please stop cherry picking my posts.
Or what?
What have you added in the remaining paragraph of this quote? Ive read it, and a quick click to the link above will take anyone including yourself to read it to get the context. Theres nothing substantive here, so I cut it out.
I dont like wading through massive walls of quotes just so that I can read something, and I expect others might feel the same.
Or what? Ooh, internet tough guy here, folks.
Or it might enhance your reputation as a sneaky poster who picks and choose sentences, segments and questions to respond to while grandstanding to an invisible audience? In case you forget, you are having a discussion with
me. You have to present your arguments to me, while defending yours. How can you achieve either when you censor or misrepresent my posts? How will you learn, evolve and grow if you choose this path?
Honestly, what do you hope to achieve with this childish attitude? Do you think this evasiveness will make anyone take you or your ideas seriously? You know I can see this, you know others can see it as well, so why do you do it? Is your pride so enormous that you must be right even when youre wrong?
Ive asked you why there was no explosion in charitable contributions when the Bush tax cuts freed up $6.6 trillion. You said its difficult to make a prediction because its a temporary tax credit and people cant make decisions about charitable donations based on the whims of politicians that change from year to year. Really? Thirteen years on?
Do I have a crystal ball? You will find examples that match and mismatch throughout all of history given any kind of ideology. What does that prove exactly? Nothing much. Just that societies are very complicated.
I know you dont like this answer, but again, thats just reality.
Far from it. I love this answer. Because it proves all your theories are hogwash. On one hand, you have a crystal ball on how society in a tax free environment will react to those in need, but on the other hand, you dont have a crystal ball (never mind that were talking about the past and present) to explain why charitable donations did not rise when the economy is flooded with $6.6 trillion. The air is thick with hypocrisy.
Of course you wont admit it - even after presented with your own words
and are absolutely reveling in my use of the word altruism and altruistic, completely oblivious to the fact that I am using the catchword of self-professed paleolibertarians.
This is how you defined altruism, not me;
Err, have you forgotten Oxfords definition I posted three days ago?
Ive asked you why you think corporations that consistently exploit communities will suddenly develop a social conscience? You ignored that
I didnt respond to this because I didnt think you meant it, honestly.
Businesses that arent running as political entrepreneurs benefit the poor through their own operation.
Strip away all the money, strip away all the classes, strip away all of the relationships and pretend for a second that the world is running as it is without money.
Take a look around, and then tell me whats doing the greatest good for humanity?
You would see McDonalds, with a massive industry working day in and day out to feed people. You would see Wal-Mart stocking its shelves and making everything clean and presentable. You would see a massive network of fuel stations, trucks, and operators insuring that people that can get to where they need to go. So on and so on and so on.
What do you see with the government? An entire group of people doing almost nothing for anyone. The roads they manage are in disrepair, their mailing system is no better than any other business, they have tanks, bombs, and airplanes that are awe-inspiring wastes of time and effort. When they are used, you would see the deaths of villains, as well as helpless innocents.
Businesses are the lifeblood of society, and government is the leech.
To say that corporations arent charitable is just totally missing what corporations do every single day. They help everyone; Regardless of race, class, gender, or age.
All they ask in return is about the same effort in return in the form of currency. Why wouldnt I mean it? Your simple-minded rationalizations and irrational hatred of the government aside, I am curious by your intimate knowledge on what they want.
Just for the record, when you say corporations help everyone, does that include them opening sweat ship factories overseas to avoid paying real, livable wages to workers here?
When you say they help everyone, regardless of race, class, gender or age, does that include business owners that
(i) Do not hire people based on their race, class, gender or age?
(ii) Pay lower wages to people based on their race, class, gender or age?
(iii) Exploit entire communities for their natural resources such as timber, oil or and diamond?
And again, I have no overlords. You seem very convinced that you do I am beginning to sense that is the root of your problem.
In what way are they not overlords? They are class of people that follow different rules than we do, they decide how we should run our lives however they see fit, theyre paid more than most, they dont do any kind of industrial work, they dont provide any service themselves that benefits anyone, they have titles and demand respect in their presence, um.. Ya, theyre our supreme overlords alright.
Would you prefer if I called them semi-temporary overlords that get into power based on how well they promised what they couldn't deliver to as many people as possible?
Im sure youve heard of Stockholm syndrome.
You can call them whatever you want. It only reflects on you and your mentality.
Why arent you concerned about its effectiveness and reach?
Doesnt the entire point of your argument rest on the fact that voluntary contributions in a tax free society trumps government welfare?
I did not say that I am not concerned about its effectiveness and reach, I said I am not concerned with the effectiveness of charities in terms of reach.
Voluntary contributions are better than State welfare, but I was appealing to the logic of it rather than go through empirical data all day and still never come to any better understanding about the world.
Economists use a term called Ceteris Paribus because economists understand that societies are complex structures that are immune to traditional experimentation. There is no way to control the variables and rerun an experiment.
For example; I can say, Look at the United States in the 1800s, it had tremendous growth and innovation under little taxation and essentially no public welfare system.
You could say, Well that was another generation at another time, that wont work with the culture of today. (I know this isnt an argument of yours.)
Strictly speaking, this isnt wrong. I couldnt disprove that by taking our culture back in time and giving it to the people of the 1800s and see what happens.
So were always struggling with hypothesis without experimentation or accurate conclusions.
Austrian economics gets around this problem by looking at society from a logical perspective starting with the concept of Human Action. This is called Praxeology.
https://mises.org/rothbard/praxeology.pdf Do you realize how ridiculous it sounds when you make statements like Voluntary contributions are better than State welfare, when you yourself have conceded that you cant empirically prove it?
For example; I can say, Look at the United States in the 1800s, it had tremendous growth and innovation under little taxation and essentially no public welfare system.
Arent you forgetting something? The slave labor advantage that early America had? You know, the subhumans without wages who we used to exploit the enormous natural resources of the land and as farm workers and later on, railroad and factory workers? Yeah, we had no public welfare system. Why would we? Theyre not humans, right?
You bandy around terms like praxeology and ceteris paribus as if these somehow lend any weight to your arguments. Like diminishing marginal utility you used earlier, I dont even think you understand what ceteris paribus means, judging by how you are using it.
So can you or can you not demonstrate this empirically?
No one can demonstrate it empirically in either direction with any certainty.
What are talking about? Federal welfare exists now. It helps the citizens. Some may argue it is not enough or not efficient, but it is there. Thats empirical evidence.
Voluntary charitable contributions as a form of a credible social safety net does not exist it has never existed. You are arguing that in a tax free society, it will exist. The onus is on you to prove that. Fourth day on, you still cant prove it (not that you can, of course).
As Ive noted before, U.S. welfare spending for families and children in 2014 ($264 billion) amounts to to
0.066% of the federal budget. And its decreasing annually relative to GDP.
Did you know that we spend $863.5 billion, three times as much, on defense?
Did you know that oil companies receive an average of $5.2 billion in subsidies annually, almost the same as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ($5.6 billion) designed to assist 14.5% Americans facing food insecurity?
Did you know that the tax rate of the 3 biggest US based oil and gas companies averages at 20%, which is lower than my rate, despite making $80 billion in profit?
Suppose that all of this is true, what have we proven? What if we just got lucky, and the spending is going down relative to GDP by pure coincidence?
I asked you to show me how welfare is superior. How can you guarantee that this isnt just a fluke? I pointed out to you that Public Welfare is essentially designed to fail. If it succeeds its by blind coincidence, or enormous spending that is simultaneously destructive elsewhere.
Superior to what?
And you edited out the rest of my post on the subject.
Did you know that farm subsidies cost the taxpayers $14.1 billion (2012), almost twice as high as the budget for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children ($7.1 billion)?
Did you know that the $88 million worth of subsidies enjoyed by Koch Industries is almost as much as the $100 million allocated for the federal Emergency Food and Shelter budget?
Did you know that 965 of the largest corporations in the United States receive $110 billion in subsidies, larger than the entire federal Food and Nutrition Assistance Program ($107.2 billion) - which includes the above cited subprograms?
And yet you here you are, a self-professed sympathetic guy, frothing on bringing down the welfare budget to zero. And you say you are not extreme.
Can you see how ridiculous your fixation with welfare is, considering the existence of other more wasteful expenditures, specifically involving the corporations you idolize.
Is this not in principal true;
Because welfare is achieved through taxation, it can remain perpetually indebted, show poor results, and have high overhead. For the population to do anything about it, they need to have a majority vote hampered by the votes of the welfare employees themselves and the recipients.
If it is true, is this not superior;
No, its not true. Because
(i), blaming the governments level of indebtedness to welfare spending (0.066%) is silly,
(ii) poor results can be improved upon
(iii) The population includes the welfare recipients. Being poor does not mean you should not be involved in decision making process.
the agency gets money by the consent of their customers, the benefactors. For them to stay in business they have to succeeded in several ways; Most of the money they receive needs to make it to the people theyre trying to help, they have to show positive results, and they must stay solvent. If at any time the benefactors dont like whats going on with this business they can withdraw their funding immediately, no questions asked, and no theft permitted.
And if no benefactors exist in your tax free market utopia?
Edit: And if no credible number of benefactors exist in your tax free utopia? ( have to be careful, otherwise, you will leap on that sentence) Just leave the weak and sick to fend for themselves?
Aaah. So you actually dont know if people will make charitable contributions in a tax free environment despite repeatedly proclaiming that people dont contribute to charity now because they expect the government to do it. Thank you for finally admitting that, even if it was done in accident.
Look, if I say if you jump out of a boat in the Atlantic, youre going to get wet, will that always be true? No, you could land on a raft, or by some shocking coincidence hit a whale.
I cant guarantee anything at all about the past or the future, Ive just written a lot about this.
However, if 51% of people are willing to vote to tax the charity out of them, why would that same 51% not act of their own accord to provide charity?
Markets will always seek to fill the demand of the society, if even a small minority of people want to provide charity, markets can provide for that. Only in the instance that 51% of people want public welfare, can this happen.
If it wouldnt happen in a free market then it certainly wouldnt happen in a democracy. Well, as certainly as you would get wet if you jump out of a boat in the Atlantic, if you want to get that pedantic.
when applied in this instance means that people certainly might not immediately put their money into charity as soon as discretionary spending comes up
To be honest, I dont think you really understand what diminishing marginal utility even means.
Do you know what might means? As in the difference between might not and always will not?
Oh give it, up. You have no clue what youre talking about.
Predictably, you copied those stats verbatim from self-professed libertarian Peter Leesons book. You didnt even delete the question mark he placed on the huge drop in GDP it makes me wonder if you even read it.
You think it would have been more honest to edit out the question mark? Are you serious? I assure you, I intentionally left it in.
And is the empiricist suddenly against empirical data whenever it contradicts your narrative?
Really? You left in a question mark, but did not bother explaining what that question mark is for? Go on, explain it to me.
Do you understand now why I was laughing when you brought Somalia up?
No, could you please explain to me what looking at the country long after anarchy has ended has anything to do with the effect that anarchy had on the society?
How do you know the success in later years wasn't due to the bootstrapping of the anarchistic society before?
Anarchy only ended three years ago. Your data, using 15-20 year gap, showed fractional improvements in several areas (while ignoring the effect that foreign aid has on those numbers, and the presence of regional warlords). The data I presented showed vast improvements in just two years, which completely negates any arguments about how anarchy is better for Somalia.
Thanks for the book recommendation, but to be honest, I dont take anything published by Young America's Foundation seriously. You can only read so much revisionist accounts and half-truths before you get sick of them.
Your loss. /quote]
Nah. I prefer dealing with facts.
Here, let me requote myself.
You are resorting to Godwin's law once again. Yes, Hitler was elected. But you are intentionally ignoring the years of unchecked abuse he inflicted on the government culminating with him holding the entire Reichstag hostage while forcing the passing of Ermächtigungsgesetz, which elevated his powers to near monarchy.
Again, Ermächtigungsgesetz happened after he was elected, so whats your point?
Exactly what I wrote. He was no longer operating under a democratic government. Do you disagree?
Elections cannot be easily gamed - gaming it requires resource, patience and most importantly, depends on the apathy of the citizens. Case in point, you - you refuse to do anything about Citizens United, but have no problem complaining endlessly about the government. You just want the whole thing abolished in favor of some half baked theories.
Its a good thing that no one has the resources, patience, or the citizens to do this sort of thing. Oh wait, according to you there are the citizens, most importantly, so we can scratch that one off.
Its a good thing theres no one with resources or patience to game the system.
Your simple-minded arguments are quite breathtaking to read sometimes. You know what? Lets go with your idea. Go and game the election presidential election in 2016, and the 2018 midterms since you make it sound so easy. Once your candidates win the Presidency and two thirds of the seats in the House and Senate, then go on to appoint supportive Justices into the Supreme Court. Then, dissolve the union, disband the government and you can have your tax free utopia.
Now excuse me while I go an address your position on sex with minors.