Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11]  Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) The Fundamental Theorem of Statism (Read 882 times)
Snarky Sack
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4379
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Reply #100 - Dec 6th, 2018 at 10:21am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Dec 5th, 2018 at 5:13pm:
The libertarian position is that you have the right to own property, and also that you own the product of your labor, that you trade your labor for property when you work for wages and salaries.

You seem to be finally understanding that much, that wages and salaries are property and that their taxation, merely because of their ownership, must be apportioned.


"Apportioned" seems to be a magical incantation for you.  Can you explain exactly what you mean by "apportioned?"  The constitution originally required direct federal taxes to be apportioned among the states based on each states population using the founders' bizarre racial logic:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.

Then the 16th amendment took away that requirement for the income tax:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I assume you disagree with the 16th amendment, I just don't understand why you think making sure the taxpayers of each state pay taxes based on the percent of the population that lives their state would convert taking wealth at gunpoint into a morally justified act.

I don't agree with the argument that " ___________ is so important that it's OK to rob so we can do it," but it makes more sense than, "it's OK to rob as long as the robbery is apportioned."



  

"I think I'll backtrack." - Jeff
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36167
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Reply #101 - Dec 6th, 2018 at 3:58pm
Print Post  
Snarky Sack wrote on Dec 6th, 2018 at 10:21am:
"Apportioned" seems to be a magical incantation for you.
What's wrong with your mind?

Apportioned is a term of law with a specific legal meaning.

Why would you imagine that the law is magical? Are you nuts?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8088
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Reply #102 - Dec 6th, 2018 at 8:42pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Dec 6th, 2018 at 8:34am:
No lizard, free markets operate on mutually agreed to trades, and the result of mutually agreed to trades is that both parties to the trade win and wealth is created.


The idea that two parties can both "win" is absurd.

They can both be better off in terms of having more stuff.

They cannot both have more value, because if everyone has more stuff, its value decreases.

They also cannot both win, in that both cannot each be better off than the other party.

Jeff wrote on Dec 6th, 2018 at 8:34am:
How about you giving an example of a right that doesn't benefit everyone equally?


I just did. Read the post.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36167
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Reply #103 - Dec 7th, 2018 at 8:49am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Dec 6th, 2018 at 8:42pm:
The idea that two parties can both "win" is absurd.

You need your lawn mowed, and I need money, so I agree to mow your lawn for $50. Both of us get what we want, nobody loses. Nothing is taken by one party to the deal at the expense of the other...

I need a car. You have a used car you want to sell. We negotiate and agree that if I pay you $5000, you will sell me the car I need. Both of us win. I get a car I need and you get money in an amount agreeable to you in exchange for a car you no longer need or want.

That's how free trades work, people negotiate with each other and reach agreements that give both parties what they want. When both parties to an agreement get what they want, I call it a win-win deal.

You are blinded by thinking that the only "win" is to come out ahead at the expense of the other party. That's the sort of "win" that happens when governments transfer wealth from people who earned it to people who didn't earn it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36167
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Reply #104 - Dec 7th, 2018 at 8:54am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Dec 6th, 2018 at 8:42pm:
I just did. Read the post.
The right to not be kicked favors people without legs? No it doesn't. The right to not be kicked extends to everyone.

The right to try to profit from your natural talents and abilities favors people with greater abilities? No it doesn't, because the opportunity to try to benefit from your natural talents and abilities extends to everyone.

Because you are short and a supergenius, you won't do well trying to become an NBA star, but you might be able to profit from your genius, although I doubt it.

Do you think you should have a right to be an NBA star whether you can play basketball or not?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 8088
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Reply #105 - Dec 7th, 2018 at 10:50am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Dec 7th, 2018 at 8:54am:
The right to not be kicked favors people without legs? No it doesn't. The right to not be kicked extends to everyone.


The right not to be kicked benefits the guy with the huge arms more than the guy with the huge legs. No shifting terms to favouring. There's an objective benefit, which one person is getting more of. That's (I often think) the whole idea.

The fact that you vomit up this typical libertarian tripe when faced with a right that's obviously absurd (the right not to be kicked, without the right not to be punched) proves it's garbage.

Jeff wrote on Dec 7th, 2018 at 8:49am:
You need your lawn mowed, and I need money, so I agree to mow your lawn for $50. Both of us get what we want, nobody loses.


Both parties can, theoretically, not lose. In an even trade, this is exactly what happens.

They can't both win, in that each is now better off than the other.

Capitalism is about winning.

Jeff wrote on Dec 7th, 2018 at 8:49am:
You are blinded by thinking that the only "win" is to come out ahead at the expense of the other party. That's the sort of "win" that happens when governments transfer wealth from people who earned it to people who didn't earn it.


You're using a strange definition of winning that actually doesn't suit your case at all.

Again, yes it's possible for more resources to be generated. Resources are not a zero-sum game (though they will be when the population reaches carrying capacity).

It's not possible for everyone to come out ahead of everyone else. Success - the thing that capitalism epitomises - is a zero-sum game.

You just admitted that the free market would not willingly bear the cost of supporting labourers with children and elderly, while slavery would and did. This is the same thing I've told you a thousand times, and you prove you not only understand it, but agree with it, when it suits you and you forget you're supposed to be pretending otherwise.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36167
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Reply #106 - Dec 7th, 2018 at 4:07pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Dec 7th, 2018 at 10:50am:
The right not to be kicked benefits the guy with the huge arms more than the guy with the huge legs.
Nobody gets kicked if everybody respects the right of others not to be kicked. Equality under the law is maintained. The right to not be kicked is a real right. People who kick you will be punished for assault and battery.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36167
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Reply #107 - Dec 7th, 2018 at 4:10pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Dec 7th, 2018 at 10:50am:
Both parties can, theoretically, not lose. In an even trade, this is exactly what happens.

By a large number of mutually agreeable trades, wealth is created. People start to create things and make things to sell because they can get an agreeable return on their work/investment.

Everybody wins, even people not directly involved in the first trade.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 36167
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Reply #108 - Dec 7th, 2018 at 4:15pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Dec 7th, 2018 at 10:50am:
You're using a strange definition of winning that actually doesn't suit your case at all.

It's not me that is confused.

The amount of resources in the universe is probably infinite or close enough for human purposes.

It's free markets and property rights that put those resources to their highest value use and conserve them against foolish waste.

By making the best use of available resources and acting to find new ways to access available resources, free markets extend the amount of wealth that can be created for human use by exponential amounts. Lots of animals will be saved in the process. Rich people don't eat their pets.

Venezuela is short of food. That's a resource that would be plentiful in Venezuela if they had free markets and property rights protection.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 ... 9 10 [11] 
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › The Fundamental Theorem of Statism
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy