History is not on your side, guys.
High taxes can make sense if you spend it on the right things; like infrastructure, small business, getting the middle class working, etc. Unfortunately. Obama didn't do those things; he followed Bush's lead and continued his agenda. The deficit after WWII was twice what is is now (compared to GDP and adjusted for inflation) and we got out of that by having high taxes on the wealthy which increased wages for the middle class and caused spending to increase and increased the tax base.
We need to bring back those tax rates today, so we can get out of our current deficit.
Esuric:Capitalism is a system of production defined by organic, emergent mechanisms that guide/direct production (which emerge out of voluntary exchange that occurs simultaneously in multiple markets).
I agree with this statement. If you accept this assertion (I assume you do), then you know that the mere existence of the state, however small, hinges on the existence of taxes. These taxes will produce inorganic fluctuations in the market in proportion to the state's size and scope. So, while you may have a very small state, and a mostly free economy utilizing a system of production defined by mostly organic, emergent mechanisms that guide/direct production, it cannot, by virtue of the state's very existence be totally, purely free; in in your words "organic". Therefore, by your own definition of capitalism, capitalism = anarchy. I don't understand how you can possibly say otherwise, unless we are disagreeing on the meaning of anarchy, which i don't imagine that we are.
Edit: perhaps capitalism does not directly equal anarchy, as far as their definitions go. Anarchy is the absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal. While capitalism is as you've stated above. Perhaps i should have said that Anarchy is a necessary condition to achieve true capitalism. I think you got what I mean though.
"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?"
The good part starts around 2:30:
h/t JJ
Clayton -
I agree with this statement. If you accept this assertion (I assume you do), then you know that the mere existence of the state, however small, hinges on the existence of taxes. These taxes will produce inorganic fluctuations in the market in proportion to the state's size and scope. So, while you may have a very small state, and a mostly free economy utilizing a system of production defined by mostly organic, emergent mechanisms that guide/direct production, it cannot, by virtue of the state's very existence be totally, purely free
You've said nothing here. It's true that capitalism acts most efficiently without the intrusion of the state but it can exist, as we have seen, even in the face of torrential interventionism (although such mechanisms are obviously hindered).
Therefore, by your own definition of capitalism, capitalism = anarchy
Let me ask you a question, is a blunt knife still a knife?
Anarchy is the absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal. While capitalism is as you've stated above.
Do you or do you not approve of my definition.
"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."
My teacher told me it wasn't til they lowered the taxes after WWII that businesses finally flourished and expanded. Burden is on you. PROVE ME WRONG.