Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course. But tourist areas can be a special case. Markets can be such as to indicate that every square inch of available land should be cleared and occupied by high-rise condos. This of course might well kill off much of the tourist interest in the place, but there's no way to go back. Hence localities seek to find ways of balancing growth against preservation. It's a common issue that different areas approach differently.
Which means area A's tax break means that area B does not receive the revenue it would receive in the absence of A's tax break, which certainly is redistributive. Which is a net good thing only if B is not domestic.
It's business and if you lose business it's not a redistribution in the sense that a govt isn't taking money from one of it's people and giving it to others within its jurisdiction
Without a functioning government, then there is no functioning economy. Unless you like tyranny and poverty. This is obvious if you pay any attention to world affairs and history. Even common sense should be adequate. Our founding fathers certainly knew this to be true.
It thoroughly amazes me how ignorant semi-intelligent functional people can be. Open your eyes and think a bit. Consumer capitalism has proven to be the most successful economic system, but only when paired with a strong government and extensive taxes, wage supports, and public benefits. Every developed country does this. Nearly all of them much more than the US. There are a few countries that tax nearly twice as much as the US.
The necessary pre-conditions for free enterprise are a system that establishes, recognizes and enforces property rights and contracts. That's it. Period. Nothing else. "Strong government" (whatever that means), taxes, wage supports, public benefits and all the rest of it are not required.
In our current world the pre-conditions to a free enterprise system happen to have been provided by governments, but there are other possible alternatives that could establish the necessary environment. I suggest people read The Problem Of Political Authority by Michael Huemer for an excellent discussion of the philosophical basis of known forms of government and alternative structures by which societies could organize themselves.
Just because "nearly every developed country" does something does not mean there are not other possible ways of organizing society that don't require government as we think of it today. To suggest otherwise is myopic.
But back to my original point, I was reacting to the tired progrssive proposition that without government free enterprise would not exist. I think you can make the case that without a system that protects property and contract rights free enterprise would be challenged. But the government that progressives are talking about when they make these statements is the government of taxes, wage supports, welfare, and other public benefits. That government would not exist without a successful free enterprise system that first creates the wealth for the government to confiscate.
There wasn't any dependency. It was simply pointed out that the lion's share of public benefits goes to the lion. The lion's public relations department may want you to believe that food stamps and UI benefits are the big slices of the pie here, but we all know better than that, do we not?
But this is only true because we don't actually have a free enterprise system. We've allowed the government to step well beyond the provision of the necessary structures to support free enterprise (property rights and contract law) and engage in all sorts of meddling in the economy. That creates the opportunity for those with power, economic or otherwise, to attempt influence the system to their advantage. If there was no meddling there would be no influence to be bought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Barbara
LOL! All systems have rules. Even the most primitive and indefensible ones. It is the wanton physical and economic terror wrought under the rules of your supposed "free enterprise system" that lead people to write down more civilized rules to protect themselves from base and rapacious exploitation.
Wanton physical and economic terror? Seriously? The best place to look for examples of that is in countries like the U.S.S.R. and communist China, not in countries that have a system of free enterprise.
You also need to accept that it is never "the system" that does these things, it is people. So if you believe that people are so immoral that these things will be done, what basis do you have for believing that giving more power to people in the form of a strong government will not result in the same abuses, now perpetrated under the sanction of said government? History would suggest that the more power over individuals is invested in a government the more these abuses occur.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Barbara
At the beginning, someone needs to define and defend property rights. Someone needs to write and apply contract, commercial, and employment law. It is governments that need to do these things. They do not get done by some imaginary "free enterprise system", and without such forms and laws, no recognizable economy will ever occur. Regulation is the father and mother of proper economic activity.
I more or less agree with the first part. In order for a free enterprise economy to flourish a system that establishes and enforces property rights and contract law is needed. Employment law, not so much - what's needed is covered under contract law. I don't agree that government is the only way to establish such organizing structures in society. See my post above for a good reference if you wish to explore a discussion of such alternatives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Major Barbara
Do you always need to be this evasive? If so, should that not tell you something?
Not being evasive at all, merely pointing out that your statement that businesses are dependent on government to provide water and electricity is false, as there are many instances both historic and in the current time where those utilities are provided by private enterprise. Do you always rely on falsehoods to support your arguments?
I am all for having low taxes. I also believe that while having some kind of progressive elements in the tax system may in some cases be needed, that higher earners should in the end not be brutally punished for making lots of money. However, when I listen to fiscal liberals and people who want higher taxes on higher income earners one thing I often hear them say which makes me want to kill myself is: "Why should the state give the rich more money by lowering taxes on them?".
Ok, for starters everybody knows that not only the rich get to pay higher taxes in the leftist world. Just look at the Scandinavian nations where even normal people are by no means paying low taxes. But what I find to be much more insulting is this notion that lowering taxes is "giving people money".
OK, let's get something straight here. The state DOESN'T OWN ANYTHING that you earn. Every single piece of money that a person earns is that person's money. The fact that the state then takes some of this money, does not change this. If I earn 10 dollars and then the state takes 3 of these dollars via tax, then that doesn't mean the state now owns these 3 dollars. It just means that I have to give 3 of MY dollars to the state. You fallow me so far? Good.
Nope, not following - because you lost me long time ago due to the arrogant premises from which you depart, that you fail to acknowledge, that you pretend you don't understand, or that you simply fail to see due to some atrophied sense of justice you were born with, or simply not that high of an IQ.
Whichever of the above...I no longer follow you.
But you'll find many others to "amen" you along the way though, so you won't be deprived of the "followers" you're fishing for. Have fun.
Time for someone to examine deeply the concept of "make" in the "make money" expression.
I MAKE a whole lot more money than I am paid. So do most regular employees.
I am only PAID a small part of what I bring so those at the top can transfer the rest of what I bring on their own paychecks, business deals, commissions, arrangements settled with a hand-shake and a smile on their, or even worse dividend-spitting investments - and then complain when the state dares to tax the enormous amounts they "EARNED".
NOT.
Funny how they can only EARN such insane amounts when placed at the top of an integrated socio-economic system (aka "the grid") where many other human beings salve away; and funny how they wouldn't been able to "EARN" anywhere close to such amounts in the forest, all by themselves, in isolation from all those "undeserving others" - even though they claim those amounts are the exclusive fruit of their exclusive talent, sweat, work, vision - in one word, AWESOME THEM.
Funny how you didn't catch on that the most immoral and violent redistribution of wealth happens when pay-checks are written, and not when taxes are applied.
Funny how you don't understand the difference between income and capital - the two main sources of wealth.
I suggest people read The Problem Of Political Authority by Michael Huemer for an excellent discussion of the philosophical basis of known forms of government and alternative structures by which societies could organize themselves.
So basically, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" then. By the way, anarcho-capitalism is just as bad as all the other nutcase extremist flavors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnynrat
But back to my original point, I was reacting to the tired progrssive proposition that without government free enterprise would not exist. I think you can make the case that without a system that protects property and contract rights free enterprise would be challenged.
So, you're all about semantics then? Talk about tired!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnynrat
But the government that progressives are talking about when they make these statements is the government of taxes, wage supports, welfare, and other public benefits. That government would not exist without a successful free enterprise system that first creates the wealth for the government to confiscate.
Nonsense. Command economies might not be optimal in very many ways, but they certainly can create wealth for the government to confiscate.
But this is only true because we don't actually have a free enterprise system.
Thankfully.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnynrat
We've allowed the government to step well beyond the provision of the necessary structures to support free enterprise (property rights and contract law) and engage in all sorts of meddling in the economy. That creates the opportunity for those with power, economic or otherwise, to attempt influence the system to their advantage. If there was no meddling there would be no influence to be bought.
No influence? Do you know the meaning opf the word "jejune"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnynrat
Wanton physical and economic terror? Seriously? The best place to look for examples of that is in countries like the U.S.S.R. and communist China, not in countries that have a system of free enterprise.
Read some history. Or some Poli-Sci or Econ. All of the extreme forms of capitalism deal in abusive exploitation of resources for the sake of profit and eventual capital formation. Worship of capital is all that naked capitalism amounts to after all. Without the constraints imposed by a rational government, it is capitalism that is the road to serfdom. And worse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnynrat
You also need to accept that it is never "the system" that does these things, it is people.
So your allusions to the USSR and communist China were pointless, then? It was not their systems that were any sort of problem, but just some bad people who got to running around over there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnynrat
I more or less agree with the first part.
I don't really care what you agree with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cnynrat
Not being evasive at all, merely pointing out that your statement that businesses are dependent on government to provide water and electricity is false, as there are many instances both historic and in the current time where those utilities are provided by private enterprise. Do you always rely on falsehoods to support your arguments?
I always rely on fact and reason to support my arguments. Stupid diversions into the weeds of semantics and argument from the outliers are things that I try to avoid. Not everyone of course shares in a commitment to that sort of methodology.
Without a functioning economy the government would have nobody to collect taxes from, and therefore no means to build roads or attempt to educate children. It is the economy driven by the free enterprise system that enables government to exist in the forms we know of today.
Also, electricity, and in many cases water, are provided by private companies, not by the government.
1. free enterprise system doesn't exist in pretty much any prosperous nation in the world. So that's false.
2. even in instances where private companies do provide electricity or water, they are HIGHLY regulated by the government.
Billionaires pay 15% or less while working people not only pay a lot more, they also contribute more to the economy because all that money that they spend keeps the economy going.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
