2) Yes, government should derive revenue by charging for services it provides, if any. Oh I see. That makes perfect sense. Honestly (as you said to me before) this is so ridiculous its hard to believe. I suppose ambulances should have credit card readers so you can swipe your card just before they carry you to the hospital? I wonder what happens if for some reason (God forbid) they save your life and you card is declined. I suppose you wouldnt really owe them anything though, since under your anarchist regime there is no law to require you to pay them because the only laws (according to you) are to protect you from harm from other citizens. Your ideas are so nonsensical that if you think about them for more than 60 seconds they start to contradict one another. No law but the one that protects you from others citizens, yet the government can charge for its services....even though there is no law that you have to pay them... I'm sure if I thought about it for another 60 seconds it would be more ludicrous. 3) No, if I don't like someone for whatever reason, that's my business. Unless you're a teacher and you "not liking" a certain student causes you to spend less time working with them. Or if you are a cop (who of course works for free because there aren't any laws requiring us to pay any taxes) who decided he "likes" black people a little more than white people and in doing so is unable to write a bias free report on any incidents involving the 2 races. I'm pretty fond of the whole "all men were created equal" clause in that little thing called the constitution. Of course, according to you we need no such clause, and we don't need the constitution or the bill of rights. After all, our unpaid government wouldn't be able to enforce the availability of those rights because the infractions of said rights don't necessarily "harm a citizen or his property". The government you are advocating seems like a very dark place. 4) Ineffectual doctors or lawyers won't stay in business very long. If they do harm through their incompetence, we have civil procedures. Incompetent doctors would stay in business only until they hurt somebody and the general public learns about it. At which point he will lose all business and, under your laws, be punished for inflicting harm on another citizen. Of course the patient who went to the doctor and is now left paralyzed due to some kind of error is just shit outta luck. I guess for every incompetent doctor and lawyer we have just 1 or 2 injured or malrepresented people walking around. Thats no big deal right?....I mean whats a couple thousand... 5) No. They are our children, not the states. If I want my children to be dumb, that is my choice. Oh so I guess the kid ( along with a lot of other people) is just shit outta luck to. After all it's his fault his parents "want him to be dumb". We should let his sick twisted parents decide his life for him. Works for me. In fact, I'm just going to start having kids one after the other and make them do nothing but my yard work. This way I will have 8 or 9 good workers in a couple years. The best part is when they grow up, they won't know how to read, write add or subtract or function in society so they will have no choice but to work for me for the rest of their lives. I'm starting to like this country of yours. 6) No, but vehicular manslaughter should be dealt with severely. I see. Drunk drivers are perfectly fine...until they kill somebody. But they all have to kill somebody before we take any action against them. Ok.... 8) And who is going to be the thought police? The laws and consequences are what stop those thoughts from turning actions 10) Artificially low interest rates set by the Federal Reserve System, and artificially low risk premia because of implied government guarantees. Completely wrong. How many times has the fed dropped rates in the last year and a half? The rates were dropped to help revive an anemic stock market that was crashing because deregulated companies that everyone thought were solvent were engaging in ridiculously risky financial activities. When these huge are reputable companies started to go under they took whole sectors with them. The fed dropped rates in reaction to deregulated corrupt companies and their affect on the stock market as a whole. Where have you been? There are just too many illogical statements here for me to correct you. You can just go on thinking that it is just to steal from one person to give to another. I guess I could be wrong. But as far as the illogical statement count goes, you are far ahead of me. I'm not even going to get in to the ridiculousness of equating taxes with stealing. I just have one question. Whats the differences between stealing from the poor (higher middle class rates) and giving to the rich (lower upper class rates) and stealing from the rich (higher upper class rates) and giving to the poor (lower middle class rates)? 11) Advisers shape policy, and the president executes it. Semantics. Under this rational the president woud not be allowed to have any advisers of any kind. The president makes the decision and therein lies the difference. 12) Milton Friedman RIP. So they only one better than buffet is dead? I rest my case. You ideas are so radical and anarchist its ridiculous. I may not be correct in all the conclusions I draw, but the ones you are describing are downright scary and unamerican. If you don't like it here, please leave.
You expected that I would agree with you that your conclusions were wrong? Very prescient of you. I did not continue the discussion because you lack certain education and understanding that makes intelligent discourse possible. I don't have the time too explain to you how markets work, why socialism is an inefficient way to allocate resources, and why personal and economic freedom is better than subjugation.
In a free society, the only just laws are those that protect one citizen's person and property from another citizen's aggression. The same concept for free markets: laws are only to protect the legitimacy of contracts and to punish fraud. But what does it mean to "protect"? What constitutes "aggression"? What is a "legitimate" contract? What is "fraud"? If the only just laws are ones that "protect", it also follows that the system that provides this protection should be protected as well should it not? If so that demands some sort of equity. No single person or group of persons can be allowed to grow so powerful that it upsets the balance of power and causes the system to collapse on itself. True or false? Laws and regulations are the direct cause of the current mess, from the Federal Reserve System to the GSE's. To think more regulations (impediments to the free-market mechanism) will fix the problem is incredibly naive. Why is this a better explanation than the other one that it was the lack of regulation that was the direct cause of this current mess? It seems to use less tortured logic.
I expected that you would do exactly what you have done: nothing. Because your conclusions were baseless and ridiculous. You're superior intelligence excuse doesn't fly. You know it, and I know it. You may be smarter than me, probably not (judging by your conclusions above), but its certainly a possibility. However I doubt very sincerely that you are so much more intelligent or so much more educated that your train of thought is beyond my comprehension. Your logic is flawed and its obvious.
Z10, The working class GIVES power to the ruling class. Why is this? The working class abhors education, as a general rule. Please do not confuse training with education. The ruling class embrace education. The working class needs immediate gratification. The ruling class understands long term goals. The working class cannot keep their eye on the ball. The ruling class not only keeps their eye on the ball, they have an interest in the rules of the game. I am sorry Z10, the working class are who they are because they choose to be. Best Regards Oddi
This thread is so good that I am going to keep it at the top. Pabst, you are an admitted racist. But, this is not about skin, this is about traders at the end of the day. As a fellow trader, you are dead on. Best Regards, Oddi
As a fellow black belt in Karate, you have to know that KATA is what makes a black belt in the end. You have to practice! Now, do these people deserve a second chance? If you were in tournament, would you grant them a do over? Best Regards Oddi