The Problem with Socialism

[Jack4jill]

I did? No, dumbfuck. I made the case for regulated capitalism.

Go fight with Bripat, who says the government offers capitalism nothing. And read the fucking thread next time.

Having a government is not necessarily socialism, but statism.

Also, anarcho capitalism is a subset of capitalism.

The world has essentially one economic system, it has mixed-economies. Use capitalism where it works, use socialism were it doesn't.

That's real life, the rest is pie in the sky bullshit.

Socialism doesn't work, period.

I'm completely done with your dogma. Anyone who rejects Adam Smith has no right to even comment on the price of a condom, let alone economic systems.

Where did Adam Smith ever endorse socialism?

He endorsed good government, you dumbfuck. It's required for capitalism only you don't think so because you don't understand capitalism.

 

[bripat9643]

We were more free under the monarchy than we are now. The Monarchy only took 5% of GDP in taxes. The government now takes 45% in taxes. So under democracy we pay 10 times more than we paid under the Monarchy.

The Monarchy had paved roads, bridges, tunnels, electricity, gas, plumbing?
Let's not get carried away comparing 2 centuries ago to today.

The government doesn't pay for electricity, gas and plumbing. Roads, bridges and sewage come to about 1% of GDP.

Nassau County collects lots of money for Permits and Inspections.
The fact is that the living conditions of today cannot be compared to the 1800s.
But 5% did create some damn nice castles and parties.

Living conditions today can't be compared because we benefit from 200 years of technical and economic progress. It has nothing to do with the expansion of government.

Almost everyone I know who lived before FDR would disagree with you rather vehemently.

They would disagree with what? I just said living conditions are better now because of technical and industrial progress. They aren't better because of government.

 

[Jack4jill]

How many Western Nations were Monarchies then, dumbfuck?

How about starting with England, maybe German?

Monarchies in Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We were more free under the monarchy than we are now. The Monarchy only took 5% of GDP in taxes. The government now takes 45% in taxes. So under democracy we pay 10 times more than we paid under the Monarchy.

You don't pay 45% dumbass.

When you add up all local, state and federal taxes, you easily pay that much. 7% state income tax. 25% federal income tax. 13% FICA tax. That right there comes to 45% in taxes. That doesn't include sales tax, property tax, taxes on your cell phone, excise taxes, gasoline taxes and all the other countless taxes various governments impose.

Go ahead, add up all your taxes, it won't be 45%. Not even close.

How Much Do Americans Really Pay in Taxes? - NerdWallet

I just did, moron.

No way. Nothing there shows you paying 45%, which you don't.

 

[Jack4jill]

We were more free under the monarchy than we are now. The Monarchy only took 5% of GDP in taxes. The government now takes 45% in taxes. So under democracy we pay 10 times more than we paid under the Monarchy.

The Monarchy had paved roads, bridges, tunnels, electricity, gas, plumbing?
Let's not get carried away comparing 2 centuries ago to today.

The government doesn't pay for electricity, gas and plumbing. Roads, bridges and sewage come to about 1% of GDP.

Nassau County collects lots of money for Permits and Inspections.
The fact is that the living conditions of today cannot be compared to the 1800s.
But 5% did create some damn nice castles and parties.

Living conditions today can't be compared because we benefit from 200 years of technical and economic progress. It has nothing to do with the expansion of government.

Almost everyone I know who lived before FDR would disagree with you rather vehemently.

Dumbfuck thinks the New Deal was about power, not fixing a country so in the toilet its GNP kept going down each year.

 

[Jack4jill]

I'm sure all those kingdoms will be thrilled to know they were actually libertarian wonderlands? God save the King.

Dude, 100 years ago... not 1000 years ago. Did you take your history in a public school or what?

How many Western Nations were Monarchies then, dumbfuck?

How about starting with England, maybe German?

Monarchies in Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We were more free under the monarchy than we are now. The Monarchy only took 5% of GDP in taxes. The government now takes 45% in taxes. So under democracy we pay 10 times more than we paid under the Monarchy.

You don't pay 45% dumbass.

Figure in all your taxes. Sales, property, state, local, federal, phone and utility. I'll bet it's more than 45%.

You would bet it, and you would be dead fucking wrong, just like you are on most other things.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The problem is never in history has it ever worked and for some reason idiots keep trying it

They keep trying because it is a step in the progression to communism.

 

[MikeK]

The phrase "good government" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing.

[...]

It would be more correct to say there is no such thing as perfect government. But if you review the years between the late '40s and the early '80s, would you not call that an era in which good government prevailed?

 

[bripat9643]

Having a government is not necessarily socialism, but statism.

Also, anarcho capitalism is a subset of capitalism.

The world has essentially one economic system, it has mixed-economies. Use capitalism where it works, use socialism were it doesn't.

That's real life, the rest is pie in the sky bullshit.

Socialism doesn't work, period.

I'm completely done with your dogma. Anyone who rejects Adam Smith has no right to even comment on the price of a condom, let alone economic systems.

Where did Adam Smith ever endorse socialism?

He endorsed good government, you dumbfuck. It's required for capitalism only you don't think so because you don't understand capitalism.

About the only thing he endorsed was a judiciary and police force. Most libertarians acknowledge a need for those government functions, but I don't. People can hire private security, and private arbitration can replace government court systems.

 

[bripat9643]

The phrase "good government" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing.

[...]

It would be more correct to say there is no such thing as perfect government. But if you review the years between the late '40s and the early '80s, would you not call that an era in which good government prevailed?

You must be kidding. We simply didn't notice how corrupt our government was because the Cold War was a bigger concern. The fact that the Truman administration was infested with communist spies should indicate the quality of government in that era.

 

[Jack4jill]

The world has essentially one economic system, it has mixed-economies. Use capitalism where it works, use socialism were it doesn't.

That's real life, the rest is pie in the sky bullshit.

Socialism doesn't work, period.

I'm completely done with your dogma. Anyone who rejects Adam Smith has no right to even comment on the price of a condom, let alone economic systems.

Where did Adam Smith ever endorse socialism?

He endorsed good government, you dumbfuck. It's required for capitalism only you don't think so because you don't understand capitalism.

About the only thing he endorsed was a judiciary and police force. Most libertarians acknowledge a need for those government functions, but I don't.

That is because you are a fucking idiot, who has no understanding of capitalism, as I said.

 

[Jack4jill]

The phrase "good government" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing.

[...]

It would be more correct to say there is no such thing as perfect government. But if you review the years between the late '40s and the early '80s, would you not call that an era in which good government prevailed?

He's a moron so he will not. He believes in anarchy.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

The Monarchy had paved roads, bridges, tunnels, electricity, gas, plumbing?
Let's not get carried away comparing 2 centuries ago to today.

The government doesn't pay for electricity, gas and plumbing. Roads, bridges and sewage come to about 1% of GDP.

Nassau County collects lots of money for Permits and Inspections.
The fact is that the living conditions of today cannot be compared to the 1800s.
But 5% did create some damn nice castles and parties.

Living conditions today can't be compared because we benefit from 200 years of technical and economic progress. It has nothing to do with the expansion of government.

Almost everyone I know who lived before FDR would disagree with you rather vehemently.

They would disagree with what? I just said living conditions are better now because of technical and industrial progress. They aren't better because of government.

They are better in spite of government.

 

[bripat9643]

Socialism doesn't work, period.

I'm completely done with your dogma. Anyone who rejects Adam Smith has no right to even comment on the price of a condom, let alone economic systems.

Where did Adam Smith ever endorse socialism?

He endorsed good government, you dumbfuck. It's required for capitalism only you don't think so because you don't understand capitalism.

About the only thing he endorsed was a judiciary and police force. Most libertarians acknowledge a need for those government functions, but I don't.

That is because you are a fucking idiot, who has no understanding of capitalism, as I said.

Exactly the opposite is the case. I understand capitalism better then almost every member of this forum. The longer a person is a libertarian, the more he tends to migrate towards the anarchist end of the spectrum. That's a natural result of endorsing the non-initiation-of-force principle.

 

[Jack4jill]

I'm completely done with your dogma. Anyone who rejects Adam Smith has no right to even comment on the price of a condom, let alone economic systems.

Where did Adam Smith ever endorse socialism?

He endorsed good government, you dumbfuck. It's required for capitalism only you don't think so because you don't understand capitalism.

About the only thing he endorsed was a judiciary and police force. Most libertarians acknowledge a need for those government functions, but I don't.

That is because you are a fucking idiot, who has no understanding of capitalism, as I said.

Exactly the opposite is the case. I understand capitalism better then almost every member of this forum. The longer a person is a libertarian, the more he tends to migrate towards the anarchist end of the spectrum. That's a natural result of endorsing the non-initiation-of-force principle.

You know absolutely nothing of capitalism, not a fucking thing.

 

[bripat9643]

We were more free under the monarchy than we are now. The Monarchy only took 5% of GDP in taxes. The government now takes 45% in taxes. So under democracy we pay 10 times more than we paid under the Monarchy.

You don't pay 45% dumbass.

When you add up all local, state and federal taxes, you easily pay that much. 7% state income tax. 25% federal income tax. 13% FICA tax. That right there comes to 45% in taxes. That doesn't include sales tax, property tax, taxes on your cell phone, excise taxes, gasoline taxes and all the other countless taxes various governments impose.

Go ahead, add up all your taxes, it won't be 45%. Not even close.

How Much Do Americans Really Pay in Taxes? - NerdWallet

I just did, moron.

No way. Nothing there shows you paying 45%, which you don't.

7% state income tax. 25% federal income tax. 13% FICA tax.

What does that add up to?

 

[MikeK]

Socialism doesn't work, period.

It worked very well in the Scandinavian countries until they were invaded by Muslim refugees. Denmark, an exemplary socialist nation, was known as the "happiest country in the world" until recently.

 

[MikeK]

What word salad...

Which is to say -- what?

 

[Iceweasel]

Dude, 100 years ago... not 1000 years ago. Did you take your history in a public school or what?

How many Western Nations were Monarchies then, dumbfuck?

How about starting with England, maybe German?

Monarchies in Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We were more free under the monarchy than we are now. The Monarchy only took 5% of GDP in taxes. The government now takes 45% in taxes. So under democracy we pay 10 times more than we paid under the Monarchy.

You don't pay 45% dumbass.

Figure in all your taxes. Sales, property, state, local, federal, phone and utility. I'll bet it's more than 45%.

You would bet it, and you would dead fucking wrong, just like you are on most other things.

Oh, look, you typed and some more shit came off your keyboard. What a surprise. Prove me wrong on anything instead of pounding your miniature chest in victory. It makes you look small and stupid.

A Consumer Guide To Taxes: How Much Do You Really Pay In Taxes?
Most Americans complain that taxes are taking a larger bite out of their incomes than ever before. During the month of April, tax-filing time, they complain most bitterly. But do workers really know how much they pay in combined federal, state, and local taxes each year?

In 1960 middle-income Americans paid less than 30 percent of their earnings in local, state, and federal taxes; today that figure is up to 40 percent.[1] Furthermore, many middle- and upper-income families living in the states that have the highest taxes, such as New York and California, pay nearly half their incomes in taxes. High taxes reflect the growth of government, at all levels, in the United States since World War II.[2]

 

[bripat9643]

Socialism doesn't work, period.

It worked very well in the Scandinavian countries until they were invaded by Muslim refugees. Denmark, an exemplary socialist nation, was known as the "happiest country in the world" until recently.

No, actually it didn't work. That's why they are repealing much of it.

The welfare state stifles growth and creates a class of the chronically unemployed. People live with their parents until they are well into their thirties. Many of these countries have rates of unemployment in the 10%-15% range.

 

[Norman]

According to the map not many... and that's of today.... just pointing out that the word doesn't actually have any meaning since.... 1000 years ago?

Besides that, nothing about monarchism prevents libertarianism. So it was a non-argument to begin with.

Where's the King or Queen in this, you dumbfuck?

"Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association, and the primacy of individual judgment.[1][2]

Libertarians generally share a skepticism of authority; however, they diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing political and economic systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling to restrict or even to wholly dissolve coercive social institutions. Rather than embodying a singular, rigid systematic theory or ideology, libertarianism has been applied as an umbrella term to a wide range of sometimes discordant political ideas through modern history."
Libertarianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The King just ordered me to do this or I lose my head, but I'm a libertarian so I'll just ignore him. He won't mind.

You're a fucking idiot.

Where does it say "Can not exist under kings or queens?"

Please, check your IQ before posting, for the love of Christ. Some libertarians in fact advocate for monarchy, because king expands government less than open democracy tends to.

It doesn't need to say it you worthless little shit. If the King says do it or die, you aren't living as a libertarian in any place other than your tiny fucking mind.

There is a difference between kingdom and a tyranny. When is the last time this happened in Sweden? Oh wait, the king doesn't even have such powers.

You are truly retarded.

Name a libertarian state that has a ruler, even an absolute ruler, you dumbfuck? There are none. It's impossible.

Learn what you believe in before talking out your dumb ass about it.

Do you not understand the difference between rules and a ruler?

Democracy has rulers too... libertarianism does not mean the absence of government, minarchism is a branch of libertarianism.

Dude, 100 years ago... not 1000 years ago. Did you take your history in a public school or what?

How many Western Nations were Monarchies then, dumbfuck?

How about starting with England, maybe German?

Monarchies in Europe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We were more free under the monarchy than we are now. The Monarchy only took 5% of GDP in taxes. The government now takes 45% in taxes. So under democracy we pay 10 times more than we paid under the Monarchy.

You don't pay 45% dumbass.

When you add up all local, state and federal taxes, you easily pay that much. 7% state income tax. 25% federal income tax. 13% FICA tax. That right there comes to 45% in taxes. That doesn't include sales tax, property tax, taxes on your cell phone, excise taxes, gasoline taxes and all the other countless taxes various governments impose.

Go ahead, add up all your taxes, it won't be 45%. Not even close.

How Much Do Americans Really Pay in Taxes? - NerdWallet

Given that the government size is about 40 % of GDP and income tax is progressive... the average guy who is on top of his career will have to pay at least 50 % taxes when you add together all the different taxes.