Tweet
I think you ought to have a better appreciation for libertarians than to describe what they would do in such simple terms.
NB: I am not a libertarian.
NB: I am not a libertarian.
-
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891 -
A communist/populist revolution would be very, very different from what i'm suggesting. What i'm suggesting is more like a Chavez type policy, except with domestic people instead of foreign people, and with the government not keeping the money for itself...
A communist/populist revolution would affect real capital in this manner, but wouldn't have the monetary effects of this; it would have plenty of its own monetary effects but not for the same reasons as here.<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.Comment
-
Indeed... at least enough appreciation to know how to spell the nameOriginally posted by DanS
I think you ought to have a better appreciation for libertarians than to describe what they would do in such simple terms.
NB: I am not a libertarian.
<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.Comment
-
Libertines, on the other hand...I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891Comment
-
Well theoretically I might recieve a billion for my services as say a pool boy, but I didn't really earn it, even though pool boys earn more than navy officers.Originally posted by Patroklos
Speak for yourself only please.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
No commies use price controls and I don't think anyone would ever try your idea. No offense please.Originally posted by snoopy369
A communist/populist revolution would be very, very different from what i'm suggesting. What i'm suggesting is more like a Chavez type policy, except with domestic people instead of foreign people, and with the government not keeping the money for itself...
A communist/populist revolution would affect real capital in this manner, but wouldn't have the monetary effects of this; it would have plenty of its own monetary effects but not for the same reasons as here.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Are liberterrians like ecoterrorists?Originally posted by Jon Miller
It's what will happen if very liberterrian people get power and funnel more money to the rich (and remove protections from the poor). Then the revolution will come and there will be a large wealth transfer away from the rich.
JMComment
-
Well it's difficult to say, I support getting what you can get, I support using all that money to create more jobs and whatnot, to invest, but it certainly is screwed up to have that much money sitting on few people when there's so many without any money at all. Not sure if the relationship between the mega rich and the poor is dependent and how, but just the thought is pretty weird.
But rich people who testament their money to their pet or something other like that? Now that's horrible. Wouldn't you rather give it to just anyone else? LIke I don't know, when I die, just give it to some folks who don't have any or set up funds or whatever it is, but to just give it away to your pet? That's seriously screwed up.
I understand giving to science, other people, some cause, but ... I mean you'r enot even giving it to your kids or anything. So what the hell? That's wrong.
Also, why give like a billion dollars to your kids? What's the point in that? If you have say, 10 billlion, give 10 million to each kid and the rest, give it away totally. I'd rather have my family name and memory carring that, giving away billions. My kids would be just fine with 10 million each. Even less, 10 mil is still excessive. Make your own damn money, but here, now you're secure and set for life unless you blow it on drugs, in which case giving oyu more would have been even a bigger mistake.In da butt.
"Do not worry if others do not understand you. Instead worry if you do not understand others." - Confucius
THE UNDEFEATED SUPERCITIZEN w:4 t:2 l:1 (DON'T ASK!)
"God is dead" - Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" - God.Comment
-
Re: Charities
I think they are usually less efficient than the government. Gifting to them shouldn't be even tax deductable and inheritance should be taxed 100%.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
After I earn my billions, I want it in paper money to be burned for my funeral pyre.Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...Comment
-
Cool, we can just print more.Originally posted by chegitz guevara
After I earn my billions, I want it in paper money to be burned for my funeral pyre.I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
Yes, but the "wealth" it represented is gone.Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...Comment
-
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Yes, but the "wealth" it represented is gone.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett KavanaughComment
-
This is better than giving it to charity... HOW?Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Yes, but the "wealth" it represented is gone.
-Arriangrog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.Comment
-
Charities are typically significantly more efficient than the government in their particular role. You could argue that the government is better able to allocate money to all roles such that the appropriate roles are adequately filled, but I think that argument would end up digging you a deeper hole
Charities have several advantages:- Localization - US government is top-heavy, with most revenue going to the federal level and a large amount also to the state level; relatively little stays at the city/county level. Charities on the other hand are generally more local, and even large (ie ARC) do a better job of disbursing money on a local level through local chapters.
- Specialization: Charities generally are specialized, meaning they focus on one area. The government, especially the federal government, is typically not as specialized; look the wide variety of things the USDA does, for example, or the FDA, or HHS.
- Quality of participants: Charities generally have better participants/employees than the government, because they draw people who *want* to work on their projects. They may not come as full time employees, but many highly trained specialists in various fields will work with charities in their fields.
- Societal benefits: Contributing to a charity is clearly good for society, as it's money that is not otherwise provided to societal causes. Even if it were not as good as governmental spending, it is something that wasn't there before; and thus it is good. As long as it's close to as good as governmental spending, which it clearly at minimum is, it should be encouraged.
- Discretion: Giving to a charity allows people to give to causes they feel are interesting. People are more likely to give money to a cause they support than a blanket donation to everyone. Thus again, more money is willingly donated to charity than would be voted to government, even if you assume people would support the government taking control over formerly charitable causes.
- Efficiency of operations: Charities are subject to some capitalist/market forces, as often people will donate to the charity they feel gives the most bang for the buck. Therefore, charities have an incentive to be lean (to reduce overhead costs), and to spend their money on effective solutions, rather than politically motivated ones.
I could go on, but then my boss would probably get annoyed at my posting time. Point is, charities are definitely beneficial, and in their areas more so than the government. Certainly there are some things the government should handle, particularly those causes that are not so celebre; but in the areas they operate, charities are very efficient and effective forces for societal good.<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.Comment
Comment