Wealth Tax: Yeah! Why do Warren Buffett and Bill gates need so much money in their Trust?

[Blues Man]

We will need to pay off debt somehow.

yeah, cause thats what would happen

Remember when Income Tax was "temporary"?

"we like this tax so much, lets keep it! And then unconstitutionally add an amendment to the Constitution!"
Murica'. **** yeah!

The corrupt politicians realized that the income tax was a cash cow.

18.6 Trillion in income reported in 2019. You can tax the rich at 100% and never even come close to the tax revenue you can get off the backs of the middle class

 

[struth]

Until the tax starts to creep to include more and more people. And it will.

Do you see any reason why all billionaires should not be taxed into millionaire status?

Yes, because they made a billion, why shouldn't we punish people for making money?

 

[struth]

Like what?

Socialism? Communism?

We all know how well those work don't we?

Capitalism isn't working for billions of people on this planet.
One of the big reasons for its failures is the way it divides society into two unequal classes: owners and workers. Feudalism and slavery divided their societies in a similar fashion: masters and slaver; lords and serfs. Socialism has the potential to bring democracy to the work place, something capitalism can never accomplish.

.

Completely incorrect. Certainly under Capitalism, we have owners, and employees, but under Capitalism, there are no barriers to become an owner. An employee can become an owner, they can own their own property, and the fruits of their labor. Under leftist regimes, socialism, etc We have more of a Middle Age, or slave situation. The State owns everything, not the individual. The individual can never advance, never own their own property, or their fruits of their labor In between Socialism, and Capitalism, there is the infamous "third way" which the left is pushing in the US today. Where, some private industry is allowed to exist, the ones the State allows, so long as they are only working to advance the goals the State wants

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Until the tax starts to creep to include more and more people. And it will.

Do you see any reason why all billionaires should not be taxed into millionaire status?

Right! Why don't we tax millionaires to working class status, Komrade?!

 

[Mac-7]

I propose a single federal tax rate for everyone covering the first dollar earned to the last dollar

No exemptions of any sort for anyone

 

[Andylusion]

We will need to pay off debt somehow.

We need to stop spending---------making billionaires and politicians richer.

I would argue we need to stop cutting taxes and require a tax increase for any spending. We keep cutting taxes so nobody cares about debt. They will care when taxes increase.

Why is it always increase taxes rather than cut spending? If we cut out all the frivolous spending, we wouldn't need to keep raising taxes.

Also, its impossible to pay off the debt as there is more money owed than there is in existence. Every dollar borrowed is borrowed with interest, even if you gave back every dollar that was ever borrowed, you'd still owe the interest, which can only be paid by borrowing more money.

Its an endless cycle that can only be slowed by decreasing the rate of spending.

Because nobody cares about debt without a tax increase. Remember the tea party? They complained and complained about debt until they got tax cuts and then they disappeared. Meanwhile deficits increased drastically. The only way spending cuts will happen is if we get a tax increase and make people care about debt. Nobody cares about debt, they care about taxes.

increasing taxes has never paid down the deficit ....when DC gets more money they spend it and enrich their family friends and allies . the more they get the more they spend the more they spend the more they steal.

But it has. The first Bush increased taxes and that made people care about debt. Deficits drastically increased under Clinton due to this.

Deficits didn't increase under Clinton.

In fact, by Clinton's second term, the deficit was eliminated with billions in surplus.

Clinton raised taxes on the rich when he first came into office. None of the republicans voted for it.

Clinton raised taxes on the rich and cut spending.

He left a balanced budget with billions in surplus and a plan to have the reagan/bush national debt paid off by 2010. He also paid back all the money that had been stolen from the social security fund. Took it out of the red and back into the black.

Too bad the republicans and the bush boy trashed it.

The Republicans are the ones who caused that surplus. Again, you can go read Clinton's proposed budgets, and budget projections. Not one... not even one of them, projected a surplus. Or even a reduction in debt.

In fact, it was only because Bill Clinton's stimulus package in 1993, was shot down as being excessive.

G.O.P. Senators Prevail, Sinking Clinton's Economic Stimulus Bill (Published 1993)

www.nytimes.com

The GOP launched a massive effort to destroy Bill Clinton's massive spending bill in 1992. It was just as excessive as Obama's bill, the only difference was, the Democrats pushed Obama's over spending bill through.

In 1993, smarter people prevented it. Then you claim deficits didn't rise under Clinton? Yeah, because of Republicans.

If not for us, Bill Clinton would have tripled the debt.

Facts over opinion. Sorry, you lose.

And when repubs are in full control deficits increase. See Trump first two years. Neither side is good on this issue.

I would add also see the first 6 years of the bush boy.

That isn't accurate either.

Deficits increased from 2001 to 2004. From 2004 on, the deficits decreased until the sub-prime crash.

 

[hadit]

We will need to pay off debt somehow.

Raise the minimum wage until we can balance the budget.

Props to daniel! Usually his stuff is just inscrutable - but this is flat out funny.

But he believes it, totally and completely, with the fervor of the true believer, he believes it.

 

[Blues Man]

I propose a single federal tax rate for everyone covering the first dollar earned to the last dollar

No exemptions of any sort for anyone

Exactly.

It is the only truly equitable way to tax people.

A national sales tax could also work.

 

[Andylusion]

You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.

So much for "free market" capitalism?

there has never been any such thing

So are you rejecting free market principles? Why?

I am stating a fact. Why do you have a problem with facts?

When the "fact" actually a rhetorical dodge. Yeah. I do

There has never been nor will there ever be an economic system unencumbered by law.

So the **** what? What point were you trying to make with that statement?

Liberals do this shit all the time - usually to justify overbearing government. It's their go-to response when one points out that their plans violate liberty. They say there "has never been nor will there ever be" a perfectly free society. And I respond, as I did to you, with "So the **** what?". Does that mean we should just say "**** freedom" and embrace the all powerful state?

you people like to pretend that there can be some sort of completely lawless form of capitalism.

There can't be. Unless you want a system where contracts are meaningless and businesses have no laws to obey at all that is.

I've never suggested you can have a lawless form of capitalism. In fact, Capitalism requires rule of law.

How can you buy and sell property, unless you have property rights?
You can't even leave home, if there is no rule of law, because everyone would take your stuff the moment you left the house.

So, that's not anything any capitalist has ever said.

What we're against is regulation. What is regulation?

Regulation is a limit on freedom, that isn't a violation of rights.

Do you have a right to force someone to pay you $40/hour? No. A minimum wage, is a violation of the freedom to work for whatever wage you and your employer agree to.

Regulation is saying that my insurance company is no longer allowed to offer me an insurance policy that covers my needs, because you don't like that, and thus the only policies are $350/month.

No one's rights are violated by having a basic policy that covers what I want, for a price I can afford.

Regulations are all bad. I have yet to see a case where regulation is actually needed, and when implemented has not resulted in more harm than good, and almost universally ends up being a benefit for the super rich at the expense of the poor.

 

[Mac-7]

It is the only truly equitable way to tax people.

Unfortunately the progressive tax is enshrined as the only acceptable method

 

[Blues Man]

You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.

So much for "free market" capitalism?

there has never been any such thing

So are you rejecting free market principles? Why?

I am stating a fact. Why do you have a problem with facts?

When the "fact" actually a rhetorical dodge. Yeah. I do

There has never been nor will there ever be an economic system unencumbered by law.

So the **** what? What point were you trying to make with that statement?

Liberals do this shit all the time - usually to justify overbearing government. It's their go-to response when one points out that their plans violate liberty. They say there "has never been nor will there ever be" a perfectly free society. And I respond, as I did to you, with "So the **** what?". Does that mean we should just say "**** freedom" and embrace the all powerful state?

you people like to pretend that there can be some sort of completely lawless form of capitalism.

There can't be. Unless you want a system where contracts are meaningless and businesses have no laws to obey at all that is.

I've never suggested you can have a lawless form of capitalism. In fact, Capitalism requires rule of law.

How can you buy and sell property, unless you have property rights?
You can't even leave home, if there is no rule of law, because everyone would take your stuff the moment you left the house.

So, that's not anything any capitalist has ever said.

What we're against is regulation. What is regulation?

Regulation is a limit on freedom, that isn't a violation of rights.

Do you have a right to force someone to pay you $40/hour? No. A minimum wage, is a violation of the freedom to work for whatever wage you and your employer agree to.

Regulation is saying that my insurance company is no longer allowed to offer me an insurance policy that covers my needs, because you don't like that, and thus the only policies are $350/month.

No one's rights are violated by having a basic policy that covers what I want, for a price I can afford.

Regulations are all bad. I have yet to see a case where regulation is actually needed, and when implemented has not resulted in more harm than good, and almost universally ends up being a benefit for the super rich at the expense of the poor.

All laws are a limit on freedom.

And how about when Glass Steagall was eliminated by Clinton?

Thanks to that deregulation we ended up with a crashed economy and the whole too big to fail scenario.

 

[Mac-7]

A national sales tax could also work.

Only one or the other but not both

 

[Andylusion]

You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.

So much for "free market" capitalism?

there has never been any such thing

So are you rejecting free market principles? Why?

I am stating a fact. Why do you have a problem with facts?

When the "fact" actually a rhetorical dodge. Yeah. I do

There has never been nor will there ever be an economic system unencumbered by law.

So the **** what? What point were you trying to make with that statement?

Liberals do this shit all the time - usually to justify overbearing government. It's their go-to response when one points out that their plans violate liberty. They say there "has never been nor will there ever be" a perfectly free society. And I respond, as I did to you, with "So the **** what?". Does that mean we should just say "**** freedom" and embrace the all powerful state?

you people like to pretend that there can be some sort of completely lawless form of capitalism.

There can't be. Unless you want a system where contracts are meaningless and businesses have no laws to obey at all that is.

I've never suggested you can have a lawless form of capitalism. In fact, Capitalism requires rule of law.

How can you buy and sell property, unless you have property rights?
You can't even leave home, if there is no rule of law, because everyone would take your stuff the moment you left the house.

So, that's not anything any capitalist has ever said.

What we're against is regulation. What is regulation?

Regulation is a limit on freedom, that isn't a violation of rights.

Do you have a right to force someone to pay you $40/hour? No. A minimum wage, is a violation of the freedom to work for whatever wage you and your employer agree to.

Regulation is saying that my insurance company is no longer allowed to offer me an insurance policy that covers my needs, because you don't like that, and thus the only policies are $350/month.

No one's rights are violated by having a basic policy that covers what I want, for a price I can afford.

Regulations are all bad. I have yet to see a case where regulation is actually needed, and when implemented has not resulted in more harm than good, and almost universally ends up being a benefit for the super rich at the expense of the poor.

All laws are a limit on freedom.

And how about when Glass Steagall was eliminated by Clinton?

Thanks to that deregulation we ended up with a crashed economy and the whole too big to fail scenario.

But facts contradict your claim.

Nothing in glass steagal would have prevented any aspect of the sub-prime crash.

First the price bubble started in 1997, two years before the 1999 reform bill, after Freddie Mac signed a deal to secure sub-prime loans through First Union and Bear Stearns.

Second, in 1998, the Clinton administration was suing banks to make bad loans, and we have Andrew Cuomo on camera saying as much, and admitting giving loans to people who did not qualify would result in higher default rates. Which I can give him credit that he was right about that.

If the 1999 banking reform bill had never been passed... absolutely NOTHING about the sub-prime crash would have been even remotely different. Nothing.

Facts over opinion. Thanks.

 

[Blues Man]

You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.

So much for "free market" capitalism?

there has never been any such thing

So are you rejecting free market principles? Why?

I am stating a fact. Why do you have a problem with facts?

When the "fact" actually a rhetorical dodge. Yeah. I do

There has never been nor will there ever be an economic system unencumbered by law.

So the **** what? What point were you trying to make with that statement?

Liberals do this shit all the time - usually to justify overbearing government. It's their go-to response when one points out that their plans violate liberty. They say there "has never been nor will there ever be" a perfectly free society. And I respond, as I did to you, with "So the **** what?". Does that mean we should just say "**** freedom" and embrace the all powerful state?

you people like to pretend that there can be some sort of completely lawless form of capitalism.

There can't be. Unless you want a system where contracts are meaningless and businesses have no laws to obey at all that is.

I've never suggested you can have a lawless form of capitalism. In fact, Capitalism requires rule of law.

How can you buy and sell property, unless you have property rights?
You can't even leave home, if there is no rule of law, because everyone would take your stuff the moment you left the house.

So, that's not anything any capitalist has ever said.

What we're against is regulation. What is regulation?

Regulation is a limit on freedom, that isn't a violation of rights.

Do you have a right to force someone to pay you $40/hour? No. A minimum wage, is a violation of the freedom to work for whatever wage you and your employer agree to.

Regulation is saying that my insurance company is no longer allowed to offer me an insurance policy that covers my needs, because you don't like that, and thus the only policies are $350/month.

No one's rights are violated by having a basic policy that covers what I want, for a price I can afford.

Regulations are all bad. I have yet to see a case where regulation is actually needed, and when implemented has not resulted in more harm than good, and almost universally ends up being a benefit for the super rich at the expense of the poor.

All laws are a limit on freedom.

And how about when Glass Steagall was eliminated by Clinton?

Thanks to that deregulation we ended up with a crashed economy and the whole too big to fail scenario.

But facts contradict your claim.

Nothing in glass steagal would have prevented any aspect of the sub-prime crash.

First the price bubble started in 1997, after Freddie Mac signed a deal to secure sub-prime loans through First Union and Bear Stearns.

Second, in 1998, the Clinton administration was suing banks to make bad loans, and we have him on camera saying as much, and admitting giving loans to people who did not qualify would result in higher default rates. Which I can give him credit that he was right about that.

If the 1999 banking reform bill had never been passed... absolutely NOTHING about the sub-prime crash would have been even remotely different. Nothing.

Facts over opinion. Thanks.

This 1933 Law Would Have Prevented the Financial Crisis

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 separated risky investment banking activity from depositors' funds. Its 1999 repeal led to the 2008 financial crisis.

www.thebalance.com

Glass Steaggall would have kept retail banks, insurance companies and investment firms delineated by very clear lines. Clinton removed those lines

 

[Andylusion]

You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.

So much for "free market" capitalism?

there has never been any such thing

So are you rejecting free market principles? Why?

I am stating a fact. Why do you have a problem with facts?

When the "fact" actually a rhetorical dodge. Yeah. I do

There has never been nor will there ever be an economic system unencumbered by law.

So the **** what? What point were you trying to make with that statement?

Liberals do this shit all the time - usually to justify overbearing government. It's their go-to response when one points out that their plans violate liberty. They say there "has never been nor will there ever be" a perfectly free society. And I respond, as I did to you, with "So the **** what?". Does that mean we should just say "**** freedom" and embrace the all powerful state?

you people like to pretend that there can be some sort of completely lawless form of capitalism.

There can't be. Unless you want a system where contracts are meaningless and businesses have no laws to obey at all that is.

I've never suggested you can have a lawless form of capitalism. In fact, Capitalism requires rule of law.

How can you buy and sell property, unless you have property rights?
You can't even leave home, if there is no rule of law, because everyone would take your stuff the moment you left the house.

So, that's not anything any capitalist has ever said.

What we're against is regulation. What is regulation?

Regulation is a limit on freedom, that isn't a violation of rights.

Do you have a right to force someone to pay you $40/hour? No. A minimum wage, is a violation of the freedom to work for whatever wage you and your employer agree to.

Regulation is saying that my insurance company is no longer allowed to offer me an insurance policy that covers my needs, because you don't like that, and thus the only policies are $350/month.

No one's rights are violated by having a basic policy that covers what I want, for a price I can afford.

Regulations are all bad. I have yet to see a case where regulation is actually needed, and when implemented has not resulted in more harm than good, and almost universally ends up being a benefit for the super rich at the expense of the poor.

All laws are a limit on freedom.

And how about when Glass Steagall was eliminated by Clinton?

Thanks to that deregulation we ended up with a crashed economy and the whole too big to fail scenario.

But not all laws are a limit on rights.

You don't have to violate the rights of other people such as murder.

But I do have the right to do with my property as I please. Meaning, denying service to someone I decide I don't want to serve, is not a violation of your rights.

You don't have a right, to deny my rights and force me to work for you.

Regulation is a law that does not defend rights, but rather violates the rights of the public itself.

 

[Blues Man]

You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.

So much for "free market" capitalism?

there has never been any such thing

So are you rejecting free market principles? Why?

I am stating a fact. Why do you have a problem with facts?

When the "fact" actually a rhetorical dodge. Yeah. I do

There has never been nor will there ever be an economic system unencumbered by law.

So the **** what? What point were you trying to make with that statement?

Liberals do this shit all the time - usually to justify overbearing government. It's their go-to response when one points out that their plans violate liberty. They say there "has never been nor will there ever be" a perfectly free society. And I respond, as I did to you, with "So the **** what?". Does that mean we should just say "**** freedom" and embrace the all powerful state?

you people like to pretend that there can be some sort of completely lawless form of capitalism.

There can't be. Unless you want a system where contracts are meaningless and businesses have no laws to obey at all that is.

I've never suggested you can have a lawless form of capitalism. In fact, Capitalism requires rule of law.

How can you buy and sell property, unless you have property rights?
You can't even leave home, if there is no rule of law, because everyone would take your stuff the moment you left the house.

So, that's not anything any capitalist has ever said.

What we're against is regulation. What is regulation?

Regulation is a limit on freedom, that isn't a violation of rights.

Do you have a right to force someone to pay you $40/hour? No. A minimum wage, is a violation of the freedom to work for whatever wage you and your employer agree to.

Regulation is saying that my insurance company is no longer allowed to offer me an insurance policy that covers my needs, because you don't like that, and thus the only policies are $350/month.

No one's rights are violated by having a basic policy that covers what I want, for a price I can afford.

Regulations are all bad. I have yet to see a case where regulation is actually needed, and when implemented has not resulted in more harm than good, and almost universally ends up being a benefit for the super rich at the expense of the poor.

All laws are a limit on freedom.

And how about when Glass Steagall was eliminated by Clinton?

Thanks to that deregulation we ended up with a crashed economy and the whole too big to fail scenario.

But not all laws are a limit on rights.

You don't have to violate the rights of other people such as murder.

But I do have the right to do with my property as I please. Meaning, denying service to someone I decide I don't want to serve, is not a violation of your rights.

You don't have a right, to deny my rights and force me to work for you.

Regulation is a law that does not defend rights, but rather violates the rights of the public itself.

Don't go changing the narrative.

I said all laws are a limit on freedom.

 

[danielpalos]

We will need to pay off debt somehow.

yeah, cause thats what would happen

Remember when Income Tax was "temporary"?

"we like this tax so much, lets keep it! And then unconstitutionally add an amendment to the Constitution!"
Murica'. **** yeah!

The corrupt politicians realized that the income tax was a cash cow.

18.6 Trillion in income reported in 2019. You can tax the rich at 100% and never even come close to the tax revenue you can get off the backs of the middle class

Raise the minimum wage to collect more tax revenue!

 

[Andylusion]

You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.

So much for "free market" capitalism?

there has never been any such thing

So are you rejecting free market principles? Why?

I am stating a fact. Why do you have a problem with facts?

When the "fact" actually a rhetorical dodge. Yeah. I do

There has never been nor will there ever be an economic system unencumbered by law.

So the **** what? What point were you trying to make with that statement?

Liberals do this shit all the time - usually to justify overbearing government. It's their go-to response when one points out that their plans violate liberty. They say there "has never been nor will there ever be" a perfectly free society. And I respond, as I did to you, with "So the **** what?". Does that mean we should just say "**** freedom" and embrace the all powerful state?

you people like to pretend that there can be some sort of completely lawless form of capitalism.

There can't be. Unless you want a system where contracts are meaningless and businesses have no laws to obey at all that is.

I've never suggested you can have a lawless form of capitalism. In fact, Capitalism requires rule of law.

How can you buy and sell property, unless you have property rights?
You can't even leave home, if there is no rule of law, because everyone would take your stuff the moment you left the house.

So, that's not anything any capitalist has ever said.

What we're against is regulation. What is regulation?

Regulation is a limit on freedom, that isn't a violation of rights.

Do you have a right to force someone to pay you $40/hour? No. A minimum wage, is a violation of the freedom to work for whatever wage you and your employer agree to.

Regulation is saying that my insurance company is no longer allowed to offer me an insurance policy that covers my needs, because you don't like that, and thus the only policies are $350/month.

No one's rights are violated by having a basic policy that covers what I want, for a price I can afford.

Regulations are all bad. I have yet to see a case where regulation is actually needed, and when implemented has not resulted in more harm than good, and almost universally ends up being a benefit for the super rich at the expense of the poor.

All laws are a limit on freedom.

And how about when Glass Steagall was eliminated by Clinton?

Thanks to that deregulation we ended up with a crashed economy and the whole too big to fail scenario.

But facts contradict your claim.

Nothing in glass steagal would have prevented any aspect of the sub-prime crash.

First the price bubble started in 1997, after Freddie Mac signed a deal to secure sub-prime loans through First Union and Bear Stearns.

Second, in 1998, the Clinton administration was suing banks to make bad loans, and we have him on camera saying as much, and admitting giving loans to people who did not qualify would result in higher default rates. Which I can give him credit that he was right about that.

If the 1999 banking reform bill had never been passed... absolutely NOTHING about the sub-prime crash would have been even remotely different. Nothing.

Facts over opinion. Thanks.

This 1933 Law Would Have Prevented the Financial Crisis

The Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 separated risky investment banking activity from depositors' funds. Its 1999 repeal led to the 2008 financial crisis.

www.thebalance.com

Glass Steaggall would have kept retail banks, insurance companies and investment firms delineated by very clear lines. Clinton removed those lines

Right..... So do me a quick favor. List for me all the banks that crash, that what you just wrote would have prevented?

Bear Stearns? Nope. Bear Stearns was an investment bank, and nothing else.

Which financial firm was a combination firm?

Wachavia? Nope. Retail.
Lehman Brothers? Investment.
AIG? Insurance.
Countrywide Financial? Investment.
IndyMac? Retail.

All of those were single purpose companies.

The vast vast vast majority of all the companies that went bankrupt in the sub-prime crash, nearly all would not have been affected by Glass-Steagall.

Ironically your own article basically inadvertently admits it. List all the examples in the article of banks that would have been saved by Glass-Steagall?

They list one example. Citigroup which merged with Travelers Group. You want to know why they don't list dozens of examples? Because there are not dozens. If I remember right, all companies that wanted to be become reclassified a Financial Holdings Companies, and only three companies did, with only citigroup being worth mentioning. The other two did not have any problems during the crash.

Ok, but even then, how exactly would Glass-Steagal prevent the sub-prime crash? The crash was caused by making bad sub-prime loans. Explain specifically how not having the repeal would have prevented bad loans?

Or do you think somehow that bad sub-prime loans will simply not go bad, because Citigroup didn't buy Travelers?

Explain to me exactly how this works. Are banks not going to make bad loans, when the government is taking them to court to make them, simply because they can't buy Travelers insurance?

And here's the real kicker to the entire claim. Did you know that Citigroup spun off Travelers Insurance, in 2002, five years before the crash?

Why didn't that stop the crash? If not having them together would magically prevent the crash, then why didn't it?

The article is wrong. It's that simple. You bought a lie, because you wanted it to be true, and you want to believe that magic regulations will stop every bad thing. It's simply not true.

By the way... Canada has never had such a regulation. Neither has most of Europe. Yet the sub-prime crash originated here?

And by the way, they still don't. So why isn't the rest of the world in a never ending crash? Oh, because it has nothing to do with these regulations at all, and never did.

 

[Andylusion]

You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.

So much for "free market" capitalism?

there has never been any such thing

So are you rejecting free market principles? Why?

I am stating a fact. Why do you have a problem with facts?

When the "fact" actually a rhetorical dodge. Yeah. I do

There has never been nor will there ever be an economic system unencumbered by law.

So the **** what? What point were you trying to make with that statement?

Liberals do this shit all the time - usually to justify overbearing government. It's their go-to response when one points out that their plans violate liberty. They say there "has never been nor will there ever be" a perfectly free society. And I respond, as I did to you, with "So the **** what?". Does that mean we should just say "**** freedom" and embrace the all powerful state?

you people like to pretend that there can be some sort of completely lawless form of capitalism.

There can't be. Unless you want a system where contracts are meaningless and businesses have no laws to obey at all that is.

I've never suggested you can have a lawless form of capitalism. In fact, Capitalism requires rule of law.

How can you buy and sell property, unless you have property rights?
You can't even leave home, if there is no rule of law, because everyone would take your stuff the moment you left the house.

So, that's not anything any capitalist has ever said.

What we're against is regulation. What is regulation?

Regulation is a limit on freedom, that isn't a violation of rights.

Do you have a right to force someone to pay you $40/hour? No. A minimum wage, is a violation of the freedom to work for whatever wage you and your employer agree to.

Regulation is saying that my insurance company is no longer allowed to offer me an insurance policy that covers my needs, because you don't like that, and thus the only policies are $350/month.

No one's rights are violated by having a basic policy that covers what I want, for a price I can afford.

Regulations are all bad. I have yet to see a case where regulation is actually needed, and when implemented has not resulted in more harm than good, and almost universally ends up being a benefit for the super rich at the expense of the poor.

All laws are a limit on freedom.

And how about when Glass Steagall was eliminated by Clinton?

Thanks to that deregulation we ended up with a crashed economy and the whole too big to fail scenario.

But not all laws are a limit on rights.

You don't have to violate the rights of other people such as murder.

But I do have the right to do with my property as I please. Meaning, denying service to someone I decide I don't want to serve, is not a violation of your rights.

You don't have a right, to deny my rights and force me to work for you.

Regulation is a law that does not defend rights, but rather violates the rights of the public itself.

Don't go changing the narrative.

I said all laws are a limit on freedom.

I just disagree with you.

Laws do not limit freedom, but actually expand freedom.



If you don't have laws against murder, are you more free, or less free?

If you don't have laws against stealing, are you more free or less free?

In both cases you are less free. In both cases laws protect your rights, and allow you to be more free.

Regulations reduce freedom.

 

[Blues Man]

You leave out that Clinton's deregulation allowed the entire too big to fail scenario to happen in the first place.

So much for "free market" capitalism?

there has never been any such thing

So are you rejecting free market principles? Why?

I am stating a fact. Why do you have a problem with facts?

When the "fact" actually a rhetorical dodge. Yeah. I do

There has never been nor will there ever be an economic system unencumbered by law.

So the **** what? What point were you trying to make with that statement?

Liberals do this shit all the time - usually to justify overbearing government. It's their go-to response when one points out that their plans violate liberty. They say there "has never been nor will there ever be" a perfectly free society. And I respond, as I did to you, with "So the **** what?". Does that mean we should just say "**** freedom" and embrace the all powerful state?

you people like to pretend that there can be some sort of completely lawless form of capitalism.

There can't be. Unless you want a system where contracts are meaningless and businesses have no laws to obey at all that is.

I've never suggested you can have a lawless form of capitalism. In fact, Capitalism requires rule of law.

How can you buy and sell property, unless you have property rights?
You can't even leave home, if there is no rule of law, because everyone would take your stuff the moment you left the house.

So, that's not anything any capitalist has ever said.

What we're against is regulation. What is regulation?

Regulation is a limit on freedom, that isn't a violation of rights.

Do you have a right to force someone to pay you $40/hour? No. A minimum wage, is a violation of the freedom to work for whatever wage you and your employer agree to.

Regulation is saying that my insurance company is no longer allowed to offer me an insurance policy that covers my needs, because you don't like that, and thus the only policies are $350/month.

No one's rights are violated by having a basic policy that covers what I want, for a price I can afford.

Regulations are all bad. I have yet to see a case where regulation is actually needed, and when implemented has not resulted in more harm than good, and almost universally ends up being a benefit for the super rich at the expense of the poor.

All laws are a limit on freedom.

And how about when Glass Steagall was eliminated by Clinton?

Thanks to that deregulation we ended up with a crashed economy and the whole too big to fail scenario.

But not all laws are a limit on rights.

You don't have to violate the rights of other people such as murder.

But I do have the right to do with my property as I please. Meaning, denying service to someone I decide I don't want to serve, is not a violation of your rights.

You don't have a right, to deny my rights and force me to work for you.

Regulation is a law that does not defend rights, but rather violates the rights of the public itself.

Don't go changing the narrative.

I said all laws are a limit on freedom.

I just disagree with you.

Laws do not limit freedom, but actually expand freedom.



If you don't have laws against murder, are you more free, or less free?

If you don't have laws against stealing, are you more free or less free?

In both cases you are less free. In both cases laws protect your rights, and allow you to be more free.

Regulations reduce freedom.

You're quibbling over semantics.

All laws are nothing but regulations of one sort or another.

So it's a distinction without a difference.