicates services. There are multiple car manufacturers. Talk about an expensive up front capital investment. There are multiple shoe producers. Multiple companies make toothpaste. Multiple companies build houses, airplanes, submarines, yachts, computers, sunglasses, telephones, furniture, etc., etc., etc. How many doctors, massage therapists, and dry cleaners are in that guy's city? I bet it's more than one.
By his definition everything should be run as a coercive monopoly so that we don't "duplicate service". He is trying to play entrepreneur by determining the correct amount of service and duplicated function when the customers could be doing that through the market.
Haha, wow. Yes, we get to call them out on it....once every 2 or 4 years at the ballot box! It's easier to "call them out" with your dollars, which you can do immediately and if the service is egregiously horrendous enough, other fire companies will put out your fires at more cost-effective prices.