User Tag List

First 8910111220 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 205

  1. #91
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    You're right. Let's not stay in these barbaric times we currently live in, basing our economy upon supply and demand like simple creatures. Since we're so advanced, we should try something new.
    Supply and demand is the only rational system there is. Unless you can invest a replicator, the scarcity problem will always be with us. I suspect you're pulling my leg at this point, since no one would argue this line or reasoning seriously.


    How is this all that different from now? And you're only talking about certain societies, anyhow. Some tribal societies were more evenly distributed. In fact the ideas that the English brought to the Americas in terms of "private property" etc. completely baffled and astonished Native Americans.
    Native Americans HAD private property. "MY bow," "MY moccasins," "MY squaw" all existed. They didn't have private real property as individuals, but they did have "OUR land" as a tribal concept, to the point of killing outsider tribes that encroached upon it. And their lives, like those of most of the people of the world, were nasty, brutish, and short.


    Yet our entire United States economy is principally based upon theivery, beginning with conquering the Native American tribes, and taking slaves from Africa, then throw in a handful robber barons, some whities chasing Mexicans out of the South West, and we have quite the conflict about what constitutes "private property."
    I'd like hear exactly what "robber barons" stole, but the actual historical thefts I certainly agree were awful. But the U.S. economy is not "principally based upon thievery." That is a stupid statement, given the nature of the economy in 2009. And the Spaniards stole Mexico from the Aztecs, who stole the land originally. Someone had to claim the land originally. It's the Lockean concept of mixing labor with nature to create land as property. If you trace it back long enough, everything and everywhere would be considered "stolen" in some way.


    Who is stupid here is very much a matter of opinion.
    No, not really.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  2. #92
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marmalade.sunrise View Post
    I never suggested Soviet style socialism.
    Did you not suggest government setting of prices (in this case, income)?
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #93
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Now we're getting into interesting territory, but, short of suggesting that private property shouldn't exist, a system of government wage control would necessitate taking private property by force. It's unavoidable. As for pollution and "externalities," someone like Rothbard would suggest that tangible destruction/devaluation of the property of others through one's own negligence would be a tort. We're getting way off-topic, though.
    Actually, I was contemplating whether private property should exist, whether it's a wasteful concept or not. But the tort idea covering that was interesting.

    Are you arguing for a single tax, then? I am not really down with it, but it's the least market-distorting tax we could probably have in society.
    I don't really understand what a single tax is. I looked it up, but it seems too complicated to understand. Money is so ridiculously complicated.

    No, my background doesn't weigh on the correctness of my opinion, but it might explain why I see things the way I do. A person who has never owned anything is probably going to have a different perspective from a billionaire who owns a ton of land, for instance.

    I probably shouldn't be arguing anything. I don't know beans about economics. I know a little about how social engineering relates to economics, but that's it. From a social engineering perspective, capitalism is basically sitting back, doing nothing, and expecting everything to work itself out.

  4. #94
    . Blank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,202

    Default

    You two are being annoying as shit.

    Both of you are making solid points, and both of you are blinding yourselves to one another's side of the argument.
    Ti = 19 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Te = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ne = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fi = 15 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Si = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ni = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Se = 11[][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fe = 0

    -----------------
    Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
    Man got to sit and wonder why, why, why;
    Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
    Man got to tell himself he understand

  5. #95
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Actually, I was contemplating whether private property should exist, whether it's a wasteful concept or not. But the tort idea covering that was interesting.
    It is a little arcane, but libertarian environmental policy has had many debates to this effect since the 1970s. It's a little beyond me, since I haven't read many of the major works in the field.


    I don't really understand what a single tax is.
    Henry George - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    George argued that a Single Tax on the unimproved value of land was easily the most equitable possible way to raise revenue for government. There is a subset of libertarianism called geolibertarianism that would want to fund a very limited government in this way. Basically, the argument is that A) it's the least market-distorting tax; and B) the few things the government would do (courts, police, jails, road building, fire departments) benefit landowners the most by far (because their property would be safe, its value increased, etc.), so it would make sense to collect revenue based on the amount of land they own. A friend of mine who actually worked at Bear Stearns and was a Bill Clinton-style New Democrat in college has become a hardcore Austrian economics fan and believer in the Single Tax. He's basically a laissez-faire geolibertarian now.

    Geolibertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    No, my background doesn't weigh on the correctness of my opinion, but it might explain why I see things the way I do. A person who has never owned anything is probably going to have a different perspective from a billionaire who owns a ton of land, for instance.
    I don't own any land, and my parents (along with the bank) own about half an acre with a 4-bedroom-1 1/2-bathroom house on it. I firmly believe in private property and freedom of exchange.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  6. #96
    Don't Judge Me! Haphazard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Posts
    6,707

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blank View Post
    You two are being annoying as shit.

    Both of you are making solid points, and both of you are blinding yourselves to one another's side of the argument.
    I have a feeling their discussion needs to be cut into another thread.
    -Carefully taking sips from the Fire Hose of Knowledge

  7. #97
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Henry George - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    George argued that a Single Tax on the unimproved value of land was easily the most equitable possible way to raise revenue for government. There is a subset of libertarianism called geolibertarianism that would want to fund a very limited government in this way. Basically, the argument is that A) it's the least market-distorting tax; and B) the few things the government would do (courts, police, jails, road building, fire departments) benefit landowners the most by far (because their property would be safe, its value increased, etc.), so it would make sense to collect revenue based on the amount of land they own. A friend of mine who actually worked at Bear Stearns and was a Bill Clinton-style New Democrat in college has become a hardcore Austrian economics fan and believer in the Single Tax. He's basically a laissez-faire geolibertarian now.

    Geolibertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Oh! I think I see what you mean. I can see this having a lot of positive effects, because basing land value on quantity rather than quality would eliminate stuff like "bad" neighborhoods being less valuable, make land less entrenched and more accessible to improvement/change, etc.

    I don't own any land, and my parents (along with the bank) own about half an acre with a 4-bedroom-1 1/2-bathroom house on it. I firmly believe in private property and freedom of exchange.
    Ah. Well, I suppose I really just want them to do whatever will make the economy work in a more reasonable way and allow more people to make ends meet. Don't care if it's private property, public property, or something in-between.

  8. #98
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Athenian200 View Post
    Oh! I think I see what you mean. I can see this having a lot of positive effects, because basing land value on quantity rather than quality would eliminate stuff like "bad" neighborhoods being less valuable, make land less entrenched and more accessible to improvement/change, etc.
    Well, the land "value" (like, the price) would still be based upon what it would fetch on the open market. But the government would have a set value at which it would assess land for tax purposes (by the acre, or whatever measurement), and the rent would be levied. It would encourage capital improvements and using the land for some type of economic function, rather than hoarding it without use. So, if you owned 100 acres with a mansion on it, and someone else owned 100 acres with several office buildings, or a school, or a parking lot and shopping center on it, but you were paying the same taxes, it would encourage you to have a smaller estate and sell off some land. Or to open a park or to grow some crops or something. There would still be land that was more valuable on the market or to rent on. Los Angeles apartments would fetch more rent than Detroit apartments, and beach houses would cost more to buy than houses inland. George was also in favor of a sweet citizens' dividend from any leftover funds from the land value tax, which would basically be an equal payment to every adult in society, landowner or not.



    Ah. Well, I suppose I really just want them to do whatever will make the economy work in a more reasonable way and allow more people to make ends meet. Don't care if it's private property, public property, or something in-between.
    When you get rid of the private property, the system gets REALLY messed up, and people end up broke as shit.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  9. #99
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 sx
    Socionics
    SEE Fi
    Posts
    25,301

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post

    No, not really.
    Yes, it is. The fact that you are unable to see how much of what you say (and also some of what I say) is totally opinion does make you seem a little stupid.

    This isn't an insult war. We aren't in the 8th grade. Nothing that you say will make you "win." I perceive you as having a blind, dogmatic allegiance to capitalism and you think I am "insane" for socialist leanings. There is really nothing left to discuss at this point.

  10. #100
    pathwise dependent FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTj
    Posts
    5,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I am a sports fan, there are tons of lazy-ass athletes out there. But someone with billions of dollars decided to pay them millions or tens of millions of dollars because they will get more than that back in the utility these athletes provide. That is only unfair if you believe life is so inherently flawed because of unequal distribution of talents that the entire world is impracticable. If you really believe that, I don't why you would even work at all.
    C'mon now, you can't really believe that. What economic good did people who win the lottery did to society? It's not about talents, it's just random. If you're born rich, good for you, your parents likely provided a lot good stuff to society, but you're not more "productive". You're brainwashed by ideology.
    ENTj 7-3-8 sx/sp

Similar Threads

  1. Why are NT's so rare as the main characters?
    By great_bay in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 09-16-2017, 01:51 AM
  2. [sx] Why are sx-doms so common in typology communities?
    By Octavarium in forum Instinctual Subtypes
    Replies: 68
    Last Post: 03-11-2015, 10:08 PM
  3. So, Why Are You Up So Early/Late?
    By RansomedbyFire in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-21-2007, 03:01 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO