Economic Vs. Civil Liberties – Learn Liberty

Economic Vs. Civil Liberties – Learn Liberty


The stereotype is that Cconservatives understand
how economic liberty works and don’t care as much for civil liberties, and that the
Lliberals care about civil liberties but don’t really care much about economic freedom or
know really how free market economies are supposed to work. The truth is there’s no
real distinction between civil liberties and economic liberties. They’re one and the
same, and it’s a mistake to try to separate them out and defend one at the expense of
the other. What does it mean to have freedom of choice or freedom of conscience if I don’t
have the physical freedom to make a transaction that brings that choice into reality? For example, let’s say that you have a publishing
company. You want the freedom to be able to publish what you want. But Wwhat does it mean
to say that you have the freedom to publish what you want if there’s are restrictions
on what sorts of printed material can be bought and sold? Your right to read is tied to other
people’s right to publish. You don’t have the right to seek information if the information
isn’t allowed to come into existence in the first place. By the same token, if I have the right to
publish anything I want, but some of the ideas I publish are punishable by death, then I
really don’t have a substantial right to publish whatever I want. So this is an example
of how economic liberty, if we think of it from the point of view of buying and selling
printed matter, is connected very intimately to your individual liberty of conscience in
choosing what to read, what to think, what to believe. Here’s another example. Let’s say that
I choose to become an attorney, but I live in a society in which people with brown hair
are not permitted to become attorneys. I don’t really have athe choice to go into that profession.
My personal freedom to choose is limited by the transactional freedom that I’m not permitted
to work in a given profession. If I don’t have the freedom to work in the profession
that I choose, then it doesn’t not make sense to say that I have the right to choose
a profession. When we make transactions in the economic
groundrealm, we are putting into physical reality in the social setting the choices
that we make. So if I don’t have the freedom to transact, then my freedom of choice is
hollow and abstraction. By the same token, a market economy with no restrictions on trade
wouldn’t have much value at all if we weren’t allowed to have freedom of conscience, if
we weren’t allowed to read what we wanted to read or say what we wanted to say. So the
reality is there’s no distinction between civil liberties and economic liberties at
all. Economic liberties simply are the physical social manifestations of the freedom of choice
or freedom of conscience that we take so seriously.

Comments

  1. Post
    Author
  2. Post
    Author
    Jotto999

    @KillerWhaleSFl So in your mind, it's okay to forcefully take other people's money and resources so you don't have to work?

    If you are too lazy or uninterested to work, that's acceptable, but to try to use it as a reason to steal from others means you're an idiot. Grow up and stop expecting things for free. Doing nothing and expecting everything is not the freedom to not participate, that's being a selfish shithead. Go live off the land if that's what you want.

  3. Post
    Author
    Dynamic Unreality

    @KillerWhaleSFl Your reply is wrong in so many ways, I am not even going to try to correct you. *cough* Virgin Galactic *cough*

  4. Post
    Author
    HarrisonCountyStudio

    @KillerWhaleSFl In your senario…..who would create and develop all of this clean energy and technology and material abudnance for all???? If all of the Capitalists (people who produce) were not part of your society, but your society was full of the people who need you to: feed, clothe, house, and educate every person on the planet how do you intend to pay for this?

  5. Post
    Author
    sw8741

    @KillerWhaleSFl its an option! my suggestion for you would be to move to africa or some place similar. join a tribe where you can live by the sweat of your brow. of course you will be at the bottom of the pecking order there too and have to do what ever the tribal leader tells you. learn basket weaving before you go so you have at least something to contribute to the tribe. hard to find someone to teach you hunting/gathering. so stop using capitalist society, you have lots to learn, get on it!

  6. Post
    Author
  7. Post
    Author
    Justin Templer Sr

    @KillerWhaleSFl "Have you seen how WE treat the homeless?"

    Apparently YOU treat the homeless like crap. That's the problem with people like YOU is YOU pass the buck and blame "society" so YOU don't have to do anything.

  8. Post
    Author
    JamesHaskin

    I'm curious how this applies to publishing material that is considered dangerous or obscene. It seems like this is an "all or nothing" view. What about a snuff film or any other subject that's considered "wrong"?

  9. Post
    Author
  10. Post
    Author
  11. Post
    Author
    Helios5868

    @Felhaven While I partially agree with what you are saying, you have placed too high an honor on libertarianism. The Progressive movement, the real left-wingers, have no interest in legislating morality. You've confused a social safety net with protecting people from their own choices, it is actually more like protecting people from OTHER people's choices.

  12. Post
    Author
    Helios5868

    One big problem with this video, it suggests that any regulation of the economy is a massive attack against liberty. The problem is, right now Assassins are illegal. Would it improve the country to legalize murder?

  13. Post
    Author
    Necromanczar

    @KillerWhaleSFl not participating in society is a hell of a lot more unpleasant than some subscribers think. also, if you have beefs with a "global economic consumption machine", simply buy less crap. look into real estate or smthg.

  14. Post
    Author
    Necromanczar

    @KillerWhaleSFl not participating in society is a hell of a lot more unpleasant than some subscribers think. also, if you have beefs with a "global economic consumption machine", simply buy less crap. look into real estate or smthg.

  15. Post
    Author
    JamesHaskin

    @Hashishin13 If they're talking about being truly free to publish WHATEVER they want wouldn't that include subjects that are controversial/illegal? For example, it's illegal to publish how to make a cell phone jammer. It's also illegal to use a cell phone jammer, but a book or movie about making a cell phone jammer is just that.

  16. Post
    Author
    kopackjm

    @KillerWhaleSFI Capitalism is still very much a valid system in this day and age. It provides motivation for companies, people, etc. to push forward and continue to produce better things and increase the overall living conditions of people everywhere. Color TVs, just to name an example, were brought to realization because of the capitalistic system. What you described at one point, the capitalists on the island, is an unrealizable utopia which will never exist.

  17. Post
    Author
    Dynamic Unreality

    @KillerWhaleSFl You totally have the freedom to do such a thing, completely drop out of the capitalist society. Ted Kaczynski, aka the Unibomber, did just that, to take an extreme and famous case, as well as many others who have gone undocumented for obvious reasons. If you have not chosen to do this because, you know, you like the internet and youtube and whatnot, that is not because you don't have the freedom to, its because you like all of the products of capitalism.

  18. Post
    Author
    Dynamic Unreality

    @DynamicUnreality *edit* sorry, not necessarily *all* of the products of capitalism, just the ones you refuse to give up.

  19. Post
    Author
    613

    @JamesHaskin Well it depends on what you think is a crime, I think cell phone jammers should be legal, so should the books. If you live in a community that wants to ban them and you agree to their rules then they would be illegal, if you don't agree or they don't think they should be illegal then it wouldn't be a crime.

  20. Post
    Author
  21. Post
    Author
    613

    @helios5868 Not at all, the libertarian viewpoint is that protecting property is one of the founding principles of a free society, you own your body therefore you have the right to protect it, either yourself or through hired agents. You don't "regulate" hired murderers you criminalize them. Government isn't trying to criminalize the economy they are attempting to manipulate it. If it should be allowed then it shouldn't be regulated.

  22. Post
    Author
    JamesHaskin

    @Hashishin13 I'm not asking what you think. I've been trying to pose a hypothetical situation pertaining to this video but you keep stating the obvious. You really have no idea what this video is talking about do you?

  23. Post
    Author
    Ranillon

    The basic premise of this video is fundamentally flawed. Libertarians always rail against the government for supposedly curtaining "liberty" through economics, but then seem oblivious to the fact that individuals and corportations can abuse economics just as badly. It's really amazing how they are so paranoid about the gov and so naive about big business. Libertarians are really just communists who have replaced "big government" with "big business." Real liberty means balancing between both.

  24. Post
    Author
    Magicwillnz

    This argument is a pretty egregious oversimplification. The examples are totally absurd. Restricting people's ability to be a lawyer, say, because of prior criminal activity is totally different from restricting it by hair color. Banning mercury-laden seafood from the market is oppression I can live with.

  25. Post
    Author
    H R

    @Ranillon These multi-national corporations, or even the corporation as we know it today, could not exist without a government having first chartered it. "Big Business" is then further protected by Government via laws and regulations which increase the cost of doing business, placing disproportionate pressure on smaller firms and ultimately serving as "barriers to entry" for new firms.

    It all begins and ends with The State.

  26. Post
    Author
    H R

    @Magicwillnz Let the criminals practice law. Let other firms maintain databases of the history of lawyers including credit, criminal, and courtroom statistics. Then let the consumer decide who he wants to hire.

    Personally I'd rather hire the services of someone who will get me the best result regardless of education, test results, or personal history.

  27. Post
    Author
    Magicwillnz

    @HaroldRehling
    I was more pointing out the video's strawman argument than actually advocating we ban criminals from becoming lawyers. The "brown hair" example was obviously designed to illustrate a point, but it ignores the fact that most regulations are more sensible than that.

  28. Post
    Author
    imsolive89

    Ok so… there is no difference between me marrying a goat and having a true monopoly . both are equal liberties i have the power to do?

  29. Post
    Author
    JimLife

    @imsolive89 Well, the USA is called a free country, but that is a common misconception, it is the freest country in that you are allowed to think whatever you want without being punished for it and you are allowed to say many things (many, not all) that you think. A slightly more limited part is you are allowed to act on most of what you say (provided the laws of physics allow it.)

  30. Post
    Author
    Ypsiroselee

    @imsolive89 If the goat freely gives consent to marrying you, tell me where you're registered, and I'll get you a gift.

  31. Post
    Author
    imsolive89

    @Ypsiroselee who cares about the goat , talk about how having a monopoly and marriage are the same thing according to this guy

  32. Post
    Author
    ihatemoses

    @KillerWhaleSFl

    You should look into some form of Left-Libertarianism. Geoanarchism would give you just what you want while allowing everyone else to work a lot less in a capitalist society.

  33. Post
    Author
    ihatemoses

    @KillerWhaleSFl

    If we were to have all the land users pay a rent to all of society and then redistribute that amongst the people equally (known as the Citizen's Dividend), you would be able to use that money to pay for a piece of land equal in value. Since land values are much different based on it's resources and proximity to population, you would be able to get a couple feet in Los Angeles or a couple acres in Montana.

  34. Post
    Author
    ihatemoses

    @KillerWhaleSFl

    It's your fair share because Land is not the product of labor but the product of "God" if you wish, so instead of having some stupid dictator redistribute the land, and instead of having a bunch of mini-serfs controlling production, we redistribute the land based on it's value but in dollars.

  35. Post
    Author
  36. Post
    Author
    Dicax

    What a tenuous link. What is the economic transaction of getting gay married? What is the civil argument for me selling cars that start on fire and kill all the passengers?
    A "free" market is as terrifying as a world with no laws whatsoever. Personally, I like not being assaulted or constantly fearing that my food is poison- by all means regulate and legislate to take care of those things.

  37. Post
    Author
    VIKDR

    Free market doesn't mean there aren't any laws, and to imply such is either ignorance, or propaganda.
    If a car is dangerous, people quit buying that car. If a food is poisoned, that restaurant goes out of business. Free market also allows you to sue the pants off of these people if you are injured.
    You shouldn't argue against a free market when you don't even know what it is.

  38. Post
    Author
    Dicax

    "As terrifying as" does not mean the same. Your implication, not mine.
    People might quit buying the car (Ford Exploders sold very well) after the death toll gets high enough, same with the restaurant. After. Why not preempt all that suffering with standards and regulations? Neither the market or regulators are perfect, but both have strengths and finding a balance is more pragmatic than worshiping an invisible hand.
    Sue how? Enforced how? How long before legal precedent becomes law/regulation?

  39. Post
    Author
    VIKDR

    Are you saying the free market allows laws or not? You can't have it both ways.
    Again free market does not mean there are no laws. It doesn't mean you are barred from suing somebody, or rules to enforce.
    Why assume a business is trying to poison or blow us up their customers?
    Business tries to prevent this in the first place, if only to prevent a loss of profits, or the business itself. That is more powerful then any regulation.

  40. Post
    Author
    Dicax

    I never asked to have it both ways. Again, as bad as does not mean the same. Putting words in the other person's mouth then pointing out how wrong they are for those words is not very productive.
    Again, there is no assumption that the goal is to poison customers, just that it could happen… as it has, repeatedly.
    If the "lets not get sued" impulse is so much more powerful than regulations why does it happen, even with regulations?
    [repeat my last line from the previous post]

  41. Post
    Author
    VIKDR

    (500 characters-not enough.)
    Ah, so you are mistakenly thinking we already have a free market, which we don't, and that these things are occurring as a result. Your hyperbole threw me off.
    But I have worked in the food industry, and it is heavily regulated. They have always been very strict on following healthy practices, but it's hard to find employees who gives a damn.
    But most food poisoning's come from home cooked meals, or customer actions after purchase.
    (cont…)

  42. Post
    Author
    VIKDR

    (pt2)
    Do you believe in the FDA? Have they helped you out? Are they there to keep you safe?
    Or are they there to protect the current businesses, and make it harder for new companies to compete?
    High ranking officials with the FDA are often seen schmoozing with the big brass in pharmaceutical companies.
    Rules and regulations simply mean people or companies with access have more power. Regulation = favoritism.
    When ephedrine was pulled from the market, acetaminophen was killing 10 times as many.

  43. Post
    Author
    Dicax

    The revolving door in DC is a problem, on that I will agree. Though this problem is not limited to regulatory bodies (see Thomas and Monsanto, Cheney and Haliburton). If deregulation occurs that particular brand of corruption will just find another outlet. This is, in large part, my problem with "free market" solutions- suggesting that somehow giving the economic interests at the center of these problems (govt./reg. is just a tool here) more freedom to solve the problem is madness.

  44. Post
    Author
    VIKDR

    But these are assumption you are making, and out of fear. You say this MIGHT happen, or that MIGHT happen, and that is a faulty assumption.
    I am complaining about government sanctioned impropriety, and you are complaining about possible actions that people may take. Kind of a guilty until proven innocent type of logic.
    You complain about 2 events where you think the Government abused its power, and keep on arguing they should have more power. Can you see the faulty logic here?

  45. Post
    Author
    Dicax

    I missed the part where I argued for more government power.
    Well, the things I am complaining out of illogical thinking and fear (wow, I suck) are that suggesting individuals/motives that abuse the democratic medium of government would be as bad, or worse, without reigns… crazy stuff.
    These kinds of social experiments are fun. Just imagine if malfeasance put through the filter of 'the will of the people' was left to its own devices. That would be better. Sure. Why not.

  46. Post
    Author
    VIKDR

    If you're arguing for more government regulation, you're arguing for more government power. And yes it is illogical, and out of fear. (You don't suck, just the human brain.)
    The fear is assuming the worst. What you've mentioned doesn't even register as far as risk goes. 51.7% of deaths (top 10) result from various diseases. No regulation will change that.
    You mention cars blowing up, not as easy as you think. (See MythBusters)
    Social experiment? No, just copying what worked.

  47. Post
    Author
    LucisFerre1

    [[Libertarians are really just communists who have replaced "big government" with "big business." Real liberty means balancing between both.]]

    It's almost frightening how ignorant you are.

  48. Post
    Author
  49. Post
    Author
    artrod439

    I do not have any betters, it is the idea that there are "betters" that is the problem. Gaming the system and getting rich by taking advantage of others
    is not a libertarian ideal.

  50. Post
    Author
  51. Post
    Author
  52. Post
    Author
  53. Post
    Author
    mike

    If you choose to be a doctor, but you do not choose to go to medical school you probably shouldn't be a doctor. If a bank creates bonds based on bad mortgages but pays another bank to rate them good solid investments, they should be allowed to sell that bad investment to millions of unknowing citizens trusting the AAA rating? cause that's what happened and more or less created and popped the housing bubble, not to mention it is flat out immoral. Its selling glass labeled diamond. Its fucked up

  54. Post
    Author
  55. Post
    Author
    lordblazer

    most people give back. hell even homeless people do. if you're purchasing things you're paying some sort of tax. I think this is something we forget. And so some of us gets on our high horse and well stick our nose up at others as if our shit is transported to another dimension thus not stinking.

  56. Post
    Author
    lordblazer

    thank you thank you thank you. I hate anyone that tries to tell me that all of us are responsible for what happened in 2008. In reality no we are not. I was not in the game of greed yet as an undergraduate student in 2008 I am paying the price as a graduate. I'm sorry. But I am not living an unsustainable lifestyle. Fuck I don't even own a bloody television.

  57. Post
    Author
    retardedcore

    Why do corporations spend millions on conservative lobbyists and politicians to reduce/repeal regulation then? Your argument doesn't make sense in the real world. Deregulate Everything was the motto of the Reagan/Bush/Bush jr Presidencies and all three of them were owned by Corporations. I can see that many other people have been trying to make this point to you though, so I probably have gone in one ear and out the other.

  58. Post
    Author
    VIKDR

    First let's discuss policies, not people. The former is a real discussion, and the latter is gossip.
    Money spent on lobbyist, and donations, tends to go to whatever party's in charge.
    Corporations aren't always trying to eliminate regulations, and often support them. Sometimes the reason is that it makes it harder for some upstart to compete.
    A corporation's simply a legal structure of a business. Each should be judged on their own merits, not prejudged based simply on being a corporation.

  59. Post
    Author
    DoctorMandible

    The entire point of the video is that there is no difference because they are both founded on the same principle. You shouldn't have to choose one or the other.

  60. Post
    Author
    retardedcore

    Wrong, Lobbying money goes to everyone. What an obtuse statement to say it only goes to 'the party in charge.' What is the purpose of Americans for Prosperity or America's Natural Gas Alliance if not to eliminate or prevent regulation in certain fields in order to maximize profits? A corporation seises to be a legal structure of business whence it is considered A PERSON. Then it is granted all the legal rights of a citizen and its money is equal to speech. That is neither simple nor of merit.

  61. Post
    Author
    retardedcore

    The premise of this video is 100% contradictory to the Constitution of the United States of America. Whats the point in writing a document about civil liberties and the rights of mankind if you could simply just distribute gold to everyone? What does a gold bar have to do with freedom of speech? What does a treasury bond have to do with a states right to make its own laws. LOL at this Koch Brothers sponsored bullshit. Why else to do you think these advertisements appear before random YT videos?

  62. Post
    Author
    VIKDR

    Didn't say only to the party in charge, I said tends. Whichever party's in charge gets more of the funds. This is a fact.
    And your saying that corporations wouldn't hire lobbyists to help create regulations that cause favoritism? Interesting.
    Also a corporation is not a person, but it is run by people. To see how a corporation "thinks" look at the CEO and their Board.
    Bernie Madoff's company didn't go to jail, Madoff did.

  63. Post
    Author
    retardedcore

    Regardless of what word you used, how does that disprove what I was asserting? Why do they need to buy the lobbyist? There are over 13,000 in Washington. The reason I brought up those Presidents is that many of their cabinet members were federally indicted for taking money for government contracts and other corporate fraud related charges. So regardless of the economic realities in America (poverty, a mimum wage that does not adjust to gdp, 11% growth in the wealth of the richest 400 people)

  64. Post
    Author
    retardedcore

    (Continued…) Regardless of the economic reality, The Koch Brothers can pay a libertarian think tank to advertise their message on youtube. Thats what brought me here was an ad before a video. So I think this video is case and point in disproving that Economic Liberties are equal to Civil Liberties. Does the fact that the Kochs are wealthy enough to fund groups like this and Americans for Prosperity give them more civil liberties than a person who makes $15,000 a year and is nearly a consumer?

  65. Post
    Author
    VIKDR

    There are lobbyists working to stop all oil & methane production. The companies shouldn't be allowed to give their side too?
    There are problems with the system, but don't imply only one political group's the problem. (I choose no party myself.)
    Why care about somebody else's wealth? My Wife's been applauded for choosing 40% less income simply to be happier, and I took a similar path costing us more. That's our choice, so we won't blame others, or engage in the politics of envy.

  66. Post
    Author
    retardedcore

    1) If you think industry lobbyists and environmental lobbyist have the same strength in numbers or influence you are truly naive. This is the reason this videos premise is COMPLETE BULLSHIT, economic liberties far outweigh civil liberties, especially in Washington.
    2) The Republicans do themselves no favors in the corporate corruption department (ENRON anyone?) Do I think that Democrats are involved in the same kind of corruption? Absolutely. [see cont..]

  67. Post
    Author
    retardedcore

    [Cont.] 3) I think its very noble that your Wife and yourself have taken less money as a scrupulous or cost saving mechanism. However to tell me that I shouldn't care how much the Kochs make off of chemicals or Mansanto off of manipulating the world's food supply, its irresponsible as a citizen of the world and its irresponsible for someone who works in some form of finance or industry. The more money they receive, the less pieces of pie left for us tiny peasants. Leave me a little slice please?

  68. Post
    Author
    chrisemeryful

    you're asuming the idea in a "Free Market" there can not be a private originization that checks cars or resturants. the opposite of a free market is when it is not private. only a big government politian has a monopoly on doing those things. the us postal service is the worst version of that perticular industry. they are still around only because the govt has a monoply on mail service. otherwise a private corperation would take it, and do it better. (like UPS, Fed Ex did to the package busines)

  69. Post
    Author
    VIKDR

    I try to stay single post.
    1) If your sure, show the numbers.
    2) Again no political affiliation.
    3) We didn't take less pay for "cost cutting". My wife refused a job offer, and I had contacts for a job with a big pay increase. She was happy, and I would have hated the job.
    Someone having wealth does not mean somebody else can't.This misunderstanding keeps people poor, and creates envy.
    Problem is you're seeing "them" as greedy, when it's you being materialistic. They got it, you want it.

  70. Post
    Author
    retardedcore

    Environmental lobbies up their spending ever year and are still outspent 8-fold by Energy companies (Source: USA Today) Its obvious why they do it: the top 8 oil companies are the biggest polluters in the US. (Koch's paid the largest environmental penalty to the EPA ever) It is laughably false to say that there is an infinite amount of money to be had when Billionaires absorb more of the economy every day. Why has wealth increased 11% for the wealthy whilst more people live in poverty than ever?

  71. Post
    Author
    VIKDR

    Your saying even though they paid 8 times more for lobbyists they still paid the highest EPA fine? Waste of money.
    11%? Over 70% of the richest 400 are only on the list once. Most wealth is a temporary, one time event.
    The “more people in poverty” is a myth that's been around so long only the rich should have money.
    But the rich don't have money, they have assets. Their investing and spending puts money in other peoples pockets.
    Try not judging people based on their group.

  72. Post
    Author
  73. Post
    Author
    Dicax

    I encourage you to create, and then live in, this Free Market Utopia where all the roles currently handled by governments is done by private firms. The results of your experiment will be eagerly anticipated!
    P.S. The USPS delivers 3.5B+ packages a year and is gaining market share faster than UPS or Fedex.

  74. Post
    Author
    retardedcore

    Im trying to dispel your view that political dollars don't have a direct effect on the people in lower classes. Most of the examples I presented had to do with Presidential elections not local elections, judiciary elections, etc… And when I state that they paid the the biggest fine ever, that shows that they have a history of environmental abuse and have mostly not been punished. BTW I will look into the poverty myth but the last figure I saw was 46.2 million in 2010/2011 which was a record.

  75. Post
    Author
    retardedcore

    Sorry I didn't mean mostly not been punished, I meant that they had been frequently punished. don't know how I switched that up. Im a little rusty on Youtube debating

  76. Post
    Author
    VIKDR

    Never said political dollars didn't affect the lower class. In fact environmental lobbyists slow down job creation.
    American poverty has bounced between ~11 & 15% since 1965.
    The definition has evolved. Today's poor have what used to be luxuries. Americans don't know true poverty.
    I've had financial difficulty, medical issues/bills. Then I quit blaming others, put all responsibility on me, & everything changed.
    2008 should have devastated us, yet we did better then ever, even with 30% cut in hrs

  77. Post
    Author
    retardedcore

    I agree that the definition of poverty has change in most places around the US. But in rural places like Appalachia and Mississippi real poverty is still mostly the same. A concentrated majority of the people whom live in these areas vote for Republicans, and thus get Republican economic policies, which have lead to the largest transfer of wealth to the upper class in the history of the civilized world. (Look up the CBO study about supply-side economics) Laffer Curve= Bogus.

  78. Post
    Author
    VIKDR

    Again assuming I support Republicans. They are only good after looking at Democrat policies.
    But you fall for the same mistake everyone does, looking at government for the solutions. Let somebody else fix my problems. If only this person or party was in power, I would be better off.
    pointing to a single person or area is not proof. If most people are better off, then that is the right direction.
    Watch this:
    youtube.com/watch?v=vDhcqua3_W8&feature=share&list=PLD78A4CA3338CFA7E

  79. Post
    Author
    retardedcore

    I was citing an example of how people can vote against their own interests, and I was stating areas that are high poverty areas. Thus combining two different subjects we discussed to make one example. BTW I don't believe in a government solution to fix everyones problems,and I never once mentioned that, But it's fair for you to make a jab my way. But do I believe supply-side and austerity are the way to growth? Absolutely not. Simple public policy can function for good every once in a while.

  80. Post
    Author
    VIKDR

    Most complaints about Capitalism is actually about Crony Capitalism, something I do not support, and something Republicans are blamed for, (sometimes justifiably.)
    There has not been a transfer of wealth. It's a misunderstanding of wealth.
    Imagine you spend $100 painting your house, and it's value goes up $1,000. Where did that $900 come from? It was seemingly created out of thin air.
    That is how people get rich, not by taking wealth, but by creating it.
    Focus on assets, not money.

  81. Post
    Author
    retardedcore

    We are on the same page. However I disagree with the logic behind your second point. If high earners are taxed at exceptionally low levels on income and are also taxed extraordinarily low on capital gains, then they are retaining much more of their wealth. It is true that they invest this money, however it is also true that they horde a lot of this money and find creative ways to shield these assets from taxes. This is where Austrian Economics doesn't make sense to me: It leads to stagnation.

  82. Post
    Author
    VIKDR

    The wealthy do not want to have money, they want to have assets.
    There really are only a few things that can be done with money, invest it, save it (bank) spend it, store it (the bed analogy) or destroy it.
    Investing, saving, or spending simply puts that money back into the economy. They don't do the latter 2, and only save what needs to be in the bank.
    Taxes is only a math problem really. The biggest secret to not paying taxes, don't sell the asset.

  83. Post
    Author
    trey davis

    the less laws the better I say , amnesty for illegals , all drugs legal , overturn all these fucked up sex laws

  84. Post
    Author
  85. Post
    Author
    Peppermint

    So if a society prohibits one choosing a mob boss profession, extortionist profession or drug 'merchant' profession then what – there really aren't any real choices of professions and they become hollow, empty illusions?

    Libertarianism shares the same flaws with anarchism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *