Remember, remember, the Fifth of November....

you would be the one to talk, you have posted numerous videos of soldiers being execute and tortured on this website. burn in hell piece of sh*t

+3

^lol

4.38 million.. vote for ron paul, win a free country!

F*CK RON PAUL AND HIS BORING, UNFUNNY SUPPORTER, CLAWG.

of course a dick head named man-of-war would say that

Why get rid of the patriot act? It's not like they are spying on average joes like us. Only dirtbags who are doing illegal sh*t get spied on. Well unless piracy counts : ) . But I lost my ship so it don't matter.

-1

I believe in public goods, which means I believe in taxes. I also believe in the law of diminishing returns, so I believe that taxes should be levied higher according to your income. Boo for people who claim that lowering taxes solves all problems.

-3

1. Public goods also exist without taxation (e.g. donations) 2. The problems are solved by taking more responsibility, not by lowering taxes, yes. IF you want to take more responsibility then you should vote for Ron Paul.

-12 [show comment][hide comment]

I don't think I've ever disagreed with korf. But I'd agree with taxes existing, just not the current system. Also, they don't need that much tax dollars. But, ron paul didn't say get rid of all taxes, just income tax. Really, that's the only real big problem causer. You do know the IRS is technically illegal because they have no actual laws for it, right? They really need to at least make a law so it's even legal in a corrupt system.

+6

Do you know anything about public goods? Public goods suffer from the free rider problem, meaning that those who use the goods do not have to pay for them. Thus, public goods can exist without taxation, but they will be massively under produced. In order to provide the efficient level of public goods, you must have taxes. Income tax may not be legal, but if they remove the income tax they will levy heavier taxes on businesses which will have lover profit margins and decrease wages, with the same net effect.

+1

Also, if the government provides public goods then the people it benefits most are the people who would have donated had there not been taxes, since they will end up paying a lesser share of their own money and the free riders will end up paying for what they used. Also, how is anyone going to hold Ron Paul accountable for his promises? Also, there are many other difficulties that occur when you remove the income tax, the least of which is non-business business will increase in profitability (drug trade)

+1

Clawg, how the f*ck are people unable to "take responsibility" in a non-Ron Paul government. You libertarians have some good points, but you also have some really asinine ones. The IRS is not the Gestapo.

-2

@Korf41: So, assuming taxation would be voluntary (which it won't be under Ron Paul) you would rather let the US invaded by some foreign country than donate a few dollars for defense? And he wants to end the war on drugs. @tariqalsuav: Well, the smaller the government the more you have govern yourself, right? The IRS is not the Gestapo? Well, then try to stop paying your income tax and wait :p

-3

What are talking about korf? You're kidding right? the only thing that's low is capital gains tax right now. Real competition of course with small businesses etc. is really unfair because the tax is like 25%

+2

Who the f*ck said anything about voluntary taxation? If it's voluntary then it isn't taxation, it's a donation. National defense is a public good. I'm in FAVOR of taxes and higher taxes on the rich, and higher taxes on marijuana (to avoid great hypocrisy as marijuana is safer than alcohol) even though I don't smoke it. Ron Paul wants to REMOVE the income tax, apparently, which would either reduce government income or royally f*ck business, law enforcement, and government by raising taxes elsewhere.

-1

Calling the IRS the Gestapo is self defeating much like calling GW Hitler. Let me teach you a lesson in rhetoric. If you want to make something seem bad, you use understatement. If something less bad is evil, then something more bad is more evil. If you overstate, such as calling the IRS the Gestapo, people say, "Well, the IRS certainly isn't as bad as the Gestapo, so we're lucky. Go IRS! Protect our freedom from everything except taxes." That you are allowed to support Ron Paul...

+2

without being thrown in jail means that the IRS is not the Gestapo.

+2

Taxes are fine, for essential things like infrustructure and education, not supporting illegal immigrants on welfare. Taxing people more because they make more money is retarded, you shouldn't be punished for getting ahead in live.

+3

How is replacing the income tax with a huge-ass sales tax going to help the tax issue? Yeah, why don't we put more and more of the tax burden on ordinary people, who, like, buy things from stores? Yeah, that's what I want to see...

-2

he doesn't want to exchange the income tax with a higher sales tax - he wants to cut government spending.

Bullsh*t to English Translator: I believe in mooching and looting, which means I believe in taxes. I think that it is perfectly okay that certain people work all day for a harsh boss, and others stay at home, collecting free welfare (which came from the hard working people) while watching TV and smoking crack. I also hate rich people, so I think they should be severely punished, even though they provide all the talent, resources, manpower and capital to make society work.

-1

Just because Republicans are so rich and afraid of poor people that they buy public goods privately at exorbitant prices (country clubs, a house with a bowling alley, olympic sized swimming pool, etc.) doesn't mean that public goods are not needed or are inefficient. If Ron Paul wants to cut government spending by an amount equal to Income Tax revenue, then he's an idiot. If he's going to replace it with other taxes, then you're lying and he's incompetent.

As for madDogSoldier, if you use roads or went to a pubilc school or like having a standing army or like having a functioning economy or like pretty much anything at all that separates us from tribal life then you're just going to have to live with taxes.

Clawg- he said he'd support the FairTax, which is a large 30%-ish sales tax.

-1

"if you use roads..." Most public roads are actually paid for by State and Municipal Taxes. The roads that are actually paid for via federal funds are done so with gasoline taxes. But even if we had NO public roads (which neither I nor Ron Paul propose), private companies would build their own roads to fill in the demand. This is currently done so in nations where there is very little public spending, and even done in certain places across America. 0/1

"or went to a pubilc school..." Public schools are so overrated. Our schools are actually quite mediocre compared to those of the rest of the world. American Students score 25th on standardized tests. http://youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA Worse, various sources have shown that American public schools have an effect of actually dumbing down the population. http://tinyurl.com/2m6h9y To add insult to injury, the problems AMPLIFIED after the department of education was added by Jimmy Carter. 0/2

+2

"or like having a standing army..." I don't. Neither did the founding fathers. Nor do many European nations, who haven't seen war in decades, or even centuries. The constitution called for voluntary militias, and a taxpayer funded navy. Looking at what our armies have done all over the world since World War II, the removal of standing armies would be a GOOD thing. 0/3

"or like having a functioning economy..." Yes, I REALLY like a functioning economy, which is why the Federal Reserve should be shut down, taxes should be reduced, corporate welfare and privileges should be ended, and meddlesome bureaucrats removed from office. It has been proven by many economists that there should be as little government intervention as possible (with perhaps the exception of enforcing against fraud, larceny and contract violations). The silly 'progressive' ideas, along with the income tax and federal reserve, led to the great depression. The long discredited 'Keynesian Economics' policies led to the recession of the 1970's. And communism, as you know (well, maybe not you), fell apart, due to misallocation of resources, too much debt, inflationary currency and economic stagnation. And now, our country has the highest amount of government spending as percentage of GDP (44%), yet more people are going below the poverty line, with rising inequality. Well, imagine that. 0/4

+1

"or like pretty much anything at all that separates us from tribal life then you're just going to have to live with taxes" Oh really? Yet somehow, places with few to no taxes seem to have powerful, growing economies, (like Hong Kong, Signapore, Andorra, Anguilla) and wealthy individuals and businesses flock to those places EN MASSE. Guess those rich people must be hunting down wooly mammoths and saber-toothed tigers :) 0/5 Thank you for demonstrating your complete ignorance regarding Federal, State and Municipal Spending, as well as economics, Korf41. You don't think I've heard these excuses before?

+1

Apparently you're one of those people that thinks free market capitalism works. It near the worst economic system possible, and very little separates it from feudalism. Your fallacious "appeal to expert opinion" without actually citing any expert opinion is a double fault. As for the "private roads" theory, yes, there would be private roads, and they would be severely under provided. You're making my points for me, yet claiming them as victories. I don't understand where your arrogance comes from.

-1

On public schools, the studies you would cite implying that they make people dumber are obviously correlation studies which have no actual merit and the failings of American public schools have nothing to do with the value of a public education system as the countries who score higher on standardized tests (such as Belgium) do so through the use of a public school system. There are several differentiating factors, one of which is that their schools are competitive whereas ours are locked into districting.

-1

All countries removing standings armies is obviously a prisoner's dilemma and I don't even have to address that one. That the superpower has the largest army is a result of past history and policy, but that doesn't mean that removing the American armed forces would a.) end war or b.) not result in other countries building up their own armies (which it quite obviously would result in, both friend and foe).

+1

As for the lack of tax in x and y, those countries are both developing and small. When countries form complex economies over hundreds of thousands of square miles they require a few extra miles of roads, not to mention the vehicles per capita is much higher in America. I also don't understand your intention in raising the poverty that afflicts our nation and the fact that rich people flock to these low-tax countries. Their poor people are much poorer than the American poor, in almost every measure...

+1

Yes Korf, the free market is a failure in keeping people poor. It is a failure in keeping people away from cars, homes, televisions, newspapers, computers, cell phones, airplanes, cheap food, gasoline, affordable property. The free market fails at stopping people from listening to new music, watching movies worth seeing, watching TV shows. It also fails in slowing down social progress. It fails at chasing away the wealthy and talented, who have a nasty habit of infesting places where there is freedom.

+1

"Apparently you're one of those people that thinks free market capitalism works. It near the worst economic system possible, and very little separates it from feudalism." When you are against the free market, you are against people freely engaging goods and services with each other. You are against people doing what they want with their own money. You are against people doing what they want with their own lives. In essence, you are saying that people need some big brother to control them.

Therefore, you are an elitist. If any economic system is closely resembling feudalism, it is most certainly communism, as well as its siblings, Fascism and Naziism. In fact, those systems can be said to be WORSE than feudalism, due to the millions of lives extinguished by their masters. You should pay attention more in history class.

The growing gap between rich and poor as well as the lack of mobility would be dramatically increased if you were to remove public education, which you seem to want even though it is not the fact that we have public education but the way it is administered which is the problem. The problems in the 70s arose mainly from a faulty monetary policy and an oil shock. There are good reasons why communism fell apart, as were apparent from the start, and none of them are relevant to this conversation.

FREE MARKET CAPITALISM IS NOT PRACTICED IN AMERICA. The markets are not free, they are regulated to insure competitive balance and maximize consumer and producer surplus. And blaming the actions of a dictatorship on communism is quite silly, but I think you already knew that.

On public schools, I do not propose the elimination of public funding (which actually currently comes from municipal property taxes by the way, not the fed). I agree that schools need to be competitive, similar to the methods used in Belgium or even Sweeden. The difference is that in those places, the money is attached to the child, NOT the school. The child can literally go to a completely different school should he/she choose to do so, with little bureaucratic overhead to worry about.

"FREE MARKET CAPITALISM IS NOT PRACTICED IN AMERICA." I understand. In fact, it has NEVER been practiced in America, but it has at least been MORE free. At the times of its greatest levels of freedom, it had the greatest levels of economic growth and innovation in the world.

"And blaming the actions of a dictatorship on communism is quite silly, but I think you already knew that." Considering that every nation that followed communism has done so, one could easily conclude that it is NOT silly, but rather, scientific fact. Even in the 19th century, it was predicted by contemporaries of Marx that his ideas would lead to dictatorship. In fact, in the Communist Manifesto, MARX HIMSELF predicted that there would be a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.

Yes, and since the world exists in a vacuum, the greatest freedom produced the greatest growth and that is all that matters. Don't mind the recession or the massive abuses of under-regulated corporations or the growing gap between rich and poor during that period or the lack of SUSTAINABLE GROWTH which is what is actually desired in an economy.

"Considering that every nation that followed communism has done so, one could easily conclude that it is NOT silly, but rather, scientific fact." Considering that you are blatantly bastardizing empiricism, I'll just ignore this.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a term employed by Marxists that refers to a temporary state between the capitalist society and the classless and stateless communist society; during this transition period, "the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." The term does not refer to a concentration of power by a dictator, but to a situation where the proletariat (working class) would hold power and replace the current political system controlled by the bourgeoisie...

(propertied class). This transitional stage is also referred to as socialism by many Marxists. ... don't get Marx's rhetoric mixed up with fact.

""Considering that every nation that followed communism has done so, one could easily conclude that it is NOT silly, but rather, scientific fact." Considering that you are blatantly bastardizing empiricism, I'll just ignore this." Yeah, but EVERY SINGLE TIME??? Considering the horrific track record of communism, I should ignore YOU.

"As for the lack of tax in x and y, those countries are both developing and small." Yeah, when they increase taxes, they will become stale and STOP developing.

"don't get Marx's rhetoric mixed up with fact." Of course not. Marx's rhetoric had nothing to do with fact.

Considering the communist dictatorships were related occurrences since Russia set up most of the communist dictatorships to follow, that's not a very good use of empiricism, as stated. All of the houses with Red circles on them in New Orleans were condemned, thus you should not paint red circles on your houses. Sounds like the red scare you're trying to use here. I don't see you declaring the hippie communes of the 60s as places of war and genocide. In fact, they were places of peace and love.

"Yeah, when they increase taxes, they will become stale and STOP developing." Actually, their development is split even worse than American development but since standards were so low to begin with, anything helps. When you read Oliver Twist and say, "Gosh, now that's the good life" then perhaps your country needs some growth just so that there is something to tax to begin with, but if we're talking about ending poverty it is not in the best interests of companies to feed the poor...

without making them slave for 16 hours just for a bowl of water soup. And companies are smart for doing that, but people are dumb for supporting a government that needlessly allows such a thing to go on.

""Yeah, when they increase taxes, they will become stale and STOP developing." Actually, their development is split even worse than American development but since standards were so low to begin with, anything helps." All one has to do is look at the massively successful economy of Hong Kong, which grew from a poor fishing village, to one of the world's top economies, by itself, not including mainland China, in a short span of 50 years to see that your claim is nonsense.

"Considering the communist dictatorships were related occurrences since Russia set up most of the communist dictatorships to follow, that's not a very good use of empiricism, as stated." You forgot to mention China, which went out of its way to distinguish itself from Russia, North Korea did the same. Castro and his cronies were almost entirely responsible for setting up their nation. They only received help later on. Tito of Yugoslavia as well. So what do you think about living in these places?

Besides, I provided actual examples of the failures of socialism. You claim that a free market is the worst kind of system, yet you then claim no real world examples exist. Using this logic, you might as well be claiming that Dragons are the most disease infested creatures on earth!

So you're saying that the key to the success of the American economy is to pattern it after a tiny island's economy? I'm sure that they have the blueprint for success in agriculture and manufacturing. We might as well pattern ourselves after Luxembourg since they have the highest income per capita! Great thinking! You'll have to excuse me for treating your responses seriously, as they can't possibly be serious.

And, again, communism is not dictatorship. That you are citing the flaws of various communist dictatorships which closely resemble the various flaws of non-communist dictatorships and attributing those flaws to communism is peculiar. That you are arguing against communism is also peculiar, as nobody is advocating communism. An economy doesn't need to be socialist in order to have public goods. Law enforcement is a public good, and every single country in the world has law enforcement of some variety.

I believe that living in the United Kingdom would be quite nice, and everyone seems to think Canada does everything right, yet these are socialist states. Why are these states which are much more socialist than America doing so much better? Maybe it's because HOW you run your economy and government is as important than which system you are running, and we fail miserably at that.

However, it is certainly NOT in our favor to go BACK to laissez-faire capitalism as we have already seen the massive problems that arise from that. Laissez-faire capitalism failed in America a hundred years ago, and miserably at that. The reason that no country of any report runs a laissez-faire system is that they have learned from the mistakes of the past (not to mention the blatantly obvious theoretical problems which also happen to translate into the real problems experienced in the past).

I now interrupt this political debate to bring you warm cookies out of the oven and a tall, cold glass of milk. Enjoy!

"So you're saying that the key to the success of the American economy is to pattern it after a tiny island's economy?" A tiny island economy? More like the world's 19th largest economy, with a GDP equivalent to $258 billion dollars and a population of almost 7 million. You also have to take into consideration that the cities and towns in America that are rated most favorably for business and economic growth are the ones with the lower tax rates and minimum municipal/state bureaucracy: http://www.inc.com/magazine/20040301/top25.html Yet, at the same time, the big cities on the coasts with the high taxes and large amounts of city spending, like New York, San Francisco, Washington DC and San Jose are actually rated as the WORST metropolitan areas. "I'm sure that they have the blueprint for success in agriculture and manufacturing." Hong Kong has no natural resources, and relies purely on trade, yet has an economic growth factor of 7 to 8% per year. Geez, who would have thought?

"We might as well pattern ourselves after Luxembourg since they have the highest income per capita! Great thinking!" OR... We could do everything we can to cut government spending, since we ARE in 9 Trillion dollars worth of debt; we could cut taxes, to inspire entrepreneurship and to inspire businesses who left for tax havens to come back. We could bring our troops home, which will really help to cut spending, as well as improve world opinion of America.

This could also greatly improve economic relations between countries. We can end corporate welfare, which gives big business an unfair advantage over smaller ones, which has an effect of removing competition and driving up prices, not to mention our federal deficit. We can also end the pork barreling and the earmarks, like the 'Bridge To Nowhere', which any sane person could see as wasteful of federal money.

We can also lower the overall tax burden on people, so that they will have more money to spend or save. Another thing that can be done is to remove special interest legislation from business law, which stifles competition and innovation, and only benefits the businesses who helped write the legislation.

"You'll have to excuse me for treating your responses seriously, as they can't possibly be serious." You'll have to excuse me for taking you seriously at all, especially considering your obvious lack of study of economics, and all your apologetics towards an ideology that has historically always led to dictatorship. Seriously, you are like a pigeon who keeps pecking at the same mirror endlessly, thinking that he is somehow hurting another pigeon.

"However, it is certainly NOT in our favor to go BACK to laissez-faire capitalism as we have already seen the massive problems that arise from that." I thought we agreed that Lazziez-Faire doesn't exist in the United States. Now it seems like you are talking out of the other side of your mouth.

"I believe that living in the United Kingdom would be quite nice, and everyone seems to think Canada does everything right, yet these are socialist states." First of all, they are not socialist states. Socialism is where private property is absent. England and Canada have SOME socialism (the statist, Labour Party version), but they are mixed economies. The USA has some socialism as well. But that does not mean that it is socialist. Wikipedia is your friend.

"Why are these states which are much more socialist than America doing so much better?" What do you mean by 'better'? England has a slower growth rate than the USA. And just like America, it also has a relatively large national debt. England is also infamous for having lack of innovation over the past 50 years. "Maybe it's because HOW you run your economy and government is as important than which system you are running, and we fail miserably at that" Maybe it's because the economy SHOULDN'T be managed?

I'm not being apologetic towards communism. I haven't said a single word in support of communism or in defense of communism. All I have said is that you're making ridiculous statements and pointing out their ridiculousness. Here's one, now: "We can also lower the overall tax burden on people, so that they will have more money to spend or save." Or, we can tax people so that their money will be spent on public goods which otherwise would not be provided at their efficient levels.

For someone who is so incapable of understanding simple economic concepts, you sure act as if you know a lot about it. You probably spend your dad's money and think that the tree where your dad got that money is available for everyone to buy whatever they want whenever they want it. Sorry, bro, but someone should have taught you in kindergarten that when resources are scarce, non-rival, and non-excludable, then it is optimal to levy a tax and provide the public good. To deny the capability of taxes...

to provide an efficient outcome outright and claim that the only solution to solving the national debt crisis (brought about entirely under Republican Presidents) is by cutting spending, you have serious issues both in a broad sense and likely with your credit card debt.

I obviously misspoke in that instance and my other statement didn't clear it up but I was speaking of the relative amounts of socialism. However, to say that laissez-faire capitalism doesn't mangle an economy is quite a statement. With your focus on "the little guy": "We can end corporate welfare, which gives big business an unfair advantage over smaller ones" you should obviously be well aware of the inevitable problem of monopolies and price gouging that laissez-faire capitalism ensures...

is the best response without government regulation. The war and pork barreling aren't exactly points that anyone can argue with, nor are they relevant at all to the discussion at hand. I don't see how "NOT in our favor to go BACK to laissez-faire capitalism" means that the US practices laissez-faire capitalism. It explicity states that we do not. Note the capitalized word BACK which, refers to the previous system, which is not the current system.

Trying to argue in favor of Hong Kong is obviously a terrible way for you to go as its growth is obviously non sustainable (not enough land), of special circumstance (it was owned by Britain, is a major trade hub for the half of the world that is China and India), and not a shining example of either the equality between rich and poor which you claim is so important only when it benefits your arguments and forgotten otherwise or the small businesses which obviously can't compete in the shipping industry.

I also fail to see how exactly Hong Kong is going to help Alabama's economy. Like you and I said, it basically has 1 industry. It does not have a complex economy, you cannot derive lessons from Hong Kong and relate them to anything but the port areas of certain large coastal American cities. The reason Hong Kong does so well is because it has such a comparative advantage in one single industry. Once China comes around then there will be no reason to ship to Hong Kong...

When you can ship to the mainland where the costs won't inevitably escalate as there is not such a scarcity of land (which drives up living costs which drives up wages etc.) and it will remove the middleman. These things you pick to represent the best hopes are just silly.

It seems like every time you fall back on something stupid like Hong Kong you go and point out irrelevant things that you support, as if this is a race to mention all the good things you support first. We're talking about your ridiculous statements that originated with your apparent denial of any benefits at all that stem from taxes: "Bullsh*t to English Translator: I believe in mooching and looting, which means I believe in taxes."

"I'm not being apologetic towards communism. I haven't said a single word in support of communism or in defense of communism." Now you're changing your tune. You claimed that Capitalism was the worst form of economics on earth, which directly implies that mean that EVEN communism was better. After that, you went out of your way to move the goalposts as to what communism really is/was. Then you went out of your way to say that Marx didn't REALLY want a dictatorship, regardless of his actual words.

"All I have said is that you're making ridiculous statements and pointing out their ridiculousness." Oh, you mean like how millions of people have died from genocide and mass starvation in communist countries? Or the fact that their economies collapsed from too much spending and inflation? Oh no, those are not relevant points at all.How about the fact that China is currently enjoying its greatest periods of economic growth after adopting more and more capitalism and free trade? I suppose you would call that a 'ridiculous' point as well.

"Or, we can tax people so that their money will be spent on public goods which otherwise would not be provided at their efficient levels." First of all, bureaucrats will ALWAYS find ways to spend tax money, regardless of how much money they have. They even often go into deficits, regardless of the fact they may have high taxes or even raised taxes. New York City famously had record deficits for years, despite also having record high taxes during those periods.

Then, Rudy Guiliani came in, reduced spending by 20% and taxes by 20%. New York actually had MORE money to work with afterwards. It even got away from deficits, and the city had less crime and filth. Welfare was reduced, and there was an increase in employment, as well as a rise of average income in NYC. The fact of the matter is, politicians are always trying to win votes, and their favorite way of doing so is spending taxpayer money, regardless of the economic situation.

Take a look at the 'bridge to nowhere', which goes to an island of 30 or so people. Who does that benefit? Or how about all those monuments and buildings named after Robert Byrd? Who does that benefit? (other than Byrd and the construction companies getting the jobs). Do you also approve of when politicians take your home through eminent domain, then pay corporations to come in and build, like Home Depot, Wal-Mart, Ikea, K-Mart, Westfield Shoppingtowns, even Donald Trump buildings, etc. How do you think these corporations get ahead so much? See, not only do the corporations force you around, but increased government often HELPS THEM OUT.

The idea that increased government helps the poor out more is a complete myth. A lot of the increased taxes go to support a larger bureaucracy, which has the tendency to add more and more regulations. Yes, there is government money that trickles down, but it is inevitable when trillions of taxpayer dollars are spent. http://youtube.com/watch?v=z3WLj9Wckdg Another thing you should take into consideration is that government IS FORCE. When you say that more government is needed, you are effectively saying that people need to be forced around more. They need to be pushed around in order to have a functional society. http://youtube.com/watch?v=HtMbocEu5LY But if you go with that argument (originally postulated by Thomas Hobbes), you also have to take into consideration that the government employees are PEOPLE TOO, not superhumans, not space aliens. They are vulnerable to the same flaws that everyone else is exposed to. If you make the claim that people are too stupid to run their own lives, how c

...continued... If you make the claim that people are too stupid to run their own lives, how could they possibly be smart enough to run other people's lives?

"For someone who is so incapable of understanding simple economic concepts, you sure act as if you know a lot about it." Coming from you, that is a laugh. "You probably spend your dad's money and think that the tree where your dad got that money is available for everyone to buy whatever they want whenever they want it." No, pal. I spend my own money on a dirt cheap apartment (also somehwhat dirty), gasoline, car repairs, electric bills, gas bills, groceries, medicine, electronics, pest control, garbage bags, plumbing supplies, bathroom supplies, kitchen supplies, plates, utensils, phone service, internet service, etc. "Sorry, bro, but someone should have taught you in kindergarten that when resources are scarce, non-rival, and non-excludable, then it is optimal to levy a tax and provide the public good." Really? Why is that? Does the sudden appearance of taxes magically make resources multiply? Does gasoline go through mitosis and have gasoline babies? Do bana

Do bananas mutate and grow larger when there are more taxes? Does the supply of freshwater all of a sudden increase with higher taxes? I certainly wasn't aware of these things. "To deny the capability of taxes..." To improve an economy or improve the distribution of goods? Yes.

"to provide an efficient outcome outright and claim that the only solution to solving the national debt crisis (brought about entirely under Republican Presidents) is by cutting spending, you have serious issues both in a broad sense and likely with your credit card debt." I have issues? I propose eliminating spending. You are saying that lowering spending will NOT lower the national debt? I think you are the one with issues. It seems like YOU are the one who should revisit kindergarten...

...and re-study basic arithmetic. Secondly, I have relatively LITTLE credit card debt. All I have are my student loans to pay off, which currently amount to $8,500. I hardly even use a credit card. I use debit, and only use money that I HAVE, not like the idiot politicians, who keep acting like there is an infinite amount.

"However, to say that laissez-faire capitalism doesn't mangle an economy is quite a statement." Really? Do you have some evidence to support this?

"With your focus on "the little guy": "We can end corporate welfare, which gives big business an unfair advantage over smaller ones" you should obviously be well aware of the inevitable problem of monopolies and price gouging that laissez-faire capitalism ensures..." What are you saying here? Are you saying that we should NOT end corporate welfare? I know that various people on both the left and right sides of the political spectrum (usually those who are independent) who DO advocate the end of corporate welfare. Besides, what does your last sentence here have to do with corporate welfare? Do you even have any evidence to support this non-sequitorial assertion?

"Note the capitalized word BACK which, refers to the previous system, which is not the current system." Oh, ok. Because I have heard from a variety of qualified sources that America has never actually had it, that there have always been times when government has helped out big business. Here is a free tidbit of information: The existence of corporations is proof that lazziez-faire capitalism does not exist, and has not, not since the mid 19th century. Why?

...because a corporation is a business with special government privileges. It enjoys special legal rights that no person has. Lazziez-faire, by definition, has no special legal rights for anybody, as well as having no intervention by government. I suggest you read this: http://todaysdangeroustruth.blogspot.com/2007/10/understanding-libertarian-free-market.html

URL too long, go here instead: http://tinyurl.com/3cmclj

"Sounds like the red scare you're trying to use here. I don't see you declaring the hippie communes of the 60s as places of war and genocide. In fact, they were places of peace and love" Ah yes, but you seem to forget the ONE major difference between a communist government and that. Namely, the use of force, which a hippie commune is entirely absent of, but Soviet Russia and Maoist China were full of. In a hippie commune, cooperation is voluntary. No one will throw you in the Gulag for disobeying.

Because there is virtually no force involved in those hippie communes, they have met with great success. I fully support the right of all people to form any kind of organization that they desire, provided that they do not trample on the rights of others.

-1

Dude, dictatorship of the proletariat is a metaphor. Free market capitalism is not the worst economic system; the worst economic system is "Build Large Pots And Filll Them With Mud Economics" where the entire population is devoted to building large pots and filling them with mud. I'm sorry for using hyperbole, and it'll never happen again. Since you are completely incapable of carrying on an honest or even relevant conversation, you'll just have to talk to yourself.

Honest or relevant? I have addressed every one of your points. (at least the ones I saw, Inform me if I missed any). I have provided references. I have provided statistics. What have you done? Attacked me with argument ad-hominems and unverified assertions.

"Dude, dictatorship of the proletariat is a metaphor." Not when practiced by politicians. "Free market capitalism is not the worst economic system; the worst economic system is "Build Large Pots And Filll Them With Mud Economics" where the entire population is devoted to building large pots and filling them with mud." Otherwise known as 'Make-Work', which is frequently employed by politicians to gain votes. Take a look at our military-industrial complex, which is the biggest of all Make-Work projects.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/article_1915604.php

Nice opinion piece. It closely resembles your opinion pieces. I hardly see how the fact that some government spending is wasted is relevant at all to the point that public goods are beneficial and will be inefficiently provided without sufficient tax. You make points about reducing spending on wasteful programs. Is it my contention that wasteful programs are good? Is that relevant at all to topic of public goods provided by means of taxation? No, you're just racing to stake your flag in irrelevant positions

It's like saying that building houses is bad because if you build houses underwater nobody can live in them. It's a fallacy of composition. Just because some government spending is bad doesn't mean that government spending is bad. You can apply the same principle to your arguments about communism. You claim that communism is bad because it is inefficient and removes individual incentive to work. I agreed. Apparently that makes you the winner? That's just stupid.

Oh, wait, you said communism inevitably leads to dictatorship because Marx used the word dictatorship in a metaphor for a transitional state much like people would speak about America as a dictatorship of the wealthy, so that means that America is a dictatorship? I disagree. Look, I love America and you hate America. Is this how the game is played? No? Are you a dictatorship apologetic? Do you see how this works and how this is completely idiotic? Then why did you engage in these shenanigans?

"Nice opinion piece. It closely resembles your opinion pieces." Actually, it was more like a conclusion to all the other sources that I have provided throughout my arguments, which everyone can see. You don't fool anyone. Regarding communism, I have the history books on my side to prove that it has not only failed, but always been abusive of human rights. Perhaps you should read more on communism from a real expert on socialism (and self-described socialist): http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm

Dude, nobody is arguing for communism. It suffers from serious theoretical problems which actually turn into actual problems when put into place. The same is true of laissez-faire capitalism. What isn't relevant is why you are bringing it up. It has nothing to do with any conversation here. It is a horrible economic system and I haven't said anything to the contrary. That communism as an economic system or idealism is held responsible for anything in that essay is pure fantasy.

In fact, you are doing exactly what that article is blaming on anti-socialist propagandists: Confusing the Stalinist regime with their socialist ideals in order to promote your "capitalism is better than socialism because Stalin is a dictator therefore any government interference with private property and business is bad, look at Stalin, so laissez-faire is the best system otherwise you are a communist apologetic." Honestly, did you read the article? Do you read your own words?

+1

Yes, I am aware of the silly arguments that hardcore conservatives and republicans have made about communism. But if you were paying attention, throughout this thread, I was also criticizing other kinds of socialism, like that of the Labour Party in England, the New Deal, Keynesian Economics, and also the millitary-industrial complex (which is really a form of Keynesianism).

Also, the reason why I showed you that Chomsky article was so you could see the mentality that LED to Communism, namely, the idea that government must be the great backbone of society and that everyone is subservient to it. In America today, there is more and more people who have this mentality, as if the lessons of the 20th century were not learned. Look at the so-called war on terror, the nanny state, the war on SOME drugs, warrentless wiretapping, so-called 'hate crimes', abusive eminent domain, etc.

NOBODY IS ARGUING WITH YOU THERE. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH COMMUNISM. COMMUNISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CAPITALISTIC ECONOMIES PROVIDING PUBLIC GOODS. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?

Boy, it seems like your caps lock key is broken, better get a new keyboard. My previous post was a criticism of the mentality that leads to communism, rather than communism itself. I thought I made that quite clear. I also explained in the post prior that I have been criticizing various other forms of socialism throughout this thread. Try to read more carefully.

I LIKE GAY SEX

+3

pssst.... No one gives a shït

-1

F*CK RON PAUL AND HIS BORING, UNFUNNY SUPPORTER, CLAWG.

-1

WHAT THE F*CK IS A RON PAUL

TL;DR

+1

"Well, the smaller the government the more you have govern yourself, right?" This might make some iota of sense if I was on welfare, which I am not. Or if the United States were a totalitarian state where the minutae of everyday life were micromanaged by some vaguely-titled unmedicated strongman, which it isn't.

also, c*cks.

tl;dr.

Quick! someone lone me 100 bucks!

+2

If the income tax completely disappeared, the government's revenue would still be above its revenue in 2000. Scary?

+1

When he doesn't win, i am going to donate to this site.

+3

Looking at the other candidates, ytmnd is the only alternative to Ron Paul, yes ;)

+3

Bush 08

-11 [show comment][hide comment]

Ron Reagan Jr. 08

^ Both of them are scary as f*ck.

korf41 <3

-1

Campaigning on teh internetz is like competing in the Special Olympics... in front of a stadium full of your fellow competitors.

-4

I'd love to campaign in the US but I'm currently in Europe.

If you're not in America right now then why are you being so malicious and trying to f*ck up the country?

Also, Ron Paul is such a stupid nationalist. What kind of "libertarian" (despite the R next to his name, he is essentially a libertarian candidate) wants to spend government money to randomly make the market more inefficient by building a border fence. Plus, his fervent isolationism is ficking creepy. A Ron Paul administration would solidify the tradition of the US government sitting on its *ss while genocide, starvation, and disease kill millions.

+5

So, it's the DUTY of the US to care about 5bn people?

It's the duty of human beings to care about your fellow human beings.

By sacrificing yourself? Who gains from that? The main problem in the world is not genocide, food and disease but corruption and despotism. If you want to help the world then make the US a beacon of freedom and purpose as an example for others. Most countries in the world compare themselves with the US, if the US moves down, they move down as well.

And pulling out of the U.N. is the way to be an "example?"

^ What you talkin bout Willis?

Do you think the U.N. - where various dictatorships are represented - can do a better job than the U.S.?

Dictators that don't invade other countries on false pretenses are better than our president who can go to war without due process.

+1

Well, if you continue to vote for people who support the wars, yes. Concerning the front runners only Ron Paul wants to end the war. Clinton wants to stay in Iraq until 2013.

"It's the duty of human beings to care about your fellow human beings." Yes, on a VOLUNTEER basis, not through coercion and force. By the way, Americans per capita are the most generous people in the world. And in the most legitimate sense: VOLUNTEER donation.

I like Yiff, too!

knock it off with this ron paul bullsh*t. he's a f*cking moron. no one wants to vote for him.

+3

Interesting to see so much viral support for this candidate. Too bad most YTMNDers can't even vote yet.

+8

5'd for Ron Paul. I am gonna donate on that day. :D

I hope you get AIDS

-2

obama n*gg*z fo lyfe

+1

I would, but Call of Duty 4 comes out that same day... And the $60 is worth it, because I'll defend America's values myself, dammit.

+6

^Word.

+1

1'd for not being about V for Vendetta "Remember remember the 5th of November, the Gunpowder Treason and Plot. I know of no Reason the gunpowder Treason should ever be forgot."

+5

The 5th of November is not the day of the gunpowder plot but of the highest donation in history :>

V for wow what a sh*tty movie

Clawg you're only hurting Ron Paul's credibility, even if you are helping pump a few extra dollars into his campaign. Now, less bullsh*t from you and more talk of gunpowder destruction! Remember the 5th of November, when a government building was almost turned into glorious ember.

he wont win, but he will steal the votes from people who can. Although some things he says he cannot and willnot win. What a shame, be best is he didn't run...or another George W. Bush will take office, and another 4 years of hell we will be enjoying...sigh

"Although some things he says I agree with I'd rather wish he didn't run" Is what I meant to say. Also this is not funny :(

You wish he didn't run so that you wouldn't see how bad the other choices are?

-2

He's saying Ron Paul is undermining the Democrat vote, much like Ralph Nader was accused of doing in the 2000 election. It's a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils (not in the literal sense).

+1

*yawn*

-2

u no that im in

MORE LIKE REMEMBER NOVEMBER 5TH, THE RED-LETTER DATE IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE!

+1

freedom!!!!!!!!

Word.

remember remember the waste of 13.81 on this site.

+2

I think donating money to ytmnd is a good thing, I like the creativity here :>

+1

remember, remember, the 11th of september. :[

(its when my puppy died) </3

+1

lol change your name to rudolph

+1

F*CK

-1

As a supporter of Ron Paul, f*ck your shameless advertising.

i support ron paul. anything to keep the demotwits out of office. kill all n*gg*rs

-1

Remember the 20th of November instead, the day where we spend all our money on Mass Effect and similar awesome titles. But screw Halo 3. Also, Obama rulz.

-3

Clawg needs to clog his f*cking *ssh*le with a hard, giant c*ck.

-1

Yours?

Luckily we won't have to hear any more about this *ssh*le after he loses in the primaries. Go to bed, morons.

+1

1.6mio$ and still 12 hours to go :)

-1

More like 1.8 million

-1

2mio$

-1

4.2mio$

-1

America needs to sh*t on Ron Paul's tits

someone needs to make a ytmnd of THAT

+1

Political craptmnd instant -1

+1

lol, America.

-1

Speaking of the man: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016622.html http://ronpaulgraphs.com/yesterday_vs_today_line.html

+1

the5thofnov.ytmnd.com

+1

V for Vendetta FTW.

+1

No

DANSON 08

+2

I thought this would be for V for Vendetta.

+2

I wish it were.

Ron Paul FTW!! All other candidates=EPIC FAIL!

I'm voting for Paul Ron, the radical socialist Democrat.

Anyone who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve has my vote. People voting otherwise need to go to www.zeitgeist.com and learn a few things.

Where's Hugo Weaving and John Hurt?

I hate you political psychos who think this wacko is a good idea. Abraham Lincoln and FDR frown upon you and your sh*tc*ckery.

+2

F*ck em'.

-2

Lincoln didn't actually care about the slaves. He violated habeas corpus. He violated the constitution. He imprisoned political opponents. He violated the rights of states to legally remove themselves from the Union. Free countries don't force others to be members of them.

+2

FDR's plans were disasters. His price control schemes only led to product shortages, due to the fact that people scrambled to buy things below market value. Social Security, which he used to get easy votes, turned out to be a financial mess. There is more money going out than coming in. Even the modern democrats admit that it is a problem. The Great Depression never ended while he was president. Many economists say that his policies only made things worse. http://tinyurl.com/2qocqf

-1

Actually, Social Security is a financial mess because LBJ opened its funding up for use outside of its intended purpose in order to further fund the Vietnam conflict, which basically took the "Security" out of "Social Security". Once the war ended, the government found it rather liked having the extra money to throw around and so they never put it back the way it was. If they'd quit taking money out of Social Security to pay for other programs, it would be working just fine.

lol ron paul

+1

Hooooooope for Amaraca.

And it's such an empty trope to paint the unemployed as lazy untermenschen and all the wealthy as glorious, hard-working heroes who embody all that is ethically Good simply because they have made (or inherited) a ton of money.

Not to mention the almost laughable idea that wealthy people are suffering so much because of Evil Taxes, they can't enjoy any of their gains. They're suffering more than you and me, just because they're superior to us...

it's the 6th, too late

+1

Though I really admire Paul for his willingness to stand alone in the Republican debates and sandblast the other candidates for their obsession with their pet war, while they all see how many times they can reference 9/11 and the Fox commentators laugh at him like drunken sports announcers.

+1

"or like having a functioning economy..." Yes, I REALLY like a functioning economy, which is why the Federal Reserve should be shut down, taxes should be reduced, corporate welfare and privileges should be ended, and meddlesome bureaucrats removed from office. It has been proven by many economists that there should be as little government intervention as possible (with perhaps the exception of enforcing against fraud, larceny and contract violations). The silly 'progressive' ideas, along with the income tax and federal reserve, led to the great depression. The long discredited 'Keynesian Economics' policies led to the recession of the 1970's. And communism, as you know (well, maybe not you), fell apart, due to misallocation of resources, too much debt, inflationary currency and economic stagnation. And now, our country has the highest amount of government spending as percentage of GDP (44%), yet more people are going below the poverty line, with rising inequality. Well, imagine that. 0/4

-1

whoops, double post from above

lol homosex

+2

I'll donate if Ron Paul blows up a monument. Otherwise, screw it.

+1

LMFAO

The amount of stupidity in these replies amazes me. Hey guys, the Income Tax is used to pay off the debt created by the Federal Reserve. The Income Tax is NOT used for roads, education, welfare, roads, schools, medicare, social security, border security, or anything of the like. NOT A PENNY! Please watch Aaron Russo's America: Freedom to Facism. Take the time to do this. It is not a waste of your time. You are victim of propaganda. Nothing you pay in federal income taxes are for your benefit! Not one!

-2

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=freedom+to+fascism&pr=goog-sl http://tinyurl.com/2j55vr

-2

RuPaul, ha ha ha

+1

This song is so gay.

+1

I don't know, I wiped away a single tear when I thought about how much Ron Paul cares about America. .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... j/k this song is gay.

THE MARKET DEMANDS IT

You only like Ron Paul because he is anti-War. Other than his stance on the war he is so far right that he could almost be considered an isolationist. He will be this decade's Ross Perot, and could likely tip the scales in favor of the Traitorcrat candidate were he to run as an Indy which is what Soros and the Code Pink crowd are pushing for... Also c*cks.

He is NOT far right. He stands up powerfully for free speech, for drug legalization, AGAINST a police state rather than FOR, he is a POWERFUL supporter of civil liberties, FOR habeus corpus, AGAINST the death penalty, AGAINST torture, AGAINST wiretapping, AGAINST the patriot act, FOR allowing the states to have gay marriage, AGAINST a constitutional amendment barring flag desecration, AGAINST school mandated prayer, AGAINST corporate welfare, AGAINST the defense industry, AGAINST national ID cards...

+1

These are all issues that are associated with the left. Next time, do some research.

Finally, there is nothing wrong with bringing the troops home. In fact, it would be extremely beneficial. Our soldiers are literally in 130 nations across the world, even in nations that have not experienced war in over 50 or more years. Why should we protect wealthy nations like Germany or Japan against non-existent enemies? Why should we send our soldiers to nations to oust a leader, simply because we do not agree with his political views? Suppose other nations did that to us? What would you think?

Finally, bringing the troops home and stopping this world police nonsense is not even CLOSE to far right. You are so way off base on this one. Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader and Gore Vidal, people who are all well associated with the left, have all espoused these views. You really got to STOP WATCHING FOX NEWS.

Giving money to a politician on Guy Fawke day? Thats kinda the opposite thing your suppose to do. You are suppose to stand up to all politicians and make them realize that they are ruled by us.

+1

agree. but i wouldn't bother, these guys don't understand logic. it's a lost cause.

+1

Well, most of what Ron Paul is planning to do is to reverse the things other politicians have done.

-1

I am of the mind that Americans no longer have the ability to carry out a revolution. The Federal government has grown too powerful.

Voting 5 just to piss off Korf after his remarkably pedestrian arguments against libertarianism

+2

I was actually arguing for the mere existence of such things as public goods. I can see how you would get confused by mr. irrelevant tangent, however.

No.

Additionally, what the f*ck are you people rambling about?

your life

You're not... serious...right?

sponsering ur own site is rlly sad

+1

Yeah, let's stop sponsoring ytmnd.

-1

1'd for faving your own site and sponsoring it sh*thole.

http://thisnovember11th.com/ <- next money bomb, go for it :)

I thought this was a V for Vendetta YTMND. I was duped! End the IRS? I hope ROn Paul has an army of Clonetroopers.

+1

The IRS will cease to exist when the 16th amendment is repealed (which wasn't even ratified by 3/4 of the states in the first place).

Heh heh. Whatever. Who gives a sh*t.

f*ck you

Also check out altruism.ytmnd.com :)

Ron Paul? Ron Paul can burn. I hate him and all his supporters.

Also, 1'd because no one gives a sh*t about Ron Paul.

Politics and YTMND never mixed well...ever. Plenty of people believe what Rupert Murdoch tells them though. If Hilary is elected I'm leaving the United States.

-1

I hear that. Sometimes I forget she's a woman...

If Ron Paul is elected I'm moving to the US ;D

-1

lol

All I know is if Hillary is elected I'm going to go kill alot of people, but not with a gun, with an egg slicer, noone will expect it. Also, VOTE RUDY

A vote for Rudy is a vote for Hillary. A vote for Hillary is a vote for Rudy.

+1

F*CKING RUN PAUL BULLSH*T!!! UNEDUCATED IDIOTS!!! STFU!!!

Uneducated? Does that mean you have the ability to prove the claims on this page to be wrong? I seriously doubt it, considering you don't even know how to turn off your caps lock key.

terrible

hint: the top 5 nations on the planet didn't get there through libertarianism. They're social democratic welfare states.