If citizens actually had free choice in which government programs to fund as well as how much to contribute, the size of the US government (measured both in revenue and power over the people) would be 1/10 the size of today's utter monstrosity.
And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.
Isn't that ironic, that people like you leave comments like yours and get moderated up like in this case while talking about the government in USA, a country, where people came to for freedoms?
Freedoms, as in freedoms from government.
The reason USA became the wealthiest country in the world in 19 century was capitalist free market and industrialization, which only became possible because the US was so free to do business in because the government was so limited, so small and so insignificant.
Today, with government being what it is, USA became what it became, and people have to leave the country to search for those very ideals that their forebears left other countries to come to USA for? I suppose it does makes sense to do that for the folks who were unfortunate enough to be born in US in this time, the time of the great government involvement and destruction of freedoms.
I invite everybody to think about moving to freer nations, there are nations like that. On the other hand I am sure some people would rather try to save theirs, but it doesn't seem that there is a peaceful way of doing it.
Great Depression is your answer to what? Because Great Depression was created by the Fed, who monetized UK debt (yeah, English debt). Fed was printing obscene amounts of greenbacks and buying UK debt to prevent UK from defaulting (sort of like Germany is doing with Greece).
The 1921 saw a depression that had higher unemployment than what is observed today, but by 1923 that depression was over. The difference? Government spending was cut by 70%.
1925 US Fed started monetizing UK debt, this inflated the agricul
I know in the past I've argued with you over politics, but damn if you don't make a lot of sense in this story. It's a damned shame that your extremely interesting and informative posts are sitting at +1, when inane comments with nothing but strawmen are sitting at +4.
People originally wanted to escape the corruption, massive taxes, distant and uncaring government, and miles of paperwork and red tape that existed in Europe. We have become that which we fought so hard against.
Except that there is no place to escape to any more. I'm not trying to be fatalistic, so much as if there was a solution that easy, half of the people in the World would be trying to take advantage of it as well. So we have to start cleaning it up. And grabbing back po
Well, there are no places that are as idealistic as what USA used to be in 19 century, but there are places that do have more economic freedoms. Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland from the more developed nations, that's my choice.
Of-course while everybody is completely bearish on Somalia and other African nations, I actually think in the long run it pays to go counter-trend, so I am looking to invest there but it's not easy for an outsider.
Please don't mention Switzerland. Despite living there, you have no clue what "economic freedoms" means. The only economic freedom you care about is the one to reduce the taxes you pay.
Not exactly true. The only "economic freedom" roman is caring about, judging by his posting history, is the freedom to shit on his fellow man from a high perch, unchecked and unchallenged.
How is your comment not 'shitting on the fellow man', and mine are somehow?
While in this thread I left comments based on ideas, some others left comments based on persona. I like the doublespeak that you are engaged in, carry on.
Your ideas are based on the one single ideology to leave the unfortunate to rot in the streets - and to gleefully watch over it. You made that abundantly clear in hundreds of posts. Me, I am just insulting you. I know what you are. You have no ideas worth discussing, because your frame of mind is lightyears outside of civilization. Equating me insulting you with you wishing to cancel the social contract is just one more example for how far you are disconnected from humanity.
Yeah, that summarizes it, doesn't it? The mere presence of anyone dissenting from you, it hurts, no? Your callousness, your open disregard for anyone else, your barely concealed hatred for anyone that does not operate on your "give me mine, fuck yours!" attitude. As long as some of us are around that are not like you, you are constantly reminded that your attitude is sociopathic. And that burns in that small remainder of your consciousness. It burns, no? But be at peace, if you get yours, we will finally di
It's not about dissent, it's about stupidity. What is intolerable is stupidity.
As to 'give me mine, fuck yours' - nonsense, I earn mine, earn yours. There is nothing burning anywhere in my conscious, it's clear. It's your conscious that should be burning, as you want the world to descend into poverty through government oppression.
Ah, the classic libertarian/randian fallacy: that everything you achieve in life is 100% due to your own actions, and no one else's. If that were truly the case, you could live like a king in the various places in the world that lack anything like a central government. I'm still waiting for you to move to any one of them and fulfill your dream (hint: Switzerland is not it. It's pretty much the opposite of it).
As I said, you have nothing to say on the idea and your message is limited to ad-hominem attacks, which are completely pointless and irrelevant, but it doesn't matter, it doesn't change the message.
As to 'everything I achieved is 100% mine' - well, it's certainly 0% yours.
Of course you have nothing to say. We knew that. By the way, asshole, this is an insult, not an ad hominem. We are not saying "roman is an asshole, therefor his arguments have no merit", we are saying "roman's arguments are prima facie worthless, but, as he won't engage his two remaining braincells at any time, he is an asshole." Just plainly insulting you - that's not a fallacy, that's a rhetorical tactic. For the lulz.
Not exactly true. The only "economic freedom" roman is caring about, judging by his posting history, is the freedom to shit on his fellow man from a high perch, unchecked and unchallenged.
I don't know what roman was referring to, but if you think "keeping what I earned through my own labor, innovation and investments" = "shitting on my fellow man from a high perch," then I'd love to shit on you all day, every day.
You mean keeping what you earned by benefiting from the whole society around you, all the infrastructure and background services it provided you? No, cannot be, it is all YOURS, you are the sole prodigy that came up out of nothing with no help at all, so you are DESERVING to KEEP IT ALL! Right? But thanks for making it clear. The mentality of a sociopath.
You mean keeping what you earned by benefiting from the whole society around you, all the infrastructure and background services it provided you? No, cannot be, it is all YOURS, you are the sole prodigy that came up out of nothing with no help at all, so you are DESERVING to KEEP IT ALL! Right? But thanks for making it clear. The mentality of a sociopath.
In trade, both parties are enriched, as they both find a greater value in what they got than what they gave. Trade, in itself, automatically benefits society.
Background services? I would voluntarily trade, and pay for such services as I require or see fit. I do so on a daily basis. The fact that the government runs some of these, and so claiming that I would not pay for them because I object to taxation, is a strawman. The government doesn't need to run things. Roads can be privatized (and some are) and I w
No, not just taxes. It's about regulations of business, labor laws, minimum wage laws, everything that government does that I am against and I will always vote against all of it with my vote and with my money and with my feet.
Your comments as always concentrate on the messenger and have nothing to do with the message.
No federally dictated minimum wage, taxes are falling (though I prefer Cyprus taxes better), that's just to start, oh, and I am voting, I am always voting.
Then please move to Cyprus. Or are you saying that you like all the social stability and safety that the Swiss regulations buy you? Like, for example, the various minimum wage agreements hashed out between trade unions and employers in various sectors of the economy, and enforced by the government?
What are you basing this on? In the 19th century the USA wasn't a super power and wasn't doing all that well with pretty much slave labor camps otherwise known as textile mills just to get started. In the 20th century we became a super power due to massive infrastructure investments giving us our highway system and DARPA helped us build the Internet as we know it today. Sorry, government played a huge part in all of that. Everything from establishing minimal wage to setting fire codes help improve the way of life of every American and not just the robber barrens of the 19th century.
I don't see anyone leaving this country because they feel the government is too oppressive, if they did I'm not sure where they would go since Europe has a lot of the same policies, Asia is even tighter on freedom of expression and Africa is filled with strike. I guess that leaves Australia? While full of nice people and hot aussie chicks, they too have been spying on their citizens and doing the same things as our government including failed regulation leading to a massive oil spill off of their shores. So I guess that leaves Antarctica? Of course there are our dear friends to the north but Canada has its problems too, the grass is always greener on the other side. So I guess I have trouble picturing what a freer nation is. There aren't many nations out there where you will pay less in taxes, usually twice as much and don't forget the artificially low cost of gas here.
What are you basing this on? In the 19th century the USA wasn't a super power and wasn't doing all that well with pretty much slave labor camps otherwise known as textile mills just to get started.
It appears that roman_mir's idea of utopia is based on the few robber barons of the 19th (and early 20th) century who managed to amass great fortunes by running rampant over man and beast. It's a narrow reading of a small portion of history.
USA should never have become a 'superpower', building empires is against its original ideals, that was distrustful of empire needs for standing armies, heavy taxes, large bureaucracies, and centralized decision making.
USA however did manage to pay out all of its debts in 19 century and to become the world's largest creditor nation. It took on all sorts of loans during the century but US used the loans to build up production capacity, to increase its infrastructure and to start manufacturing that allowed it
Your view of history is downright scary but if you were indeed born in the USSR then it would make sense that you have a very incomplete picture of how the USA developed in the 1800s and early 1900s.
As for corporate taxes I laugh as your assertion given that GE paid zero tax dollars and did billions of dollars in business and is by no means unprofitable. On a smaller scale, my company does a few hundred million and again, pays almost no taxes due to loopholes and reinvestment. When you can afford to pay fo
The reason USA became the wealthiest country in the world in 19 century was capitalist free market and industrialization, which only became possible because the US was so free to do business in because the government was so limited, so small and so insignificant.
My, you are persistent. No, the reason that the US became the wealthiest country in the world is that it was able to harness enormous amounts of cheap resources without much interference by neighboring countries nor effective resistance by the native populations. The resources of the Western US (and various marine bodies) untapped (except by the locals who were rather quickly marginalized).
This behavior also had a number of deleterious effects - raping of resources, the environment (would you want to live in a 19th century urban environment?) and impressive social inequities.
So, government did step in and attempt to mitigate the hellbent robber baron / beggar they neighbor system. It was partially successful. Yes, we have problems that stem from going the other way - to much regulation, too much governmental control. But your slavish devotion to an anachronistic and time limited system (not much of the West available for plunder at bargain prices) suggests you really haven't looked at some of the finer points in American history.
- well, I am not your president, so what do you care?
raping of resources
- I don't see raping, I see people developing their economy. Everything else is secondary to that until the point is reached, where there is enough wealth to start caring about the environment. Just ask the people in the poorest nations what is the most important thing - environment or food? Only wealthy economies with large amounts of wealth and production can start caring about anything beyond food and minimum comforts.
- well, I am not your president, so what do you care?
Really? I so thought you were!
Damn, I wish he WAS!!
Too bad, as he'd be a whole *hell* of a lot better than anyone the American political system is offering up currently for the position. He's certainly demonstrated a far greater understanding of what the US *was* all about than any US politician, or even most of its' citizens.
Sadly, I find any more that I have much more ideologically in common with those survivors from the former USSR and satellite countries that actually understand what freedom is and it's value, and also tyranny and i
My, you are persistent. No, the reason that the US became the wealthiest country in the world is that it was able to harness enormous amounts of cheap resources without much interference by neighboring countries nor effective resistance by the native populations.
We were also the only large, industrialized nation whose manufacturing and infrastructure weren't bombed to cinders during WW2.
If you don't' see a way to perform a peaceful revolution in the United States, then you are advocating anarchy, in my opinion. The peaceful transfer of power has been a staple of the government and rights of US citizens. We are fortunate that when we cast our vote, we should not have fear of retribution for our vote (freed black panthers situation is noted). The winners do not round up the losers and take them out back to never be seen again.
If things are not going your way, convince enough people to
f things are not going your way, convince enough people to vote the way you want. (Not an easy thing, certainly.)
With enough money, it's all too easy. With enough cash, you can get people to support your agenda even if it's the polar opposite of their own best interests. We now have millions of poor and lower middle class Americans who vehemently believe that labor protections are bad, taxing the rich is "stealing", affordable health care is "socialism", that allowing companies to pillage pension funds
The reason USA became the wealthiest country in the world in 19 century was capitalist free market and industrialization, which only became possible because the US was so free to do business in because the government was so limited, so small and so insignificant.
I'm sure being free of belligerent neighbours like the UK, France and Germany helped. (If you're really lucky, you get all three!).
And just being big had nothing to do with it at all.
The reason USA became the wealthiest country in the world in 19 century was capitalist free market and industrialization, which only became possible because the US was so free to do business in because the government was so limited, so small and so insignificant.
You seem to ignore the fact that this wealth was gained at the expense of future generations. If you let the "Free Market" run free, it will only look for the short term outcome. Gigantic monocultures, killing diversity and easy fall prey to any v
Well ... (Score:5, Funny)
Easy enough (Score:0, Insightful)
If citizens actually had free choice in which government programs to fund as well as how much to contribute, the size of the US government (measured both in revenue and power over the people) would be 1/10 the size of today's utter monstrosity.
And if citizens literally had to cut a check at the beginning of every year, rather than pay through deliberately-obfuscated systems designed to hide the true cost of government, the size of government would be cut again by 90%.
Too bad government isn't voluntary, or t
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Easy enough (Score:1, Insightful)
Isn't that ironic, that people like you leave comments like yours and get moderated up like in this case while talking about the government in USA, a country, where people came to for freedoms?
Freedoms, as in freedoms from government.
The reason USA became the wealthiest country in the world in 19 century was capitalist free market and industrialization, which only became possible because the US was so free to do business in because the government was so limited, so small and so insignificant.
Today, with government being what it is, USA became what it became, and people have to leave the country to search for those very ideals that their forebears left other countries to come to USA for? I suppose it does makes sense to do that for the folks who were unfortunate enough to be born in US in this time, the time of the great government involvement and destruction of freedoms.
I invite everybody to think about moving to freer nations, there are nations like that. On the other hand I am sure some people would rather try to save theirs, but it doesn't seem that there is a peaceful way of doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason USA became the wealthiest country in the world in 19 century...
Yeaaaaah, that turned out well, didn't it. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Great Depression is your answer to what? Because Great Depression was created by the Fed, who monetized UK debt (yeah, English debt). Fed was printing obscene amounts of greenbacks and buying UK debt to prevent UK from defaulting (sort of like Germany is doing with Greece).
The 1921 saw a depression that had higher unemployment than what is observed today, but by 1923 that depression was over. The difference? Government spending was cut by 70%.
1925 US Fed started monetizing UK debt, this inflated the agricul
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
+1? No no, you should visit this thread tomorrow. The total moderation of my comments shouldn't exceed -5 (that's with a minus.)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes it worked out very well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
And so it comes full circle.
People originally wanted to escape the corruption, massive taxes, distant and uncaring government, and miles of paperwork and red tape that existed in Europe. We have become that which we fought so hard against.
Except that there is no place to escape to any more. I'm not trying to be fatalistic, so much as if there was a solution that easy, half of the people in the World would be trying to take advantage of it as well. So we have to start cleaning it up. And grabbing back po
Re: (Score:1)
Well, there are no places that are as idealistic as what USA used to be in 19 century, but there are places that do have more economic freedoms. Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland from the more developed nations, that's my choice.
Of-course while everybody is completely bearish on Somalia and other African nations, I actually think in the long run it pays to go counter-trend, so I am looking to invest there but it's not easy for an outsider.
Re:Easy enough (Score:4, Insightful)
Please don't mention Switzerland. Despite living there, you have no clue what "economic freedoms" means. The only economic freedom you care about is the one to reduce the taxes you pay.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
How is your comment not 'shitting on the fellow man', and mine are somehow?
While in this thread I left comments based on ideas, some others left comments based on persona. I like the doublespeak that you are engaged in, carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You can't insult me with your comments, you only insult me with your presence, that I have to bear it in this world.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's not about dissent, it's about stupidity. What is intolerable is stupidity.
As to 'give me mine, fuck yours' - nonsense, I earn mine, earn yours. There is nothing burning anywhere in my conscious, it's clear. It's your conscious that should be burning, as you want the world to descend into poverty through government oppression.
Re: (Score:2)
I earn mine, earn yours
Ah, the classic libertarian/randian fallacy: that everything you achieve in life is 100% due to your own actions, and no one else's. If that were truly the case, you could live like a king in the various places in the world that lack anything like a central government. I'm still waiting for you to move to any one of them and fulfill your dream (hint: Switzerland is not it. It's pretty much the opposite of it).
Re: (Score:1)
As I said, you have nothing to say on the idea and your message is limited to ad-hominem attacks, which are completely pointless and irrelevant, but it doesn't matter, it doesn't change the message.
As to 'everything I achieved is 100% mine' - well, it's certainly 0% yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
As I said, I find your existence to be insulting, not what you write here, that's because existence of stupidity is insulting, as it should be.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not exactly true. The only "economic freedom" roman is caring about, judging by his posting history, is the freedom to shit on his fellow man from a high perch, unchecked and unchallenged.
I don't know what roman was referring to, but if you think "keeping what I earned through my own labor, innovation and investments" = "shitting on my fellow man from a high perch," then I'd love to shit on you all day, every day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You mean keeping what you earned by benefiting from the whole society around you, all the infrastructure and background services it provided you? No, cannot be, it is all YOURS, you are the sole prodigy that came up out of nothing with no help at all, so you are DESERVING to KEEP IT ALL! Right? But thanks for making it clear. The mentality of a sociopath.
In trade, both parties are enriched, as they both find a greater value in what they got than what they gave. Trade, in itself, automatically benefits society.
Background services? I would voluntarily trade, and pay for such services as I require or see fit. I do so on a daily basis. The fact that the government runs some of these, and so claiming that I would not pay for them because I object to taxation, is a strawman. The government doesn't need to run things. Roads can be privatized (and some are) and I w
Re: (Score:2)
A sociopath, or anti-social person, is one who would demand that others contribute to one's benefit through the use of violence.
You have no idea what you're talking about. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder#Millon.27s_subtypes [wikipedia.org] ?
* covetous antisocial - variant of the pure pattern where individuals feel that life has not given them their due.
Re: (Score:1)
No, not just taxes. It's about regulations of business, labor laws, minimum wage laws, everything that government does that I am against and I will always vote against all of it with my vote and with my money and with my feet.
Your comments as always concentrate on the messenger and have nothing to do with the message.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, you voted with your feet to go to Switzerland, land of regulation and regulation-loving people. Again, please don't vote.
Re: (Score:1)
No federally dictated minimum wage, taxes are falling (though I prefer Cyprus taxes better), that's just to start, oh, and I am voting, I am always voting.
Re: (Score:2)
Then please move to Cyprus. Or are you saying that you like all the social stability and safety that the Swiss regulations buy you? Like, for example, the various minimum wage agreements hashed out between trade unions and employers in various sectors of the economy, and enforced by the government?
Re: (Score:1)
whatever happens between private entities is none of my concern, they are not the government. Cyprus is where I keep my hq, I like Swiss climate more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Easy enough (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you basing this on? In the 19th century the USA wasn't a super power and wasn't doing all that well with pretty much slave labor camps otherwise known as textile mills just to get started. In the 20th century we became a super power due to massive infrastructure investments giving us our highway system and DARPA helped us build the Internet as we know it today. Sorry, government played a huge part in all of that. Everything from establishing minimal wage to setting fire codes help improve the way of life of every American and not just the robber barrens of the 19th century.
I don't see anyone leaving this country because they feel the government is too oppressive, if they did I'm not sure where they would go since Europe has a lot of the same policies, Asia is even tighter on freedom of expression and Africa is filled with strike. I guess that leaves Australia? While full of nice people and hot aussie chicks, they too have been spying on their citizens and doing the same things as our government including failed regulation leading to a massive oil spill off of their shores. So I guess that leaves Antarctica? Of course there are our dear friends to the north but Canada has its problems too, the grass is always greener on the other side. So I guess I have trouble picturing what a freer nation is. There aren't many nations out there where you will pay less in taxes, usually twice as much and don't forget the artificially low cost of gas here.
Re: (Score:2)
What are you basing this on? In the 19th century the USA wasn't a super power and wasn't doing all that well with pretty much slave labor camps otherwise known as textile mills just to get started.
It appears that roman_mir's idea of utopia is based on the few robber barons of the 19th (and early 20th) century who managed to amass great fortunes by running rampant over man and beast. It's a narrow reading of a small portion of history.
Re: (Score:1)
What are you basing this on?
USA should never have become a 'superpower', building empires is against its original ideals, that was distrustful of empire needs for standing armies, heavy taxes, large bureaucracies, and centralized decision making.
USA however did manage to pay out all of its debts in 19 century and to become the world's largest creditor nation. It took on all sorts of loans during the century but US used the loans to build up production capacity, to increase its infrastructure and to start manufacturing that allowed it
Re: (Score:2)
Your view of history is downright scary but if you were indeed born in the USSR then it would make sense that you have a very incomplete picture of how the USA developed in the 1800s and early 1900s.
As for corporate taxes I laugh as your assertion given that GE paid zero tax dollars and did billions of dollars in business and is by no means unprofitable. On a smaller scale, my company does a few hundred million and again, pays almost no taxes due to loopholes and reinvestment. When you can afford to pay fo
Re:Easy enough (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason USA became the wealthiest country in the world in 19 century was capitalist free market and industrialization, which only became possible because the US was so free to do business in because the government was so limited, so small and so insignificant.
My, you are persistent. No, the reason that the US became the wealthiest country in the world is that it was able to harness enormous amounts of cheap resources without much interference by neighboring countries nor effective resistance by the native populations. The resources of the Western US (and various marine bodies) untapped (except by the locals who were rather quickly marginalized).
This behavior also had a number of deleterious effects - raping of resources, the environment (would you want to live in a 19th century urban environment?) and impressive social inequities.
So, government did step in and attempt to mitigate the hellbent robber baron / beggar they neighbor system. It was partially successful. Yes, we have problems that stem from going the other way - to much regulation, too much governmental control. But your slavish devotion to an anachronistic and time limited system (not much of the West available for plunder at bargain prices) suggests you really haven't looked at some of the finer points in American history.
Re: (Score:2)
My, you are persistent
- well, I am not your president, so what do you care?
raping of resources
- I don't see raping, I see people developing their economy. Everything else is secondary to that until the point is reached, where there is enough wealth to start caring about the environment. Just ask the people in the poorest nations what is the most important thing - environment or food? Only wealthy economies with large amounts of wealth and production can start caring about anything beyond food and minimum comforts.
impressive social inequities
- that's what free market capit
Re: (Score:2)
My, you are persistent
- well, I am not your president, so what do you care?
Really? I so thought you were!
Re: (Score:1)
I don't have a teleprompter, so I am disqualified on that basis alone.
Re: (Score:1)
Damn, I wish he WAS!!
Too bad, as he'd be a whole *hell* of a lot better than anyone the American political system is offering up currently for the position. He's certainly demonstrated a far greater understanding of what the US *was* all about than any US politician, or even most of its' citizens.
Sadly, I find any more that I have much more ideologically in common with those survivors from the former USSR and satellite countries that actually understand what freedom is and it's value, and also tyranny and i
Re: (Score:2)
We were also the only large, industrialized nation whose manufacturing and infrastructure weren't bombed to cinders during WW2.
Re: (Score:2)
If things are not going your way, convince enough people to
Re: (Score:2)
With enough money, it's all too easy. With enough cash, you can get people to support your agenda even if it's the polar opposite of their own best interests. We now have millions of poor and lower middle class Americans who vehemently believe that labor protections are bad, taxing the rich is "stealing", affordable health care is "socialism", that allowing companies to pillage pension funds
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure being free of belligerent neighbours like the UK, France and Germany helped. (If you're really lucky, you get all three!).
And just being big had nothing to do with it at all.
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to ignore the fact that this wealth was gained at the expense of future generations. If you let the "Free Market" run free, it will only look for the short term outcome. Gigantic monocultures, killing diversity and easy fall prey to any v