Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Then there are the whiny ones.Tell me what is cowardly or heartless in wanting to make any and all decisions accept total responsibility for the results of those decisions and how they affect one's own life?
Seems to me the people who blame everyone else for their failings and failures are the cowards.
A sub species of the sinister type.
?The more responsibility you take away from people, the more irresponsible they become
Some called us whiners for questioning the last admin when they were so clearly fucking things up.
I have to disagree.So says a friend of mine.
What say you?
I have to disagree.So says a friend of mine.
What say you?
It isn't that they don't have hearts, it is more that they are short sighted. For instance, they want to keep every penny they earn and expect to be protected by the military, have clean drinking water, and have decent roads.
mmmm....maybe they are simply retarded?
I've seen self-proclaimed libertarians here claim that they should be allowed to keep 100% of any income earned and declare that a tax on any product is some sort of war on that product.I have to disagree.So says a friend of mine.
What say you?
It isn't that they don't have hearts, it is more that they are short sighted. For instance, they want to keep every penny they earn and expect to be protected by the military, have clean drinking water, and have decent roads.
mmmm....maybe they are simply retarded?
You are obviously simply retarded because no libertarian I know or even on this board has ever advocated no taxes or no government.
What we have advocated is smaller less expensive, less intrusive government and much lower taxes
I have to disagree.So says a friend of mine.
What say you?
It isn't that they don't have hearts, it is more that they are short sighted. For instance, they want to keep every penny they earn and expect to be protected by the military, have clean drinking water, and have decent roads.
mmmm....maybe they are simply retarded?
I've seen self-proclaimed libertarians here claim that they should be allowed to keep 100% of any income earned and declare that a tax on any product is some sort of war on that product.I have to disagree.
It isn't that they don't have hearts, it is more that they are short sighted. For instance, they want to keep every penny they earn and expect to be protected by the military, have clean drinking water, and have decent roads.
mmmm....maybe they are simply retarded?
You are obviously simply retarded because no libertarian I know or even on this board has ever advocated no taxes or no government.
What we have advocated is smaller less expensive, less intrusive government and much lower taxes
What would libertarians be willing to be taxed on?
I know that. But coupled with the claim that a tax on a product is a war on the product, WHAT are you willing to pay taxes on?I've seen self-proclaimed libertarians here claim that they should be allowed to keep 100% of any income earned and declare that a tax on any product is some sort of war on that product.You are obviously simply retarded because no libertarian I know or even on this board has ever advocated no taxes or no government.
What we have advocated is smaller less expensive, less intrusive government and much lower taxes
What would libertarians be willing to be taxed on?
Having no taxes on income is not the same as having no taxes
I know that. But coupled with the claim that a tax on a product is a war on the product, WHAT are you willing to pay taxes on?I've seen self-proclaimed libertarians here claim that they should be allowed to keep 100% of any income earned and declare that a tax on any product is some sort of war on that product.
What would libertarians be willing to be taxed on?
Having no taxes on income is not the same as having no taxes
You aren't totally opposed to income or use tax. Good. Some of your cohorts seem to be.I know that. But coupled with the claim that a tax on a product is a war on the product, WHAT are you willing to pay taxes on?Having no taxes on income is not the same as having no taxes
A tax on a specific product ie tobacco, alcohol, soda etc is not needed. A flat consumption tax like the fair tax would be more acceptable. A flat income tax with no deductions or exemptions would be acceptable
You aren't totally opposed to income or use tax. Good. Some of your cohorts seem to be.I know that. But coupled with the claim that a tax on a product is a war on the product, WHAT are you willing to pay taxes on?
A tax on a specific product ie tobacco, alcohol, soda etc is not needed. A flat consumption tax like the fair tax would be more acceptable. A flat income tax with no deductions or exemptions would be acceptable
The Armey Curve
Borrowing a graphical technique popularized by Arthur Laffer, Representative Richard Armey, an economist by training, developed what he termed the Armey Curve (see Figure 1).1 In a state of anarchy, output per capita is low. Similarly, where all input and output decisions are made by government, output per capita is likewise low. Where there is a mix of private and government decisions on the allocation of resources, however, output often is larger. The output-enhancing features of government dominate when government is very small, and expansions in governmental size are associated with expansions in output. At some point, however, further expansion of government no longer leads to output expansion, as the growth-reducing aspects of government grow larger, and the growth-enhancing features of government diminish. Further expansion of government contributes to economic stagnation and decline.
Why is this so? In a world without government, there is no rule of law, and no protection of property rights. Bullies and strong people can steal the assets of weaker persons with impunity. There is little incentive to save and invest because the threat of expropriation is real and constant. Moreover, without some collective action, there is no protection from bigger bullies, namely foreign nations, or pirates on the high seas. Collective action also facilitates the creation of roads that improve transportation and lower trading costs. Government can also create a reliable medium of exchange, further developing the gains from trade. Thus, the establishment and early growth of government is associated with rising levels of income and positive rates of economic growth.
As governments grow, the law of diminishing returns begins operating. While the construction of roads initially assists output expansion, the construction of secondary roads and upgrading primary roads start to have less added positive impact per dollar spent. Moreover, the taxes and/or borrowing levied to finance government impose increasing burdens. Low tax rates become higher. New taxes, such as income taxes, are added to low consumption levies, with increasingly adverse effects on human economic behavior. Tariffs are raised, thwarting trade. New government spending no longer enhances economic growth.
When government is small, political actions at income redistribution via tax policy or through payments to the poor are modest in magnitude. As transfer payments and progressive taxation grow with increasingly large government, the negative effects of governmental spending magnify. In small amounts, welfare payments help the poor and do not dramatically influence behavior. As the payments grow larger and more comprehensive, they lead to pronounced work disincentive effects. Thus, it is to be expected that as government absorbs an increasingly large percent of national output, incremental spending will actually have an adverse effect on output.
The Armey Curve does not suggest that "all government is bad." To the contrary, some government serves the public good. But like most good things, too much of it is harmful. Just as drinking one glass of wine daily may be good for the drinker's health but drinking 10 glasses is bad, so government in moderation is good for the economy while in excess it is bad. Milton Friedman, comparing the United States and Hong Kong, put it well recently:
Government has an essential role to play in a free and open society. Its average contribution is positive; but I believe that the marginal contribution of going from 15% of the national income to 50% has been negative.....2
You aren't totally opposed to income or use tax. Good. Some of your cohorts seem to be.I know that. But coupled with the claim that a tax on a product is a war on the product, WHAT are you willing to pay taxes on?
A tax on a specific product ie tobacco, alcohol, soda etc is not needed. A flat consumption tax like the fair tax would be more acceptable. A flat income tax with no deductions or exemptions would be acceptable
There is a darker. more sinister type of Libertarian though, who I think typifies the breed. This type can never be trusted.
You're thinking, "Catholics."
I've seen self-proclaimed libertarians here claim that they should be allowed to keep 100% of any income earned and declare that a tax on any product is some sort of war on that product.
What would libertarians be willing to be taxed on?
I've seen self-proclaimed libertarians here claim that they should be allowed to keep 100% of any income earned and declare that a tax on any product is some sort of war on that product.
What would libertarians be willing to be taxed on?
Some of them would wish to be taxed on nothing and go back to the system we had in the 1790's. Obviously the Founding Fathers did believe in some sort of taxes if I do remember reading correctly.
Contrary to popular belief, libertarians are not always in line with the founding fathers.
Contrary to popular belief, libertarians are not always in line with the founding fathers.
Yeah, I would hope you guys wouldn't want to own slaves.