[Kruppe's snacky cakes]

High tax areas don't necessarily offer better services than low tax areas. In fact, the necessity of the high taxes may be an indicator of inefficiency and waste. I'm reminded of how easy it was for me to collect unemployment benefits in my former home state of Texas (which has no income tax) vs. my uncle's inability to collect in Illinois (and he also has traumatic-brain-injury, which means he ought to qualify for early social security, but no dice on that either...).

On the other hand, the implication that some places make up for low taxes with higher fees (tolls, etc.) is quite correct, in my experience.

[Jagh-o-matic]

Illuyankas, on 11 June 2013 - 02:43 PM, said:

I don't know, I mean, Taxachusetts sounds like it'll have, you know, infrastructure? Healthcare? Services? Whereas Libertariopia Nontaxistan with its privatised everything and lack of regulations for things like water and food and medical care means I'll have spent what I pay in taxes by the third road toll for corporate streets on the way to Wal-Doc Hospital #217 to sell a kidney to pay for the mercury poisoning treatment my kids will need from drinking a glass of tap water.

Firing half your staff, cutting the rest's wages and doubling their workload is legal. AND SHITTY AS FUCK. And yeah, if it came down to picking between the same job in France or Somalia, just hand me my fucking beret! I would pick the taxes one because I'm not a selfish shitlord and no man is an island. The system is broken, so clearly exploiting it is the right thing to do? To hell with that.

Questions for you, O Unselfish One:


Do you believe that factors like greed, corruption, exploitation, duplicity, etc. are more or less present in a government/public service setting as compared to a private business setting?

Do you believe that regulatory bureaucracies stand as a benign bulwark against rapacious profiteers by their very nature?

Do you believe that the interests of those employed by government are fundamentally different from those employed privately?

What do you make of a system in which a class of workers are required to remit a portion of their pay to intermediaries who in turn use this money to promote the political fortunes of yet others who work to ensure that the people as a whole are required to remit a portion of their pay to the employer of the group of workers, thereby ensuring the security of the workers? Are the people adequately represented in such a system?

Do you believe that an organization created by legislative action for the stated purpose of enforcing various rules upon the people answers to the people? Which people?

If you were interested in accumulating economic power over your fellow man, how would you go about it? At a basic level, you might hire some goons to physically coerce everyone into playing the game by your rules. In a more complex and sophisticated society, might it not be practical to use your influence to proclaim rules through legislative and administrative bodies that have already been politically sanctioned as acceptable wielders of force?

Where do wages come from? Who carries the responsibility to ensure that they are delivered in the expected quantities? Are there any benefits to a system in which the ability to pay wages is earned by inducing others to voluntarily trade money for goods and services in a mutual exchange of value, as opposed to a system in which services are provided and the people are induced to trade money by threat of criminal prosecution?

[Illuyankas]

Less present, the myth that government is automatically less efficient that private enterprise is terrible and untrue

If they weren't undercut and corrupt, lobbying is one of the worst things permitted in any bureaucracy

Yes because profit at all costs isn't number fucking one priority

Man is this a screed against taxes being used to subsidise and bail out shitty mismanaged companies or what

As bad as the police are do you seriously want Robocop to happen in real life man - oh shit it actually is

Shame every single instance of a public service being privatised has lead to it becoming massively inefficent with skyrocketing prices and inferior service leading only to the business owners pocketing massive profits to the detriment of everyone else, see the USPS being throttled yet still being superior to Fedex and so on, G4S's many noted failures as a private security company, or water and rail in the UK, particularly the study that revealed the sole government-owned railroad remaining is fantastically better at saving money while running so of course they're selling it off because our government is being run by neoliberal shits following the same terrible policies that freed the very richest to get even richer etc you've stopped listening here because you think I'm saying 1% and so on - oh, and 'by your rules' aka why am I getting fined for cutting costs on safety to provide an crappy dangerous product to earn 0.0001% extra per annum for 5 people this is communism!

Mutual value? Ha! In your libertarian utopia people will be paid under the minimum required to survive and prices on everything will be higher than they can afford because that's how capitalism works, else there would be no need for a minimum wage at all. The free market is not a rising tide, it's a tidal wave, and most of us are in dingies we're trying to tie together and build into sturdier craft, while you'd prefer the connections not get in the way of the ocean liner the capitalists are on. Libertarians just seem inherently self-centred to me, pretending society does nothing OH GOD MY SOCIALISM IS SHOWING

[Jagh-o-matic]

Illuyankas, on 11 June 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

Man is this a screed against taxes being used to subsidise and bail out shitty mismanaged companies or what

Actually, it was supposed to be a screed against public employee unions but it does work quite well in the context you raise. Corporate bailouts are an absolute travesty.

In sum, it seems we have a fair mix of agreement and disagreement. Most particularly, your last paragraph finds me scratching my head. Mutually beneficial exchanges of goods and services, however circumscribed, are the human economy. I happen to believe that capitalism is a powerful force for good, but it is only one tool in the tool box.

I do not subscribe to any libertarian utopia. I believe that human societies represent a complex shifting of equilibriums analogous to the surface of the ocean. Any idealized and absolute political philosophy is to my mind a dangerous recipe for murder and enslavement. The reason I espouse libertarian ideas today is not because I wish to live in a libertarian utopia. It is because I perceive a need to move the center of gravity in a libertarian direction from where it currently resides in order to achieve a more optimal balance of forces. If things go too far in that direction, I will be happy to lean the other way.

In defining the "optimal balance of forces" I do not pretend to know what is the greater good. I am guided by personal preference and conscience. What world do I want to live in? I know that myself as absolute dictator would not be the best predictor of achieving the greatest good. I prefer to have faith in our collective wisdom, as difficult as that faith is to maintain most days.

And I really need to get back to work.

[Shinrei]

Illy, I know it's not in your nature to calm down

but seriously, no one is advocating some sort of dog eat dog every man for themself where businesses can do no wrong and infrastructure doesn't exist. There is no such thing as a liberarian utopia and I, for one, am not some raving fanatic.* By raising that bogeyman in these debates, it feels like you're trolling.








*although I cannot speak for nico

[Illuyankas]

I was rushing to get ready for work for part of that post (the parts without punctuation basically) otherwise it'd be less in your face (mildly) but honestly? That sort of situation is genuinely a possiblity for the future with the current entities that exist in the political landscape today. We both have several flavours of right wing parties ruining things further, after all, with no realistic alternatives. And the rich will only push harder and harder as resistance decreases.

And Jagh, while I view capitalism as a broken and inherently unstable system (one of my favourite quotes about this comes from a much further leftwing friend and goes "You say communism only works on paper? Capitalism doesn't even do that") that's used to exploit the powerless constantly and with ease, and unions as almost essential to combat said broken system (seriously you wouldn't have weekends or a max cap on hours per week without them, don't diss the concept of unions at all) which is retarding the ability to reform current union rules and policies to reduce abuse without gutting them or messing everyone involved around, I appear to be aiming at a point somewhat further right of you who probably doesn't exist on this forum but who does in other internet places I frequent, so go go gadget instinct I guess.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

To say you guys have gone off topic would be an understatement. Should transgender abortions be allowed to use automatic clean needles provided for free by totalitarian oil company profits?

[Jagh-o-matic]

Spoilsport Stonny, on 12 June 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

To say you guys have gone off topic would be an understatement. Should transgender abortions be allowed to use automatic clean needles provided for free by totalitarian oil company profits?

We're just getting to know each other a little bit. I disapprove of transgender abortions on principle. I'm not sure what they are, but they sound bad.

[Illuyankas]

Absolutely. Men who need abortions deserve as much access to them as women do. Even if they're pulling an Amazon and not paying their taxes, as healthcare is totally a right, not a privilege.

So, any updates on the situation?

[Una]

Spoilsport Stonny, on 12 June 2013 - 04:19 PM, said:

To say you guys have gone off topic would be an understatement. Should transgender abortions be allowed to use automatic clean needles provided for free by totalitarian oil company profits?

I'm going to say yes, but only because abortions of any sort should ALWAYS be performed with clean needles only and I don't care what has to be done to make it so.

[Spoilsport Stonny]

You guys are awesome. Lets drink beer together.

Illy: No sir, no updates to this yet, although I did see that the French minister was in Silicon valley saying the same things the next day.

http://www.totaltele....aspx?ID=481633

Here is a blog post from the ultra-conservative and very pro-capitalist blog Hot Air, which may give you,Illy, cancer if you hang out there too long. Jagh-O may like it though.

http://hotair.com/ar...s-is-loving-it/

[Jagh-o-matic]

Hot Air is a go-to site for me. It's why I'm so indoctrinated.

[Illuyankas]

Open tab, pop up with 'Should Sarah Palin run for senate', close tab.

[Morgoth]

Some of our most efficient companies are state run. Some of our most efficient companies are privately run. I've worked in both the private and public sector and encountered about the same amount of incompetence and inefficiency in both.

So it's clear that we really should just resubmit to the authority of the Pope.

[sting01]

Spoilsport Stonny, on 07 June 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:

I think that since France is the 5th largest economy aqnd that they have a worldwide presence that anyone around the world has a right to comment on their failed ideologies. Was he snarky? Yeah, but his point (I think) is that making laws inhibiting an international discount online retailer, whether good or bad, doesn't distract from their increasing loss of industrial competitiveness, bewildering tax and social security burden, excessive regulation and an ever increasing lower class consisting mostly of poor and unskilled immigrants. Also, you gotta admit, the French National anthem is a tad xenophobic.

None of which excuses the good ol' US of A of anything.

Xenophobic? No way, please check the Oxford dictionary, and you will learn we are simply ARROGANT. Quite a difference, but understandable when you check history.

Anyway, I was not trying to look down on the good old USA, but pointing out a very fact (and saddly facts tend to stay true, even when we are 7 feet under!) : A man' house is its own castle! ( I do believe that is a tenant of civil law in USA , and in many countries). So if my (yes I am french) government decide to ban this or that, who in the name of God have the right to say something against it, but the very citizens of France! Such a thing is defined as democratie since ... The Spirits of the Laws, and I do believe that book was the very foundation many of your founding fathers based your constitution on.

Notice, the very same (because it is a fact) apply to me, who am I in the name of God, if I was daring to protest against a decision taken by the US federal government related to an internal problem. I would never ever protest against the way the native americans are treated, neither on the law (recently abolished) making use of french by the 'bayou people and other cajun' illegal, I would never ever protest because your enacted (long time aoblished) a law against the production, selling and consomption of alcohol ... and so on, and so on.

What I was protesting against was more simple, culture in France is understood differently, many of it is free of access (museum, librairy) or with a symbolic obol as paiement. But nothing is free, it is because some of the tax payers money is reserved for that, so protecting the book shops is simply protected the right of each and every citizen to access freely and without cost to the very basic of culture (free Brahms concert, rent 3 books per week for free, new artists being paid by the state, or having their cretion bought by the state ....).

I, now, do undertand Amazon is US, so doing so will hurt (lol) american workers, and not allow them to have the famous christian anglo saxon way of life; first did France being a big market for Amazon, assuming almost there noboddy read english (maybe a quarter of the population would do so), assuming also most of Amazon benefits are not given to the workers, but are usually reversed to the shareholders (after debts and taxes are paid).

For what it is worth, I do hope people to understand I was fighting only against the attack made to an elected government, and the very concept everybody want to be like USA. Respect of others, respect of their institutions, respect of the leaders they have choosed for themself are the very basic and the only tenants of "International Relations", and I was fighting for that. Perso, having the displeasure to know personaly the current French President, The former one, and even Miss Royal (ex gf of the current President), considering them as dumb as***ho***les , I was not, I am not and I will not fight for them.

[Morgoth]

"My government banned women from voting and initiated forced sterilization for children of other faiths. Who but our own citizens have the right to critize such measures?"

The very idea that criticism is limited to the citizens of the country in question is several levels of retarded, and is certainly not a founding tenant of democracy.

[sting01]

Morgoth, on 20 June 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

"My government banned women from voting and initiated forced sterilization for children of other faiths. Who but our own citizens have the right to critize such measures?"

The very idea that criticism is limited to the citizens of the country in question is several levels of retarded, and is certainly not a founding tenant of democracy.

Well, that is a bit extreme, it is not? And maybe it is also borderline with what I was saying : Internal affairs. Banning women from voting is indeed internal, sterilization of other faiths believer is NOT.

Every countries in the world have adhered (spelling?) to the UN charter, that document make a clear distinguo btw what belongst to the human race in a whole (Each and every human being is born free. Each and every human being have the imprescritible right to workship whatever please him, and so and so .... etc .... und so weiter ... vousconnaissez la suite). Tax collections on the other hand is the duty of the respective governments, most of them being elected or discarded on that subject by their own citizens; is that right or wrong?

What do I feel when I hear some of the poster here, I did felt it in the past during Desert Storm 2; when some americains called me 'anti patriotic' because I expressing my doubts with regards to the goals of this operation. I believe they simply forget I was not a US citizen; while it was normal they support their own government, it was also normal I support mine. Both attitude (in fact that is the same) is patriotic. Happily here that is not the same discussion, but I fear some reactions are similar.

Private business does not live outerworld, they must (as everyone) bow to the laws of the country they are working in. If not, they must move somewhere else. That is one of the very tenant of capitalism ...

[Jagh-o-matic]

ten·ant
/ˈtenənt/
Noun
A person who occupies land or property rented from a landlord.


ten·et
/ˈtenit/
Noun
A principle or belief, esp. one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy.

[Morgoth]

sting01, on 21 June 2013 - 05:07 AM, said:

Morgoth, on 20 June 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

"My government banned women from voting and initiated forced sterilization for children of other faiths. Who but our own citizens have the right to critize such measures?"

The very idea that criticism is limited to the citizens of the country in question is several levels of retarded, and is certainly not a founding tenant of democracy.

Well, that is a bit extreme, it is not? And maybe it is also borderline with what I was saying : Internal affairs. Banning women from voting is indeed internal, sterilization of other faiths believer is NOT.

Every countries in the world have adhered (spelling?) to the UN charter, that document make a clear distinguo btw what belongst to the human race in a whole (Each and every human being is born free. Each and every human being have the imprescritible right to workship whatever please him, and so and so .... etc .... und so weiter ... vousconnaissez la suite). Tax collections on the other hand is the duty of the respective governments, most of them being elected or discarded on that subject by their own citizens; is that right or wrong?

What do I feel when I hear some of the poster here, I did felt it in the past during Desert Storm 2; when some americains called me 'anti patriotic' because I expressing my doubts with regards to the goals of this operation. I believe they simply forget I was not a US citizen; while it was normal they support their own government, it was also normal I support mine. Both attitude (in fact that is the same) is patriotic. Happily here that is not the same discussion, but I fear some reactions are similar.

Private business does not live outerworld, they must (as everyone) bow to the laws of the country they are working in. If not, they must move somewhere else. That is one of the very tenant of capitalism ...

I think you are a little confused here, and to be perfectly honest I'm not entirely sure what it is that you're trying to express. Anti patriotic and Iraq invasions? What?

To me it seems that you are groping for reasons to avoid having to consider criticism that makes you feel uncomfortable. It’s much easier, after all, to simply shrug away the opinions of others because they’re not French, rather than actually consider what they say and question whether there is some truth to it all. It can be painful to examine ones own opinions. It’s an understandable human reaction, and has been applied I am sure, ever since our ancestors learned to stick their fingers in their ears.

It is, however, irrational. The very premise itself, that criticism is somehow limited to citizens, is in my opinion entirely retarded. Alas, I’m guessing that’s not enough for you, so I’m going to approach this on the premise that is not, in fact, retarded – though it is.

You’ve been trying to create some sort of limits as to what kind of criticism of a country is allowed for people living outside the country in question. Previously it was everything, now it seems, it is all things not covered by international treaties. Which treaties? Do you limit this at all? Taxes fall quite squarely within the EU framework. As does most other things in one way or the other, but I’m assuming (entirely without basis I am sure) that you’re not too familiar with the ECJ, or for that matter the ECHR. So I guess all members of the EU and the European Council have the right to criticism of France then, no? But what about Switzerland? They have all sorts of treaties in place with France. In what way is their ability to criticize limited? Do we need to make some sort of guide for each individual country as to what aspects of another country they can criticize? A flowchart perhaps, detailing the web of treaties? Norway has a tax-treaty with France, so does that mean that I am allowed to criticize French tax policy? Or what if I open an office of my (fictional) company in France. Do I now have the right to make comments on French laws of employment? Do I lose this right if I go bankrupt?

This is getting pretty complicated.

It’s an easy thing to miss, but our world these days is very much interconnected. There’s the EU, of which you’ve no doubt heard, NATO, the UN, EFTA, trade treaties, tax treaties, Schengen, not to mention the internet and everything that brings along to the table. I am directly influenced by the choices of France as I am directly influenced by the choices of the US, England or Sweden. If Nigeria changed their import policies to be a little less aimed to generate the maximum amount of bribes that would affect me too. If France decides to place limits on Amazon’s access to its markets, that too influences me, as it influences most people in the western world. It might not be something you’d notice on your own, but the influence is there.

Now, I’m not saying that what the French are doing in this instance is right or wrong. I’m saying that your refusal to accept criticism from people outside of France on the issue is born, not out of adherence to an ideological position, but a deep rooted fear of examining your own beliefs. It’s a rather glaring flaw of character, and not something I would have thought deserved being waved around as an expression of patriotic pride.

[stone monkey]

sting01, on 21 June 2013 - 05:07 AM, said:

What do I feel when I hear some of the poster here, I did felt it in the past during Desert Storm 2; when some americains called me 'anti patriotic' because I expressing my doubts with regards to the goals of this operation. I believe they simply forget I was not a US citizen; while it was normal they support their own government, it was also normal I support mine. Both attitude (in fact that is the same) is patriotic. Happily here that is not the same discussion, but I fear some reactions are similar.

Really? So you vote for the incumbent government every time? That's a bit... odd.

Now, if you mean that you will always support your own country against foreign criticism even if those foreign critics have a point then your priorities are a bit out of whack, I should think. Hell, I don't support my own government all the time (rarely, in fact) and I work for them! To my mind; patriotism, as the quote goes, is the last refuge of a scoundrel.