What about my little made up prop firm. Would you want to work there or do you believe that would be a fair way to run one? Please comment on that. Thank you.
See my reply to Rearden. I don't recall saying your system is "so bad". Do you? All I've suggested is that it could be better.
Alfonso i am just trying to deal with the prop firm example because I think people o0n this board can relate to that example better. Do you think my prop firm where I take a percentage of the profits from the good traders and use it to fund the bad traders is good or not? This way everybody wins and you don't have 10% of the guys in the office driving home in their BMW's while 90% are begging for food everyday outside the office.
com'n Maverick, what's up? need reading lessons? read/think before attacking... would help not everyone around here is commited to prove yer dumpa$$
Nolan, did you fax me your application yet. I can't wait to get you on board. I think my prop firm will be a perfect fit for you since you seem to be in the 90% group. LOL.
If alfonso continues to DODGE the question, that will be all the proof we need. Mavericks question is perfectly valid, and encompasses the core of the issue perfectly, but in simpler terms. Socialism is all about wealth distribution. A socialist will agree with Mavericks example of wealth distribution in the office. A capitalist, or anyone who believes in property rights for rational reasons would reject this engineered office enslavement. peace axeman
alfonso:If you disagree, then please prove to me how your preferred system of government is any more "rational"? (Or better yet, try proving to me the propositions of objectivism. I'm not here to argue for objectivism, but I will be happy to show that your position is irrational. I'm here to argue for a more rational government, in line with what our founders created. Oh, so now "more rational government" means "in line with what our founders created". Well, since you brought it up, can you PROVE that what your founders created is the MOST rational form of government? Can you deduce it? Without requiring me to accept axioms? THAT is what I was getting at. So, while you may be correct in a constitutional sense, that is not what I was asking from you. We'll see how correct you are constitutionally in a moment. alfonso:How the hell can you even define what is rational government until you define what the purpose of government is? And in that case, why should I simply accept, axiomatically, your point of view on what the purpose of government is? The purpose of OUR government (USA), is stated in our constitution. Maybe you should go read it. Especially the part under the 5th amendment which states: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Hmm, "without due process of law" huh? So if high estate taxes become legal, where is the constitutional hangup? So as not to get sidetracked too much, remember that you called my high estate tax proposal "irrational". Now, please, do as I asked you, and deduce for me what is "rational" government or deduce for me what is the "rational" purpose for government. If you will not or cannot do so, then please be willing to withdraw your statement about my proposal being irrational, and admit that it is valid competitor in the marketplace of ideas, albeit one that you yourself do not much care for. First of all, I called you a socialist, not a hardline socialist. Secondly, calling yourself pro-business, and pro-capitalist, and then agreeing that very high estate taxes are ok, IS A CONTRADICTION to your very claims. What good is capitalism if the government redistributes the majority of what I earn??? I can call you a SOCIALIST with a straight face, and i'm sure the majority of people who know what socialism is, would agree with me. Your pro-capitalist claim is a facade. Actually, you called me a "diehard" socialist. Now, I can't stop you from calling me anything. But please be aware that what I stand for is quite different from what "socialist" has traditionally, as according to (important) people like Marx and Lenin, actually meant. Being pro business and pro property rights (as I define them) is in no way "contradictory" to capitalism. "Capitalism" is not some sharply defined system which can only function with all its (alleged) parts intact, so that if you removed one the whole thing would come crashing down. My vision is a different form of capitalism (as is yours compared to Switzerland, for eg), but it's not in anyway "contradictory", that is quite absurd. axe:If I TRULY have a right to my property, then I also have a RIGHT to CHOOSE who I give it to when I die. alfonso:Well, tell me then, do you "TRULY" have a right to your property? Can you prove this? Or is another axiom I'm supposed to simply accept "cos I said so"? Ahem.... have you even READ the constitution? Better check the 5th amendment again. We in fact DO have property rights here as guaranteed by our constitution. I'll repeat: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."[/b] Yes, the same as before. You bring in the constitution. But what I am asking you to do is to prove, deductively, that a man has a right -- an undeniable, inalienable right -- to his personal property. Can you do this? Or wouldn't it be much more correct to simply say that humans have learnt, or invented, the concept of personal property? And as such, what it means is alterable, to suit our tastes? Tell me exactly HOW real high estate taxes is NOT taking property for public use WITHOUT just compensation. Here, you are simply wrong. What is the difference between "real high" and the current estate tax levels you already have? If mine are unconstitutional then so are the current ones. (But good luck arguing that in court.) This is a silly argument. Are you saying the law does not apply after death? Are WILLS therefore completely invalid? Give me a break. I could simply sign ALL my property over to my heirs shortly before death. YOU would STILL want to tax it though, because you do NOT believe as our founders, in property rights. "The law"? What law? You current one? Well, that is precisely what I am arguing against. The law itself would need to be changed. I never suggested that my proposals could be implemented under the current legislation. And no, I do believe in property rights, but limited property rights. Is that too much for you to accept? alfonso:If we can make certain alterations to the basic principle of personal property, in order to create a better society, why shouldn't we do it? Because it's not rational. See the common theme here? Whereas the USA focuses on the protection of INDIVIDUAL rights above all, YOU focus on "social" rights. This gets to the core of the argument. This is precisely what makes your a SOCIALIST. Of course, you didn't show why it was irrational, you merely referred me to your constitution and claimed I was in violation of it. And again, that definition of socialist you use is yours alone. It is not what people -- people that know -- mean by the word socialist, in a political context. We are a REPUBLIC because the founders recognized the importance of individual/minority rights over majority rule. alfonso:Well, why do your kids deserve it any more than anyone else? (!?!?!?!) This is beyond absurd and irrational. Do I really need to state the obvious??? They deserve it more because the LAW states that I have property rights and therefore have the RIGHT to CHOOSE who I give my property TO. "Absurd" and "irrational" howls axeman. And why? Because he doesn't like it. That's about as subjective as you can get. And again, you are referring to your law. So I remind you that it is your law that I am suggesting needs to be changed. Oh I see.... so there is a magical # where the LAW, which is SUPPOSED to apply to everyone, suddenly vanishes??? What happened to your claim of a more egalitarian society? I quote: belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for ALL people." I guess this doesn't apply to the RICH? So the current progressive tax rate scheme you currently have is "illegal" then, is it? Of course not. So there would be no problem at all applying higher estate taxes to some than others. The super rich, somehow, magically, should have THEIR rights STRIPPED from them because alfonso says so? No, not "magically". Legally. And not just because alfonso said so either; I do believe in democracy, afterall. axe:Any way you cut it, it does not make any sense and is not a defendable position. alfonso:That is just not true at all. You are completely deluding yourself if you think there will ever be found any "rational" solution to government. It is ALWAYS going to come down to what people think, on an emotional level, is the best thing to do. I see.... so here you admit that your world view is simply based on EMOTIONS instead of logic and reason! Wonderful... I think you just fully conceded the debate. Lmao! So is yours. Hahaha! Axe, for a smart guy, I can't believe that you don't recognise this!
My apgologies, I didn't see where you asked this question. Cute hypothetical. Obviously I would disagree with that. It's the why you're interested in. Well, it's really quite simple, it was the traders themselves that chose to go and trade; presumably being well aware of what attempting to trade means and requires. People born into a political state are not given the choice of participating in life or not. There are certain things in life that we are taught are "required" from us from the moment we are born. There is an entire system that stands already erected into which we are taught and forced -- indirectly, of course -- to live in. And, in the modern world, it almost goes without saying that there will be some kind of system under which we live, therefore all I am suggesting is that we make that system a fairer and more equitable one.
Geez, axeman. Do you think you could give a moment to answer before rushing to claim I'm "dodging"? Thanks!
post the number I'll fax asap along with the rest. Your experience from the 90% group should prove invaluable Throw in the viper, we are moving in tomorrow Promise to keep axeman away and we'll bring the dogs over