See socialists can only attack and attempt to destroy for any argument in favor of socialism is easily dismantled by its own artificiality under proper scrutiny.

Draugnar, excellent. Please, continue to keep proving my point by continuing the baseless personal attacks. Thank you so much.

@Meher - Your writing, even the short stuff, is confusing at best. The grammar, quite simply, sucks. If I could actually interpret what "destroy for any argument" meant then maybe I could even decipher the stuff you spew forth in you rlonger posts. But so much of it is circular poppy cock that it isn't even worth the effort to try and understand what you are saying. I don't necessarily disagree or agree with you. I just get a headache from the whole thing.

And you'll note the circular psychobabble post has the same time stamp as your telling me your are from Thailand. Now that I know what country you are from, the grammar issues make more sense as English is clearly not your first language. But there is still a circular logic that relies on the prior to confirm the latter and the latter to support the prior.

God I hate libertarians. You can't argue with them because they have such a sense of self-importance. But I shall try.

You say 0% tax is the best tax for the economy. You, my friend are correct, but naively so. With not revenue, there will be no government. People will not just volunteer to drive the subway every day - nor would the volunteers necessarily be qualified. How would you pay for the armed forces which you say the government is going to still control? They need food, water, electricity, uniforms, barracks, weapons, weapons, and more weapons (plus ammo). How will you pay for that? With taxes on imports? Guess what, if you put high taxes on imports, what is the rest of the world going to do? They're not going to play with their dicks and pay the tax; no, they're going to throw up their own tariffs! Global trade will become increasingly expensive and it will halt to the bare minimum of necessities. With decreased global trade, your government has less revenue, and thus can't do the thing you asked it to - protect the country.

Pfft, the characterization of Draugnar as a socialist is laughable. Draugnar is rather right wing (which on this forum puts him pretty dead centre). Do you just call anyone to the left of you socialist? Because that's a pretty low bar.
But even if Draug were a socialist, socialists are no more socialism than musicians are music. Just because some of the people who support it may be wrong in certain instances that doesn't mean the concept is.

One more note, Meher. In your society, maybe babies are the center of attention. But in my society, those of us without kids find them annoying and tell their parents to shut them up if they start crying in a movie theater or quiet restaurant or public library.

I appreciate the new opportunities here and I have to get to bed. It is too late for me and I have to teach a full day tomorrow. I will respond tomorrow evening (for me). Cheers.

Meher...awesome! :)

Meher Baba is a teacher? Yikes.

He is Thai and lives in Thailand, Mafia. That should alleviate some of your fears. What scares me more is that King Atom and D33 are both supposedly honor students. That makes me fear for the future of the free world.

Did you guys watch my video...the bus driver starts threatening the "kids" when they talk about Socialism but when they are throwing things out the window...he doesnt mind..

It reminds me of all the people who dont actually try and listen to the people talking about....instead resort to name calling.

and listen to the people talking about *Socialism....

Well yes but no. I mean. On the one hand, OK he doesn't get to vote in elections that will directly effect me or that I need to hear about regularly. But still, I'd rather not have Thai people put up with his asinine political beliefs either.

Also don't worry about D33 and KA. Being an honours student at 12 or 13 doesn't mean you're all grown up or immune to being a douchebag.

"Local community is not a "socialist value". Neither is society. Look up the definitions in the dictionary. How are they defined? By the individuals that make up said communities and societies. You have it completely backwards. Individuals are not defined by the communities, communities are defined by their individuals. And thus you have helped to conclusively show the inherent fallacy behind socialism. It is a concept based on false premises."

Tell me, did you choose to be a member of the community of your birth? In your dreamworld babies somehow autonomously choose their language, their race, their family, the place they grow up, and all the cultural and environmental factors that shape their existence.

Of course, when we are born we do nothing of the sort. The language we learn is the language our parents and siblings speak to us. We have no control over it whatsoever. That language, and all the meanings of the words spoken, are shaped and developed by the needs and culture of the community. Why do you think people fight so hard for linguistic rights, because language shapes our very identity. It's not a "choice", we were born with it. By the time those privileged enough to be mobile can "choose" their community and languages, we are already well conditioned by our original environment. That's why it is very difficult for people to immigrate to new homes and fit in with the local community. That's why communities come before individuals. If a bunch of autonomous individuals formed and shaped their communities, none of what I just described would occur.

And love is not a language, and any love is meaningless in libertopia. It's another socialist value. Love implies altruism, which is anathema in libertopia. It implies social relationships taking precedence over individual needs or wants. Love creates market distortions and prices which do not reflect "real" values. Love is irrational. Love means doing things for people without the promise of material reward. There is no place for love in capitalism other than as a commodity to be bought and sold. Love in capitalism is prostitution. "Real" values in capitalism are anything the consumers want. So anything goes. It is completely incompatible with moral or social values which is why capitalism is destroying the social fabric of societies and replacing it with crass materialism.

"The State decides what is good to sell and at what price it should be sold. So the real value is never known much less even looked for. Thus artificial values take hold as is the case today and bubbles are artificially created to pretend to provide accelerated growth and accelerated prosperity."

Bubbles are created by misplaced expectations, not the state. The state had nothing to do with the housing bubble. Businesses of their own free will decided not to save money and to overleverage, to loan out money in a risky way, thinking that the value of homes was just going to go higher and higher indefinitely. People of their own free will decided to make base their bank funding on short-term financing, making themselves especially vulnerable to liquidity crunches. The market's stupidity causes bubbles. The only way you can claim "socialism" creates bubbles is if you think America is a "socialist" country, which you probably do. But such a definition of socialism is meaningless. In your view, "socialism" is any condition other than anarcho-capitalism.

"Of course their coup de grace is that they get their now unwitting servants (like you, my friend) to expound the virtues of socialism by show all the benefits the group provides them which were created form the ill gotten gains or forcibly taxed gains scammed from the artificial market boom bust cycles."

Right, and the number of examples I already gave you of private individuals and firms making ill-gotten gains by lying to consumers and to their workers is apparently, not going to get any attention from you. Because any notion that markets aren't operating under conditions of Pareto optimality...*ever*...makes libertarian ideologues brain shut down. It requires actual critical thinking.

In fact, being an honours student and in a special advanced program like King Atom claims to be actually makes you more susceptible rather than less. I would know, I was in an enhanced class and (intermittently) an honours student too (I did well most of the time, but every so often, out of some rather weak teenage rebellion I'd stop doing homework for a while and I would drop to a B average, the horror!). It creates this bubble around you of people and processes and everything telling you that you're smart, and that you're hardly ever wrong, and so you stop questioning yourself. So you're in this place where already you're given cause to believe that you're smarter than everyone else, and, that's constantly confirmed by report cards which give you an actual measurable numbers system telling you, "Hey! You're smarter than everyone else!" It's a real problem.

Putin +1 (I already did)

@Mafia - that's a very accurate critique of the honors system. I had actually fallen into those beliefs, but college snapped me out of it (though I'm in the honors program here....hmmmm). Nonetheless, this forum is actually a great place for those who think they're always right can really reflect upon what they're saying and if they are *actually* right.

Yeah. The thing is it doesn't mean KA or me or you aren't smart. It's just, being smart makes you better at being wrong. To paraphrase Michael Shermer, smart people are good at justifying beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.

That video is hillarious and, while I may not 100% agree with Socialism as a movement, the kids do make somewhat of a point with regards to major religious teachings and socialism, albeit a very naivette one.

OK, so for Meher's edification when he returns:

My views are simple. We, as a society, have an obligation to help those who can't help themselves. Widows, orhpans, or the mentally and/or physically disabled, for their entire lives. We also have an obligation to support those with a short term need like the unemployed trying to care for their families and to provide assistance in finding jobs to those willing to work. But we have no obligation to support those who won't even try to find a job and just want to live as sponges and a drain on society.

As far as the "being nice to one another" naivette of the kids in the video. That is an individual decision. I choose to be nice to others financially and give to certain organizations as I see fit, but it is not societies place to take from me and give to others so that everyone is equal.

Human rights means certain minimal standards must be met for everyone. These include reasonably safe shelter, clothing, food, and basic healthcare. these do not include a house with two cars and a TV in every room. It doesn't even include a car, a TV, and a private apartment.

I know I'm going to regret this, but I would make public housing that was dormlike available to anyone in need. It would include a basic meal plan, but no choice as to what was served (this isn't a restaurant where you order off the menu or a buffet where you have lot's of selections) and free laundry facilities along with access to something like a "free store" for clothing.

To certain groups of individuals who have no realistic opportunity of moving beyond this, I would provide additional compensation that would allow them to buy some small luxuries and maybe even a semi-private or even private apartment (the aforementioned widows, orphans, and disabled with no where to turn).

To those actively looking for work, education and employment services would be given as long as they are needed and unemployment type compensation to pay for their mortgage and needs so long as they showed they were looking. there would be no cutoff. But if they cease to be qualified (i.e. they stop trying to find work and don't take advantage of the free courses and emplyment services help), then they lose the income and either have to make their own way with their living expenses or lose everything and become one of the dorm dwellers.

I'd love to say we could kick the dorm dwellers out, but our own humanity would prevent that as then we'd be no different from various herding/pack animals that shun the weakest members.

In order to accomplish this, there would obviously have to be a tax. But it wouldn't be a Robin Hoodesque robbing of the rich nor would it be an everyone puts it all in a big pot and takes what they need. The minimum needs would be met to survive for those who had the need but those who earned it would still get to enjoy the fruits of their labor.

And I know I'll be verbally berated, but I believe the captains of industry and technology have earned their money. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs (may he rest in peace) earned what they make/made through the inspiration and guidance they provided their companies. I also believe those same captains of industry have a right to say where their money will go when they are gone which leads me to my last view that is controversial.

Inheritance/estate taxes (aka death taxes)... There should be no additional tax when a person passes on first generation money. That money was taxed once. Of course, any assets sold off would still be taxed the same as if they were sold off when the person was alive, but no additonal taxes for the first generation. After that, it would be a "net worth" evaluation. If the second generation had attempted to increase the net worth by showing active participation in the process (say Nicole Ritchie did something after Lionel was gone to try and actively make more money with the fortune he leaves her) then they too would be considered first generation because they were attempting to do mkore than live off someone else's money. But if they did nothing and risked nothing, just settling for their inheritance and whatever money it naturally made without their effort, then that would be taxable at 50% when they left whatever remained in their estate. I don't care if all they did was continue to hold down a real job, at least they are contributing in a positive fashion by working and that is sufficient to make their estate be non-taxable. So the moment someone who inherets money continues to make a livign, they become first generation money again and their estate becomes theirs to control in it's entirety upon their death.

In short, earn a living and your estate is tax exempt when you die. Live off an inheritance and don't work in some fashion and whatever is left gets taxed 50%.

OK, let the barrage begin from both sides...

@Putin - " The state had nothing to do with the housing bubble. " Not completely true. Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac were government backed and under mandate to promote home ownership to those who rteally had no business owning homes and the only way they could do this was to sell the mortgage backed securities off to spread the risk. So the government did it's share of damage. Then grred took over and made the bubble into a monster burst instead of a small pop. Now, the IPO/tech bubble that burst back in '01 was completely capitalist greed. But notice it didn't do near the damage that this one did, even with 9/11 right on it's heels.

The bubble preceded the problems with Fannie and Freddie. In fact it was because of the bubble that Fannie & Freddie decided to abandon its model of traditional loans and jump on the bandwagon of MBSs because they were getting a smaller market share because securitized loans were more attractive to consumers. Fannie & Freddie did not invent the originate & distribute model of banking. 85% of the subprime loans came from private firms.

The government, again, did not tell mortgage lenders to behave this way. The market did.

http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/08/27/fannie-freddie-acquitted/

"Living on the Gold Standard restricted growth and led to intermittent recessions in the late 19th century."

America became the world's premier economic power while on the Gold Standard. The dollar replaced the pound sterling as the world's currency because the former was still tied to gold while the latter was not. The recessions of the late 19th century (and the early 19th century for that matter) were largely due to the easy credit generated by fractional reserve banking, just as the Federal Reserve and the banking system has done today (on a much larger scale).

"And good luck with the infrastructure that makes our modern lives possible (and our economy competitive) without taxes. Are you really ignorant or do you just play that part?"

Actually, most of the infrastructure governments provide (I assume you're talking about roads, water/sewer and the like) in the United States are paid for by user fees, not taxes. Gasoline taxes pay for road/freeway maintenance (or at least, they are supposed to), water districts/municipalities charge water users for their water usage, etc. And a lot of infrastructure (like electricity distribution and phone/data networks, for instance) are built, operated, and maintained by private companies, not the government.


"Maybe it's the value of exploitation/reality tv, in which vulnerable people get attacked, insulted, and degraded for people's entertainment."

That's a funny comment coming from someone who corners the market around here on attacking, insulting, and degrading anyone who doesn't agree with him.

The tech bubble had a direct impact on the housing bubble. It was because of the tech bubble that the federal funds rates remained low, in order to avoid a recession after it burst. The reason why the tech bubble didn't do as much damage is because the fed saved the economy by lowing interest rates/federal funds rate. That contributed to the easy credit for housing. People could take out low interest loans and put that money into homes whose value kept increasing. There was little perceived risk because there had never been a nation-wide decline in housing prices since WWII.

The extent to which the state contributed to the housing bubble is: Allowing mortgage interest to be tax deductible while rent is not. Excessively low federal funds rate via the fed in 2003-2004. Encouraging home ownership itself is not the problem, since Canada has the same level of home ownership but no banking crisis. The main culprit was the securitization scheme and new lending model for mortgages.

"Encouraging home ownership itself is not the problem, since Canada has the same level of home ownership but no banking crisis." - Ahhhh, we don't have a crisis as severe as the US one. But we're still not in good shape. Not that I'm debating your larger point. Just sayin'.

Also don't expect that argument to cut much ice. No matter how much you point to the example of other countries libertarians will just ignore it, or pretend you're talking about Europe, even when you aren't.

"And love is not a language, and any love is meaningless in libertopia. It's another socialist value. Love implies altruism, which is anathema in libertopia. It implies social relationships taking precedence over individual needs or wants. Love creates market distortions and prices which do not reflect "real" values. Love is irrational. Love means doing things for people without the promise of material reward. There is no place for love in capitalism other than as a commodity to be bought and sold. Love in capitalism is prostitution. "Real" values in capitalism are anything the consumers want. So anything goes. It is completely incompatible with moral or social values which is why capitalism is destroying the social fabric of societies and replacing it with crass materialism. "

You are conflating objectivism and libertarianism. While there is some overlap, there are a great many libertarians who are not objectivists, and vice versa (Ayn Rand denounced libertarians as 'anarchists', for instance). I know a great many libertarians who are active and enthusiastic in non-government communities of various sorts (churches, fraternal/social organizations, etc.), and I personally take actions against my self-interest all the time (like giving money to panhandlers). Liberty is about having the freedom to *choose*- it is not about being heartless. And while you don't make it easy, I love you Putin33 (and everyone else. Or at least, I try to).

OK, so it sounds like we are in agreement. I just didn't wnat you discounting the feds involvement in the housing bubble. You pointed out one I've always had a complaint with, non-deduction of rent in part or in whole yet interest deductions for the mortgage holder. And the feds encouraged home onwership by lowering the standards at which mortgages at both the best interest rates and even higher rates could be granted. Now they are reversing it but too far in the opposite direction. It's way too reactionary and is going to cause a collapse of the new housing market even further when no one can qualify for a new home loan even with 20% down. Hell, coming up with 25K for our loan (20% down on 125K) was a hard one to swallow and I make a good living (we've discussed this in the past). I can't imagine how the average two income household of only 75K could pull it off with gas and food prices where they are. And that was for a 40 year old house...

"That's a funny comment coming from someone who corners the market around here on attacking, insulting, and degrading anyone who doesn't agree with him."

Really, that's the best you could up with? With people like Krellin and TC (among others) you want to claim I cornered the market on insults and attacks? Get real.

"The recessions of the late 19th century (and the early 19th century for that matter) were largely due to the easy credit generated by fractional reserve banking, just as the Federal Reserve and the banking system has done today (on a much larger scale)."

No, the recessions were due to no access to credit. Silver was de-monetized in order to avoid inflation. Private banks had control over monetary policy. This created deflationary pressure and lowered the price of goods farmers were getting. How can you say there was easy access to credit when there was deflation, not inflation? Why do you think the Populist and Greenback movements were created? Because farmers had easy access to credit? Seriously where on earth do you come up with this stuff?

Even within the states, you can point to states which had more tightly regulating loan practices similar to Canada, like Texas (ironically enough), and they had much less problems with the housing crisis. I'm sure they'll ignore that too, though.

How a serious discussion came out of this thread is beyond me, but I suppose it's good that we now have a TC free topic for issues like this...