If most people didn't believe that government organizations improve their lives...then why would one of the primary objections to tax choice be the concern that "important" government organizations would be underfunded?Originally Posted by Sola_Fide
Did you see that I included a paragraph just for you?
Ya...lemon juice takes the place of vinegar in this case.
My addition to this dressing would be to use fresh herbs rather than dried...you'll get twice the taste.
And if you put a teaspoon of dijon mustard in there and whisk it hard, the dressing will emulsify and you'll have a vinaigrette.
How many times can this zombie come back to life?
Oh I know! Let's combine LVT and Pragmatarianism.We'll divide up the country into tax districts, each to fund a different govt. agency.
Just think about all those people crowding in to buy the EPA properties. Imagine how the "free market" price of that land will go up and the LVT rent will just skyrocket! Wow, the govt. will just be rolling in dough! Yay Liberty! We can all be free at last!
Those poor misguided economic ignoramuses who refuse to pay their fair share by choosing to be homeless should just leave. Or maybe we can herd them together into camps we set up on the Entitlement properties. For their own protection of course. And we absolutely must find some thing productive they can do to occupy their time.
Last edited by Len Larson; 12-23-2012 at 11:48 PM.
I wasn't reacting to that part, I was reacting to this part:
That's a pretty profound statement man...quite possibly a window into your deeply held beliefs.Originally Posted by Xerographica
People believe that government organizations improve their lives. Is there any need to dissuade them of this belief? I don't think so.
The best salad dressing is Bleu Cheese
Gee, I wonder why people are too uninformed to make good decisions? Could it be deceit? Like, for instance, could it be that someone who didn't want to hear any more spam about the fallacy that citizens distributing tax dollars is practical, but might be interested in a salad dressing, might resent falling for this Trojan Horse?
No thanks on the demonstrably unworkable tax plan. No thanks on a salad dressing that makes salad taste sort of like chili, either. And no thanks for the Trojan Horse.
But, Merry Christmas anyway.
We can't let them redirect the debate back to Red/Blue. Rand Paul's filibuster served as a clarion call, and opened eyes to the real divide--liberty v. tyranny. Everyone saw the president stall twenty-four hours before the AG confirmed we still have Constitutional due process. Don't let them turn this back into 'Left'/'Right' dogmaganda.
We, the People--'Red' and 'Blue'--must hang together or surely we will hang seperately.
It's a rainy day...you need an umbrella and I'm selling umbrellas. It either is...or it isn't...worth it for you to buy an umbrella from me.
Pragmatarianism would create a market in the public sector. Each and every taxpayer would decide whether it is...or it isn't...worth it to exchange their taxes for public healthcare. You say it won't be worth it for them. Therefore, if you're correct, then taxpayers won't spend their taxes on public healthcare. This would narrow the scope of government and lower the tax rate.
My deeply held belief is really no mystery. I've already shared it with you once but evidently I need to share it with you again...
And again...Men have a natural propensity to make the best bargain they can, when not prevented by an opposing force; that is, they like to obtain as much as they possibly can for their labour, whether the advantage is obtained from a foreign producer, or a skillful mechanical producer. - Bastiat
Everybody wants the most bang for their buck. Why? Because as Henry David Thoreau said, "the price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it."To satisfy our wants to the utmost with the least effort - to procure the greatest amount of what is desirable at the expense of the least that is undesirable - in other words, to maximize pleasure, is the problem of economics. - William Stanley Jevons
So yeah...clearly you derive utility from believing that I'm sort of a not-so-in-the-closest lover of the state. But if your belief is true or accurate...then why would I have just created a Wikipedia entry for legal plunder?
I'm not a lover of the state...I'm a lover of the market. I know why and how the market works...which is why I advocate creating a market in the public sector. Given that you don't see any value in creating a market in the public sector, then clearly you've allocated all your time to understanding the moral arguments for liberty and none of your time to understanding the economic arguments for liberty.
Do you think I fail to understand the moral arguments? Do you think it requires a certain level of genius to understand the argument that taxes are theft? Do you think I fail to understand the self-ownership principle? No no no...the moral argument is easy to understand. Are the economic arguments as easy to understand? Obviously not. But I've made the effort to understand them which is why I can say with a good measure of certainty that they are far more powerful, meaningful and universal than the moral arguments.
So seriously considering allocating some of your scarce time to learning about libertarian economics. And if you're not interested in learning about economics...then...well...clearly you're in the wrong forum category.
lemon juice on a salad is a distasteful.
LOL...if this is the first time that I've fooled you...then, well, shame on me. But chances are pretty good that this won't be the last time that I'll use another topic to try and help people understand why market economies are far superior to non sequitur economies. So, unless you want to be fooled again, then you might want to put me on your ignore list.
It's far easier to simply say that it would be unworkable than it would be to actually use economics to explain why it would be unworkable to create a market in the public sector.
Hehe...you don't value my salad dressing, you don't value my Trojan Horse, you don't value my attempt to help people understand economics...therefore you don't want to "buy" anything that I'm selling. It's funny because what I'm "selling" is a system which would give taxpayers the freedom not to "buy" whatever a government organization is trying to sell.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote