Kay, so I didn't actually edit that earlier post with more talking - sorry, I've been sort of sidetracked recently. You guys do have a lot of good points. I'm going to talk some more now.

 

That doesn't make it okay to make citizens pay protection money on their land. This is the "America: love it or leave it" argument.

 

Mkay. This goes back to what I said about there being property taxes everywhere. Since every peice of land is a part of a country (sans Antarctica, obviously) and every country more or less defends itself from outright invasion, EVERY property tax is in a way "protection money." Taxes all go to tons of different things -- one of them being the military. This is NOT the "America: love it or leave it" argument, this is the "This is what happens in every country" argument.

 

The idea that there is a spectrum from capitalism to socialism is false. There are only free markets and centrally planned economies. The free markets exist only illegally - when you get paid "under the table" for your services or you make a trade. In these cases, taxation doesn't affect the price of the good/service, so you aren't paying any more than the true value. This "underground economy" is far bigger than most people realize.

 

Disagreed. The government does not go out and specifically tax specific companies. (Usually.) (Exceptions might be companies like tobacco/alcohol companies - I've heard talk that they may be taxed more to pay for healthcare.) Since every taxation on legal stuff is basically the same, all legal trade is (theoretically) as "free" and fair as the next legal trade. Underground economies are only different because they aren't taxed, obviously. If they were all taxed it would automatically go back to being free and fair because nothing else would be more free/fair (ie basically less taxed.)

 

Sweden - a myth. If Sweden were admitted to the US as a new state, it would rank the poorest (comparing the median household incomes). The Sweden theory seems to be that higher taxes = greater prosperity. How that could possibly be the case is anyone's guess.

 

Not quite. Swedish people ARE more poor than us - BUT, they get so much for FREE, it doesn't matter anymore. If you look at the money we have that Swedish people DON'T have, most of it goes to paying for stuff Swedish people don't have to pay for. Higher taxes may not equal greater prosperity per se, but it does mean Swedish people have to pay less for things they need -- that is what a lot of the taxes go to. What I'm saying is that communism, (obviously Sweden is not communist, but they're about as close as you get in this modern world) succesfully performed, DOES work out for the good of the people -- that's its entire point.

 

In a true capitalistic society, risk keeps things in check, in our corporate socialistic society government takes away the risk, thus people and banks cause these problems. If anyone was held accountable years ago, they would been a warning for those who created this mess and it would not have happened.

 

That is what happens in a true capitalistic society. However, what happens in a true communistic society is that everyone works as hard as they can, everyone shares all the wealth, everyone pulls their own weight, etc... See the U.S.S.R; that obviously didn't work. You can't have a true capitalistic society and a government that taxes people at the same time. I wouldn't get too into the theory of it - the U.S. IS approximately in the middle of communist and capitalist (what I said) and is probably leaning more toward capitalist (or as capitalist as you can get currently.)

 

I was going to try to adress the gold standard issue that's been kicked around, but as I was typing I realized I really have no clue what I'm talking about. The issue of the whole gold standard/removal of it is really, really complex - I think if you haven't read books' worth of material on it you aren't really fully qualified to talk about it, so I'm keeping my mouth shut and will probably try to read more about it. Maybe I should stay this way on the rest of the issues as well, but I consider myself to be fairly well-informed about the economy - maybe it's just more well-informed than my "peers" (that is, unfortunately, high school freshmen - not the best peer set, I guess :P)

the U.S. IS approximately in the middle of communist and capitalist (what I said) and is probably leaning more toward capitalist (or as capitalist as you can get currently.

 

Don't believe the propaganda, were much closer to communism then capitalism. The dow for the last 25 years has proven this, not to mention the government's growth, and intervention in the last 50 years. Hell the fact we have a central banks also shows were more communist then capitalist.

 

The bubbles that have been causing so many problems are caused from direct violations of the free market.

I did say approximately, you know. We do have companies here that are independent from the government. The government is trying to stop the bubbles of viotility by becoming more communist. I said it before: you can't have a really, truly capitalist country AND a government at the same time - the government's job is to try to keep its people safe and happy. No one is going to be safe and happy in a capitalist country. You can't have a truly functioning capitalist country any more than you can have a truly functioning communist country. :/

But you indicated we leaned more to Capitalism them Communism, which is not true.

 

Government created these bubbles and likes them....They interfere in the market to cause them, thus violating the free market and we can see right now the results of that. China is more Capitalist then us....that should send off warning signs how close we are to Communism and far from Capitalism. But I agree that you can't have 100% Capitalist or communist country.

Okay, so that's obviously the difference in opinion. Although I do think we could do with more either way of one or the other - being in the middle is sort of giving us the problems of both with the disadvantages of neither. Our government really isn't going about it the right way.

 

China is more Capitalist then us....that should send off warning signs how close we are to Communism and far from Capitalism.

 

China has almost nothing like communism left, with the possible exception of taking little boys and girls with talent in something and training them for whatever they want when they feel like it. Something we don't really do unless you count grants/scholarships - almost none of which are government-given. Bad example. Booo.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbxZhx2eENo]YouTube - Corporatism and Survival[/ame]

The gold standard issue is complex? Surely you jest. Anyone who supports the existence of a Federal Reserve is advocating counterfeiting.

 

Noonsun, I can't argue with your positions because you advocate violence. Violence is illogical. If I print money, I'm an evildoer and am punished. But if Ben Bernanke or Greenspan do it, they are valiantly fighting off a recession! Take a step back and think about this. What's the distinction?

 

The position of statists is that "if we allow an organization to exist which claims a monopoly on the initiation of violence, then society will run more smoothly than if each individual actor is able to choose for himself." It's quite similar to the Catholic Church's argument that condoms increase the spread of AIDS.

 

Statists assume the government is designed to work for them. This isn't the case at all. The state is a self-perpetuating organization for the non-productive. It can't exist without violence and (above all) the indoctrination of children into believing that CERTAIN violent acts and coercion are justified. Taking money from landowners fits in that category.

 

Since every peice of land is a part of a country (sans Antarctica, obviously) and every country more or less defends itself from outright invasion, EVERY property tax is in a way "protection money." Taxes all go to tons of different things -- one of them being the military. This is NOT the "America: love it or leave it" argument, this is the "This is what happens in every country" argument.

 

Because something happens everywhere, does that make it right? And is that money really going toward protection from invasion, or is it going to a few other things as well? Like a standing military that spans the globe.

 

Disagreed. The government does not go out and specifically tax specific companies. (Usually.) (Exceptions might be companies like tobacco/alcohol companies - I've heard talk that they may be taxed more to pay for healthcare.) Since every taxation on legal stuff is basically the same, all legal trade is (theoretically) as "free" and fair as the next legal trade. Underground economies are only different because they aren't taxed, obviously. If they were all taxed it would automatically go back to being free and fair because nothing else would be more free/fair (ie basically less taxed.)

 

So, because something is legal that makes it fair? Or if everyone is stolen from, then there's a net increase in fairness? This is nonsense. You're just playing with peoples' money at gunpoint.

 

Not quite. Swedish people ARE more poor than us - BUT, they get so much for FREE, it doesn't matter anymore. If you look at the money we have that Swedish people DON'T have, most of it goes to paying for stuff Swedish people don't have to pay for. Higher taxes may not equal greater prosperity per se, but it does mean Swedish people have to pay less for things they need -- that is what a lot of the taxes go to. What I'm saying is that communism, (obviously Sweden is not communist, but they're about as close as you get in this modern world) succesfully performed, DOES work out for the good of the people -- that's its entire point.

 

You have no understanding of economics. This doesn't address my point about there being no incentive in a subsidized industry to reduce prices or innovate. Papa Smurf can't invent an EKG scanner, and he's certainly not interested in keeping the cost of his services low - after all, he's the only game in town. If someone else sets up a medicine shop, he'll tax them heavily.

 

You seem to be against corporations becoming monopolies, but you've got no problem with the State becoming a monopoly (in fact, you encourage it). That's massive hypocrisy.

I prefer Robert Reich's line of reasoning as to the economic slowdown: Not enough pay for the working classes, and too much concentration of wealth in the hands of the top 1% income bracket. I think he may be right, because of the basic fact that wages have only improved slightly for median income Americans, yet costs for things such as houses and cars, health care, and the like have skyrocketed. In the late 1980's the wealthiest Americans controlled only 8% of the wealth, and by today, they control 23% of the wealth. This would be fine in a growing economy, except the median income Americans have been working longer and longer hours for little more pay and less job security - plus, two family earners are now commonplace. And that's not enough to keep up, so those in the middle have taken out loans on their homes, further endangering their financial stability. As the bankruptcies began, and people started loosing homes, the cascade effect of fear rippling through the economy, along with real manufacturing loss, has gradually reduced people's confidence, and diminished their purchases, which is a feed-back loop, slowing even further the economy, and causing more job losses.

Here, it's been a general scenario - less purchases of equipment and vehicles has slowed our area's manufacturer's, and they're laying off and cutting hours for workers; but we may be near the bottom of the recession, if the stimulus is enough to boost the investment in much-needed infrastructure, such as building new bridges, rebuilding crumbling roads, water lines, internet, and solar/wind/geothermal/efficiency investments in the energy sector.

The sub-prime loan crime was really the fuse that ignited this whole thing, for Reich's perspective, and I think he's getting at the heart of the matter.

Pay is meaningless without being adjusted to inflation. Real wages have not kept up with inflation, thus the middle class has had to rely on debt, thanks to the Fed and government attacks on the middle class.

 

In the 70's the women went to work, 80's and 90's savings were depleted and in the 2000s massive debt, all thanks to inflation and a weaker currency. Government got involved in business and created corporate socialist who keep each other in power at the expense of the middle class. The Free Market would not allow for the super rich CEO's to be created.

 

The stimulus was just to stimulate the politicians wallets while most the money didn't go to doing anything for infrastructure...One of the biggest cons in US history.

Well, the free market might allow for super-rich CEO's to be created, but a government with better checks and balances could work to counter the attempts to amass power and control, and to prevent systems- government, private, or otherwise, from becoming excessively powerful and internally corrupt. Fair markets make sense to me, but unregulated markets are probably not the answer..

The stimulus might go for infrastructure, but I wonder about corruption from within, and whether the stimulus money will be used in the best manner possible, or go into the areas where those with the most influence over the bill get the biggest infusion, and then the biggest political campaign kickbacks. I'd like to believe otherwise as well, but history has a way of showing that levels of corruption increase when pressure mounts to pass bills. Some have no scruples, and the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts show the pork that's possible in the confusion and pressure during a perceived crisis moment.

Even so, if more of the money winds up in the pockets of construction workers, subcontractors, infrastructure specialists, renewable energy sector jobs, and the like, it will stimulate the economy; enough though to make a significant difference?

Because something happens everywhere, does that make it right? And is that money really going toward protection from invasion, or is it going to a few other things as well? Like a standing military that spans the globe.

 

No, I didn't say that. I just said that you have to pay property taxes everywhere; and it's "protection money" because some tax money goes to that country's military. That isn't what I meant.

 

You have no understanding of economics. This doesn't address my point about there being no incentive in a subsidized industry to reduce prices or innovate. Papa Smurf can't invent an EKG scanner, and he's certainly not interested in keeping the cost of his services low - after all, he's the only game in town. If someone else sets up a medicine shop, he'll tax them heavily.

 

Okay. Your point about there being no incentive to subsidized companies to innovate is true. There you go.

 

What you're saying is that despite the short-term chaos/depression that would happen if the government didn't support the companies it's supporting currently, we would be better off without it? Not everyone wants or would tolerate a depression. People want things to stay the way they are. Since the government serves the people's interests, that's what it's going to do. What's more, it would wreck the entire world's economy even more than it currently is wrecked. (I am not saying that's what the government should necessarily be doing, by the way...)

 

You seem to be against corporations becoming monopolies, but you've got no problem with the State becoming a monopoly (in fact, you encourage it). That's massive hypocrisy.

 

There's actually a slight difference between corporations having a monopoly on something and the state having a monopoly on that something. Since the state is elected by people it will always try to serve the majority's interest. Corporations will exist whether or not the people like them; if a corporation has a monopoly it doesn't need to worry about public opinion anymore, because there's no one to compete with. In a democratic society, there is always someone for a politician to compete with (other politicians). If the state had a monopoly on health care everyone would get the same amount and there would be government-paid researchers/healthcare professionals, because otherwise whoever was in charge of healthcare would probably be kicked out of office by the people. If one corporation had a monopoly on healthcare it would not have the same pressures the state has to create new drugs and research new things. Currently, if a corporation invented a pill that cured cancer, it could sell it for whatever price it wanted; but I think if the state invented a pill that cured cancer it would be availible to more people, because otherwise the leaders would get kicked out of office. So there actually is a difference between a democratic society of people having a monopoly and one nondemocratic group of people having a monopoly on something.

 

That said, I didn't encourage the state having a monopoly on anything. But, if I had to pick between the state having a monopoly on something and a corporation having a monopoly on something I would pick the state having the monopoly. But that really isn't what I said.

 

So, because something is legal that makes it fair? Or if everyone is stolen from, then there's a net increase in fairness? This is nonsense. You're just playing with peoples' money at gunpoint.

 

All right, that was balderdash. I don't even know what I was thinking when I wrote that. You win.

 

Actually I've realized I'm not really as knowledgeable on this subject as you guys are. Tip of the hat to you for actually knowing what the hell you're talking about; and you obviously know more than me. It's been very informitive, thank you.

Well, the free market might allow for super-rich CEO's to be created, but a government with better checks and balances could work to counter the attempts to amass power and control, and to prevent systems- government, private, or otherwise, from becoming excessively powerful and internally corrupt. Fair markets make sense to me, but unregulated markets are probably not the answer..

The stimulus might go for infrastructure, but I wonder about corruption from within, and whether the stimulus money will be used in the best manner possible, or go into the areas where those with the most influence over the bill get the biggest infusion, and then the biggest political campaign kickbacks. I'd like to believe otherwise as well, but history has a way of showing that levels of corruption increase when pressure mounts to pass bills. Some have no scruples, and the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts show the pork that's possible in the confusion and pressure during a perceived crisis moment.

Even so, if more of the money winds up in the pockets of construction workers, subcontractors, infrastructure specialists, renewable energy sector jobs, and the like, it will stimulate the economy; enough though to make a significant difference?

 

No the Free Market would NOT allow these super rich CEO's to be created. Government caused it. The private corporations and government are in bed, holding each other up, not a product of the free market.

 

Even if most the money went to construction workers and others, it will only stimulate it for a very short time before it causes real harm. We aren't learning that doing something for the short term hurts us in the long term.(another example the fed is printing 300 billion to buy our own debt)

 

They are trying to re-created the bubbles that helped ignite this, and trying to make more even biggers ones...the cause is not the solution!

Noonsun, my goal isn't to annoy you or prove you wrong, I just want you to think about the world from a very different (and admittedly strange - in the sense that anarchism isn't very popular) vantage point. I firmly believe that when someone rises above the political battleground and views governments as foreign entities rather than friendly helpers, things become amazingly predictable!

 

Corporations are made up of people, just like governments are made up of people. Except when you stop paying your cable bill, Comcast doesn't kidnap you and put you in jail - they just cut off your cable. So from a purely ethical perspective, I trust businesses more than I trust governments, and so should you!

 

The arguments governments use to justify their existence are just fear-mongering. "If it weren't for us, black people would still be slaves!" "If it weren't for us, you'd have no roads and there would be a terrible depression!" "If it weren't for us, we would immediately be invaded by China and Russia!" Your gut reaction when you hear these things is to unquestioningly believe them... considering whether they might not be true is a waste of time, they'll say.

I'm aware that you aren't here to hurt my feelings/annoy me/prove me wrong. I'm sure if you really wanted to you probably would, it's pretty easy to annoy me. :rolleyes: You seem like a fairly smart person and probably you have better things to do than disprove random teenagers on a forum.

 

See, the reason why I'm more likely to trust a government is the one I stated -- they're there to serve the majority. Yes, they have more power, but if a corporation was in charge to the point where the government was (let's just take your Comcast example) they would probably evolve to the point where they would kidnap you and put you in jail. So, there you go... you have to have a balance.

 

If the world was made up of completely (or at least fairly) reasonable people we could all live without government; but there are psychopaths and generally messed up people, and almost no one is completely reasonable -- and I'm aware I sound like a terrified sheeple-person, but it's really true that we (most people) do need to protect ourselves from those people. :shrug: Whether or not we need a specific government of leaders is up for grabs; so far no one has risked starting an anarchist state (unless you count Christiania in Copenhagan) ("that hippy town," as it's known) (and that only really works because it's a very small group and they're stoned all the time, haha). I'm sure the world would be a great place if it was all one big Christianania, however this is almost completely unfeasible because the only people who live there are people who aren't the psychopaths/"bad people" -- most of them are just hippies. And they do rely on Copenhagen for most of their stuff and police protection. (they do get gang shootings over drugs every now and then.) So I guess it's a question of realistic feasibility, and whether or not you want to take the risk of establishing a state like that. Without governments there would literally be anarchy by definition, and depending on the set of ungoverned people, it might not be pretty.

Yes, but what % of the population are psychopaths? Not enough to cause the downfall of society without government.

 

Drug wars exist because of government laws banning certain drugs from being sold in public. In an anarchy, you could get your crack from a vending machine. Does that mean there would be more crackheads? Probably not. Governments and laws don't change peoples' basic nature, they just punish people for doing stuff after the fact. In the same way governments can't prevent people from getting hooked on drugs, they can't prevent people from going out and committing murders.

 

Societal order comes in two flavors: stigma and deterrence. First, people don't like people who are jerks. So if you're a known jerk, it will be hard to find anyone who will do business with you because of trust issues. Second, there's deterrence, which is basically the Second Amendment. If you know it's more dangerous to steal your neighbor's TV than it is to get a job and earn the money to buy a TV, then you won't do it.

 

If the government disappeared overnight, you wouldn't really notice. Eventually things would start to run more smoothly, however. That isn't to say there wouldn't be any more violent crime (anarchism isn't utopianism). But at the same time, there probably wouldn't be more violent crime than there currently is.

 

EDIT: Oh, and everyone would be fabulously wealthy, relatively speaking. 50% richer or more.

Are you sure about that? It only took a handful of overly religious psychopaths just to bring down the World Trade Center. And that started quite a reign of fear in Americans' psyches, too; exactly what they were trying to do.

 

Yeah, I do think if you could get crack from a vending machine, there would be more crackheads, you just wouldn't notice them, because they wouldn't be hobos on the street or starting gang wars. Drugs are easy to get for most people, but if you could get them out of a vending machine, a lot of very recreational people would start using them more. Probably me, for instance.

 

Oh, and everyone would be fabulously wealthy, relatively speaking

 

haha! You just contradicted yourself, by using everyone and relatively in the same sentance. They would be relatively wealthier compared to today, but they wouldn't move up the heirarchy of richness. Everyone who paid taxes would get richer by more or less the same amount which = no change relative to everyone else. Probably not what you meant, actually, but all that would happen if there were suddenly no taxes would be everyone would just be able to buy a new TV or computer or something. Or steal it, because they wouldn't be punished. People who are more or less decent folks are partially decent folks because they are afraid of the law. If you go out and steal something and get caught, you get put in jail, and that deterrs you from stealing something. People who have morals (as in, "Oh, I better not steal that TV, because I will be a bad person or burn in hell" or what have you) have them because of social structure (opposite of anarchy.)

 

Besides, if there was no government, there would be leaders that emerged eventually, and they would start to govern. The small percentage of psychopaths/messed up people would gain power and start charging people for protection, which is part of what taxes are or started as anyway. That's human nature for you.

 

EDIT: Nevermind, I just realized something. The person who stole the TV probably would be punished by the person who owned the TV. :rolleyes: But that isn't a very nice thing to do, now is it?

Are you sure about that? It only took a handful of overly religious psychopaths just to bring down the World Trade Center. And that started quite a reign of fear in Americans' psyches, too; exactly what they were trying to do.

 

Yeah, that was scary, but how many people did they kill? A little over 3,000 I believe. More than 50,000 people die every year in car accidents but we haven't banned cars or started a "War on Crashes". In the grand scheme of things, that was a small number of deaths. Governments kill WAY more people than terrorists could ever dream of killing. Abraham Lincoln killed something like 600,000 Americans in the Civil War. Osama could only dream of such a wonderfully high body count!

 

Yeah, I do think if you could get crack from a vending machine, there would be more crackheads, you just wouldn't notice them, because they wouldn't be hobos on the street or starting gang wars. Drugs are easy to get for most people, but if you could get them out of a vending machine, a lot of very recreational people would start using them more. Probably me, for instance.

 

Ok well let's think about this logically.

 

There are many other drugs that are legal, and that make you feel wonderful. Like painkillers. Oxycontin, Tramadol, Darvoset... If you've ever taken one of these pills you can understand why they are so addictive! Overdosing on them would be a fantastic way to commit suicide (not that I'm advocating this). But my point is that crack (from a risk/reward perspective) is actually a pretty crappy drug. There are other, better drugs that are legal and more fun to use.

 

The reason you avoid using these drugs is that you know they're addictive. You know they can cause liver damage. And you know that your employer will probably drug-test you at some point! If you are discovered to be taking drugs, you won't have a job. The same thing would happen if you were an obvious alcoholic, pothead, etc. There's someone else out there who can do your job just as well as you can, and they don't have the baggage of being an addict.

 

If you become addicted, there are still going to be groups dedicated to helping you get off drugs. Churches, therapists, friends, and family will look out for you.

 

haha! You just contradicted yourself, by using everyone and relatively in the same sentance. They would be relatively wealthier compared to today, but they wouldn't move up the heirarchy of richness. Everyone who paid taxes would get richer by more or less the same amount which = no change relative to everyone else. Probably not what you meant, but all that would happen if there were suddenly no taxes would be everyone would just be able to buy a new TV or computer or something.

 

TV or computer or something? Hah! The average American makes something like 43,000 bucks a year, and around 40 or 50% of that is gobbled up by taxes and inflation. So the average person would have an extra $17,000 dollars in his pocket, every year. I don't know what planet you live on, but that's a bit more than enough to pay for a new TV or computer. And remember that when you go to buy something with your money, there won't be sales tax.

 

Or steal it, because they wouldn't be punished. People who are more or less decent folks are partially decent folks because they are afraid of the law. If you go out and steal something and get caught, you get put in jail, and that deterrs you from stealing something. People who have morals (as in, "Oh, I better not steal that TV, because I will be a bad person or burn in hell" or what have you) have them because of social structure (opposite of anarchy.)

 

Well here you're equating government with society. They're not the same.

 

Also, anarchy isn't chaos. That's propaganda taught in government schools.

 

The most anti-social thing imaginable is a government. It is a violent, coercive, flippant institution that doesn't respect property rights.

 

As for theft in an anarchy, assuming you are successful in stealing something, you'll probably be found out sooner or later. There would be private investigators. There would also be businesses that keep track of people who break contracts and steal, and when you go to apply for a job or buy a house the employer/banker would check your name against this list. In an anarchy there is still structure and order, but it's based upon profit and loss, not taxation. Imagine if Google, Microsoft, and Apple were suppliers of justice systems and security services. They would compete for your subscription to their services, and you'd be safer.

 

Besides, if there was no government, there would be leaders that emerged eventually, and they would start to govern. The small percentage of psychopaths/messed up people would gain power and start charging people for protection, which is part of what taxes are or started as anyway. That's human nature for you.

 

This is the strongest case I've encountered against anarchy. Ironically it's basically, "The reason government is good is because if there were no government, a government might eventually pop up!"

 

But it's very telling that you point out that psychopaths have a tendency to want to govern. That's absolutely true! Look at leaders throughout history, and you see a higher degree of mental instability than is present in the general population. Politicians all have a touch of madness...

Abraham Lincoln killed something like 600,000 Americans in the Civil War. Osama could only dream of such a wonderfully high body count!

 

You don't think there would ever be wars if there was no government? People would group into clumps of like-minded people, and thanks to good old human nature would end up going to war over factor x, y, or z. No government does not equal no wars. It just means no wars between different governments. In fact you could argue that governments do keep down the wars, or at least internal ones. Do you think Darfur would be as bad as it is if there was a functioning government in place? Do you think a working nonbiased police/military force wouldn't help keep the holy war down in the Middle East?

 

TV or computer or something? Hah! The average American makes something like 43,000 bucks a year, and around 40 or 50% of that is gobbled up by taxes and inflation. So the average person would have an extra $17,000 dollars in his pocket, every year. I don't know what planet you live on, but that's a bit more than enough to pay for a new TV or computer. And remember that when you go to buy something with your money, there won't be sales tax.

 

I meant in general, they would be able to buy other things; I didn't mean specifically a TV or computer. Basically, everyone would be able to buy more stuff if they had more money, but it goes back to the original point of this thread; thanks to all that extra money the value of money would go down. In that space of time you would be able to buy a bunch of new TVs or computers or the equivalent, but the value of the money you bought them with would go away, until a person with an average amount of money lived like an average person, and it would go back to the lower/middle/higher class system that we have. That's kind of what happens with inflation now, actually. Basically the middle class stays as the middle class no matter what; individuals may move up and down but the middle class will stay in the same percentage of the population and will always stay in the middle; same with the higher and lower class. Really, what difference would it make?

 

Also, anarchy isn't chaos. That's propaganda taught in government schools.

 

I know anarchy isn't chaos. I look things up in the dictionary. Anarchy has connotations of chaos, because anarchy is no government and no "higher powers," which at least has the potential to turn into chaos. Again, no one's really tried.

 

Also, you're really making it sound like public schools are nothing but propaganda machines or something. "That's propaganda taught in government schools"?? Sorry, but in my entire time of being educated in public schools no one has ever told me, "Sara, anarchy (the government/lack thereof form) means chaos." As a matter of fact, any time we've looked at anarchy as a social construct it's been pretty nonbiased. Maybe I just have really, really good teachers, but I would not call it a peice of "propaganda taught in government schools." I don't know how old you are, or when you went to school, or what school you went to or even if you're still in school, but that's not my personal experience.

 

This is the strongest case I've encountered against anarchy. Ironically it's basically, "The reason government is good is because if there were no government, a government might eventually pop up!"

 

I'm not saying government is good for that reason. That's just what would happen. The alpha males or alpha females or alpha what-have-yous would gain control -- you see it in nature and you see it in humans. That's how humans act; maybe we don't act like wolves all the time but we're not so far removed from them that we don't act the way we do.

 

EDIT: BTW, I think this thread's title should be changed to "The Official Random Socioeconomic/Political discussion Thread." Cuz it isn't really about Americans losing jobs anymore.

You don't think there would ever be wars if there was no government? People would group into clumps of like-minded people, and thanks to good old human nature would end up going to war over factor x, y, or z. No government does not equal no wars. It just means no wars between different governments. In fact you could argue that governments do keep down the wars, or at least internal ones. Do you think Darfur would be as bad as it is if there was a functioning government in place? Do you think a working nonbiased police/military force wouldn't help keep the holy war down in the Middle East?

 

There would still be violent gangs, of course! Remember I'm not a utopian like Communists are. Anarchism is supremely aware of human nature and that's why it works. Notice I say "works" instead of "would work". I'll get to this in a moment.

 

I meant in general, they would be able to buy other things; I didn't mean specifically a TV or computer. Basically, everyone would be able to buy more stuff if they had more money, but it goes back to the original point of this thread; thanks to all that extra money the value of money would go down. In that space of time you would be able to buy a bunch of new TVs or computers or the equivalent, but the value of the money you bought them with would go away, until a person with an average amount of money lived like an average person, and it would go back to the lower/middle/higher class system that we have. That's kind of what happens with inflation now, actually. Basically the middle class stays as the middle class no matter what; individuals may move up and down but the middle class will stay in the same percentage of the population and will always stay in the middle; same with the higher and lower class. Really, what difference would it make?

 

Ok here's the part where I try my best to explain economics.

 

You seem to be aware of the effects of inflation (that more currency in circulation devalues the currency), but you still have this idea that stuff the government does is basically free. Nothing is free. The reason is something called "opportunity cost". If you read the Bastiat essay, or his masterpiece "The Law", you'll learn that the cost of taxation is hidden. Money that is spent on armies and palaces could instead be spent on machines to increase factory production and raise the wealth of the poor and middle classes.

 

What is wealth? Wealth is value. What is value? Value is efficiency - providing goods and services as cheaply as possible. Capitalists who succeed in doing this become rich not because they are taking money but because they are providing value to society and making everyone a little richer. This has a tangible effect on the quality of life in a society.

 

So when government steps in and pulls money out of an economy by taxation, it is reducing the quality of life for everyone, not decreasing the money supply. The money still exists, and it has always existed and always represented a certain % of GDP value. The only difference is that now it's in Uncle Sam's hands instead of the general economy.

 

The difference zero taxation would make is astronomical. Everyone would have to work half as much in order to maintain their lifestyles. The extra money (value) sloshing around in the economy would be used to hire more people, build new factories, innovate, and create new businesses. The government can't do that stuff.

 

I know anarchy isn't chaos. I look things up in the dictionary. Anarchy has connotations of chaos, because anarchy is no government and no "higher powers," which at least has the potential to turn into chaos. Again, no one's really tried.

 

Also, you're really making it sound like public schools are nothing but propaganda machines or something. "That's propaganda taught in government schools"?? Sorry, but in my entire time of being educated in public schools no one has ever told me, "Sara, anarchy (the government/lack thereof form) means chaos." As a matter of fact, any time we've looked at anarchy as a social construct it's been pretty nonbiased. Maybe I just have really, really good teachers, but I would not call it a peice of "propaganda taught in government schools." I don't know how old you are, or when you went to school, or what school you went to or even if you're still in school, but that's not my personal experience.

 

Anarchy exists in most areas of your life. Every day you are bombarded with millions of choices, where the government has no say. Will you ditch your boyfriend? Will you do your homework? Will you eat dinner? Will you talk to your parents?

 

If I were an absolute statist I could argue that you shouldn't have these choices. You should be forced at gunpoint to marry a particular man, to eat this particular broccoli, and to do your math homework rather than spending a night out with your friends. Otherwise there might be chaos! You might turn into a loser degenerate who can't get ahead in life!

 

Anarchy really isn't as scary as you think. Actually I'd be shocked if you ever took a serious look at anarchy in a public school. But I've been through the public school system and I majored in political science in college. I know that the textbooks you read tend to emphasize certain things over other things. For instance, I'll wager you know who invented peanut butter. But can you tell me who invented penicillin or genetically modified wheat crops? The latter two saved millions of lives from infectious disease and starvation. Do you know where the idea of insurance came from? You are taught a lot of facts about presidents and wars and governments, but not much about individuals who invent the processes and organizations that make modern daily life work. Government-run schools are a bore. Basically the whole time you're learning about what makes a good president (in case you're ever elected president, I suppose).

 

I'm not saying government is good for that reason. That's just what would happen. The alpha males or alpha females or alpha what-have-yous would gain control -- you see it in nature and you see it in humans. That's how humans act; maybe we don't act like wolves all the time but we're not so far removed from them that we don't act the way we do.

 

True, it's possible a government could spring up, but it would be difficult to keep it going without a system in place to collect taxes. Imagine trying to convince a bunch of people to give you half their money so you can finance a war or something... it's a pretty funny thought. (Unless you're already used to it.) This goes back to the first comment you made in that post, about wars between anarchist territories. A war is actually a very difficult thing to pull off without a government. There's really not a whole lot of incentive to even go to war, because you're fighting with people you could trade with. And why would you invade an area? What's there to get? I guess you could vandalize their property and kill them. But then what? There's no profit.

 

Wars would exist but they would be sporadic at best. BTW check out the international scene. That's an anarchy! The UN has no army to enforce its rules.

If you read the Bastiat essay

I did read it! It was very interesting, actually.

What is wealth? Wealth is value. What is value? Value is efficiency - providing goods and services as cheaply as possible. Capitalists who succeed in doing this become rich not because they are taking money but because they are providing value to society and making everyone a little richer. This has a tangible effect on the quality of life in a society.

Right.

So when government steps in and pulls money out of an economy by taxation, it is reducing the quality of life for everyone, not decreasing the money supply. The money still exists, and it has always existed and always represented a certain % of GDP value. The only difference is that now it's in Uncle Sam's hands instead of the general economy.

Right again. But, (supposedly/theoretically) the money that is taxed also goes to improving quality of life. And not all companies make life better for everyone (see alcohol/tobacco companies)... so if you say that not all taxation goes to improving quality of life, neither does every corporation improve quality of life.

The difference zero taxation would make is astronomical. Everyone would have to work half as much in order to maintain their lifestyles. The extra money (value) sloshing around in the economy would be used to hire more people, build new factories, innovate, and create new businesses. The government can't do that stuff.

Unless it used the taxed money for these purposes. Which it's not doing, but still.

 

Actually, in subsidizing companies, isn't the government giving all of this taxed money back to the companies it took it from?? Now I'm confused, as a matter of fact...

Actually I'd be shocked if you ever took a serious look at anarchy in a public school.

Right on. We almost never take serious looks at much of anything in public schools; but the government isn't invading the curriculum and spreading propaganda to our minds or anything.

I'll wager you know who invented peanut butter. But can you tell me who invented penicillin or genetically modified wheat crops?

I know who all of those people are. The first is that one black dude named after George Washington, the second is Fleming, and the third is Norman Borlaug. (Or at least Norman Borlaug invented certain KINDS of genetically modified wheat crops.) I've learned about the black guy and Borlaug in school; and I think Fleming's been mentioned a couple of times (Really I know about him because my dad's a scientist, though.) I'm smarter than most people, but everyone in my classes at least knows of Norman Borlaug and "the black guy." Sorry. :P

Government-run schools are a bore. Basically the whole time you're learning about what makes a good president (in case you're ever elected president, I suppose).

Agreed on the bore part. High five.

Imagine trying to convince a bunch of people to give you half their money so you can finance a war or something... it's a pretty funny thought.

Unless you beleive in the war. See: how a lot of wars get started.

BTW check out the international scene. That's an anarchy! The UN has no army to enforce its rules.

Mm-hmm. And what do you think would help resolve that? ;)

Right again. But, (supposedly/theoretically) the money that is taxed also goes to improving quality of life. And not all companies make life better for everyone (see alcohol/tobacco companies)... so if you say that not all taxation goes to improving quality of life, neither does every corporation improve quality of life.

 

Wait, you're making a judgement call. For many people, alcohol and tobacco improve the quality of their lives dramatically. It might annoy you that they smoke and drink, but it is their choice to make! Alcohol reduces inhibitions and makes it easier for some people to socialize, and tobacco forces people to take occasional breaks from their work and step outside (possibly meeting and befriending other smokers). See, I can come up with upsides for these things even though I disagree with both!

 

Taxation is spent where there is no demand. There is demand for cigarettes and alcohol, but no demand for a war in Iraq. Americans don't see the cost of war, however, so they view the decision as risk-less. "I'll be paying my taxes either way. I suppose invading Iraq makes sense if the Yale-educated president makes a convincing case for it. Besides, I voted for him, so I should support him."

 

Without the pre-existing apparatus for collecting taxes (making it virtually automatic), 99% of the things the government does would never be seriously considered by most people in a society. If taxation were voluntary, nobody would pay their taxes. Yet most people would profess to love the government for the awesome services it provides! How ironic.

 

Actually, in subsidizing companies, isn't the government giving all of this taxed money back to the companies it took it from?? Now I'm confused, as a matter of fact...

 

Good question. There are two types of businesses: those that are profitable, and those that aren't. Profitable businesses are profitable because they are providing a valuable service to society. Notice which businesses the government gives money to! Unprofitable ones, like AIG, Fannie Mae, and GM.

 

Without government intervention, these businesses would fail. But the people who worked there wouldn't die - they'd just get new jobs. Some disgruntled employees would get together and start a new insurance company, mortgage broker, or auto manufacturer. People aren't lazy!

 

The money to start these businesses would be provided by those evil guys you hear about on Wall Street, like the hedge fund managers.

 

Finally, if the UN had an army we'd have a one-world government. Which would absolutely suck because the only way you could get away from it is if you flew to Mars. If there are going to be governments, there should be thousands of them, and their borders should be open. But I'd still prefer anarchy. ;)

Wait, you're making a judgement call. For many people, alcohol and tobacco improve the quality of their lives dramatically. It might annoy you that they smoke and drink, but it is their choice to make! Alcohol reduces inhibitions and makes it easier for some people to socialize, and tobacco forces people to take occasional breaks from their work and step outside (possibly meeting and befriending other smokers). See, I can come up with upsides for these things even though I disagree with both!

Wait, thanks to all the smokers who selfishly decide to smoke if I get a case of lung cancer not caused by smoking, I'll have an almost zero percent chance of getting a lung transplant thanks to all the smokers out there. Wait, if I go driving and a drunk driver crashes into me, I'll have gotten into a car crash for reasons that are completely not my fault. I can come up with downsides even though I beleive people have a right to smoke and drink alcohol (or even sit on their family couched stoned all day if they're stupid enough to want to do that). Alcohol and tobacco companies don't improve quality of life for the vast majority of people.

If taxation were voluntary, nobody would pay their taxes. Yet most people would profess to love the government for the awesome services it provides! How ironic.

Actually, you'd be surprised. I know several people who would at least pay some of their taxes to get government services in return. A lot of people don't mind paying taxes if it helps to stay away from - well, anarchy. This goes back to Sweden. People move there to pay more taxes because they think they'll get more government services.

Without government intervention, these businesses would fail. But the people who worked there wouldn't die - they'd just get new jobs. Some disgruntled employees would get together and start a new insurance company, mortgage broker, or auto manufacturer. People No, those people wouldn't die. They'd just be poor. And it would be a long time before they got new jobs - that's what this thread is supposed to be about anyway. It wouldn't be pretty, especially not in the relatively short term.

Finally, if the UN had an army we'd have a one-world government.

The UN does have an army. It just isn't good at its job, because it doesn't have enough soldiers or enough multilingual people for the army to function properly. And no one's going to give the UN's army enough troops to make a full army because no current governments in the world want a one-world government. Luckily that won't happen because people will fight for the right to govern their own country.

 

And I didn't say the UN should have a good army; what I meant was if places like Somalia (where there is genocide) had a functioning government, the anarchy would go away, and so would the genocide. You look at America, which has a government doing more or less what a government is supposed to do, and we don't have genocide. That's the point I meant to make.

Wait, thanks to all the smokers who selfishly decide to smoke if I get a case of lung cancer not caused by smoking, I'll have an almost zero percent chance of getting a lung transplant thanks to all the smokers out there. Wait, if I go driving and a drunk driver crashes into me, I'll have gotten into a car crash for reasons that are completely not my fault. I can come up with downsides even though I beleive people have a right to smoke and drink alcohol (or even sit on their family couched stoned all day if they're stupid enough to want to do that). Alcohol and tobacco companies don't improve quality of life for the vast majority of people.

 

There was a time when buying alcohol was illegal. That didn't go so well.

 

If you get lung cancer, then I'm sorry for you - regardless of whether you're a smoker or not. But remember, you don't have a right to other peoples' organs. You have no right to tell other people what to do.

 

Someone sitting on the couch stoned all day... they are making a decision to be lazy. There's nothing wrong with it, they simply choose to be high all the time rather than work. They consider their free time to be more valuable than minimum wage.

 

You're allowed to make moral judgments about these decisions, and call people names. But from an economic standpoint, freedom to choose is more valuable than anything, because the net result of the millions of decisions we make every day is a higher quality of life for everyone.

 

Actually, you'd be surprised. I know several people who would at least pay some of their taxes to get government services in return. A lot of people don't mind paying taxes if it helps to stay away from - well, anarchy. This goes back to Sweden. People move there to pay more taxes because they think they'll get more government services.

 

Of course, they'll say that. But in practice I highly doubt it. If someone honestly believes in government, let them write a check to the Treasury.

 

On Sweden - a cursory glance at immigration statistics shows that only 18% or so of Swedens are of foreign origin, and population growth rate is only a lousy 0.72% a year, barely over par. The only economic reason people move to another country is if they think they'll profit from the tax structure, which means they intend to pay fewer taxes to get more services. In the end, the Swedes lose because they pay for most of it.

 

Basically there's no "magical tax rate" which suddenly makes life swell for everyone in a country. It would be great if there were! Taxation is theft. The services are distributed arbitrarily and there are expensive middlemen doling them out.

 

No, those people wouldn't die. They'd just be poor. And it would be a long time before they got new jobs - that's what this thread is supposed to be about anyway. It wouldn't be pretty, especially not in the relatively short term.

 

Well what happens when a company goes bankrupt? Do the corporate headquarters get destroyed? No, new management takes over. People (investors) buy the company's assets at book value. It can happen pretty quickly.

 

Actually, it happens a lot quicker than it takes Obama to pass a bill, and hire a bunch of former stockbrokers to fill potholes in "our crumbing infrastructure"... or to train some ex-autoworkers how to manufacture solar panels and windmills. The whole idea of economic "stimulus" is laughable.

 

And you're right that no government wants a one-world government... unless it's in charge of it! Politicians have it good, they get paid to vote. So why would they want a boss?

 

And I didn't say the UN should have a good army; what I meant was if places like Somalia (where there is genocide) had a functioning government, the anarchy would go away, and so would the genocide. You look at America, which has a government doing more or less what a government is supposed to do, and we don't have genocide. That's the point I meant to make.

 

The majority of the deaths and genocide occur under governments. I think you would prefer to live in Somalia now than back when it had a government. ;)

 

Here's a video with statistics on it:

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtGkTRnocZI]YouTube - True News 18: Somalia[/ame]

I think you would prefer to live in Somalia now than back when it had a government.

Actually, no, because Somalia is a religiously intolerant country controlled by a bunch of Islamic warlords wearing towels on their heads. I'm a sixteen-year-old athiest American girl. Thanks, but I'd rather take my chances. ;)

Actually, no, because Somalia is a religiously intolerant country controlled by a bunch of Islamic warlords wearing towels on their heads. I'm a sixteen-year-old athiest American girl. Thanks, but I'd rather take my chances. ;)

 

You're an atheist at 16?! Oh my Lord... ;)

 

So you can be convinced that God doesn't exist, but you STILL have faith in government? Rgh, my work is cut out for me. :P