Actually no. I'd have killed everyone in the government if they asked me to pay a 102% tax rate.
My sister works for the ATO, I'm sure I can arrange something.*
* - not really as she isn't an accountant.
Actually no. I'd have killed everyone in the government if they asked me to pay a 102% tax rate.
Increasing taxes is almost politically suicidal...
Natural monopolies can be efficient - eg services on a small island - the island is not large enough to support duplication. Only the threat of competition is required.
False assumption. If you actually look at the history of most monopolies, you will find that the leading factor in their formation was undercutting competitors. Given enough time, even within a virtual free market, eventually a single conglomerate would emerge for any industry. If that were not the case, then we would not need protections from price fixing. Using the government can and does facilitate the process, but the belief that the government is the leading factor in the formation of monopolies is baseless.As such, virtually commercial monopolies that exist only do so because they have recieved a substantial amount of government protection or support.
A government is only a monopoly if it asserts itself over an entire industry. The Post Office is an example of a government monopoly over the delivery of mail, but not over the delivery of packages. Fed Ex and other such services compete against the government in that respect.Not to mention you are also neglecting the fact that governments are also monopolies.
Capitalism distributes resources based on desire, not need. As such, socialism is vastly superior in distributing resources for the purpose of building infrastructure and providing public needs such as bridges and levies.Markets don't necessarily yeild the most efficient distribution (how is that even defined anyway?), but it does automatically perform computations of magnitude that are impossible to do through central planning. The ultimate limits aren't even due to lack of computational power, but rather lack of information input.
Or I could do what I already do and vote in representatives to city councils who address the needs on the community level and distribute resources as necessary, like we do anyway. In a pure sense it would not work, because capitalism is far more efficient when it comes to desire based resources.If you want socialism that approaches the efficiency you get with a market based economy, be prepared to give up all of your privacy and spend a large amount of time filling in questionaires.
See my past post where I already said exactly that.Otherwise, one size fits all policies never work effectively on a large scale(see higher suicide rates in comparable countries eg East vs West Germany).
Pure anarcho socialism is restricted to a community level, just as pure anarcho capitalism would be.Socialism might work ok for a family, but it faces major computational problems on larger scales.
A socialistic government can be liberalized.A socialistic government has control over the economy, whereas the alternative does not. How can that not be considered authoritarian?
False assumption. If you actually look at the history of most monopolies, you will find that the leading factor in their formation was undercutting competitors.
Name some large monopolies and we'll see.Using the government can and does facilitate the process, but the belief that the government is the leading factor in the formation of monopolies is baseless.
So you're saying I don't have to obey the law and pay tax? Interesting.A government is only a monopoly if it asserts itself over an entire industry.
The only reason why is because the government is the only one who can get away with stealing the land to do so - eminent domain. Theft is defined as 'the taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.' It doesn't matter if they were compensated, because they were never given a choice in the first place, so it is still theft.Capitalism distributes resources based on desire, not need. As such, socialism is vastly superior in distributing resources for the purpose of building infrastructure and providing public needs such as bridges and levies.
I recommend you read all the posts in the thread.
Or I could do what I already do and vote in representatives to city councils who address the needs on the community level and distribute resources as necessary, like we do anyway.
Capitalism distributes resources based on desire, not need.
The world is a bit of a mess, between global warming, the threat of nuclear disaster, war, poverty, high depression and drug abuse rates in developed countries, I almost think we were better off in the stone age.
So competition ultimately leads to monopolies? This is interesting logic.
If such an enterprise started price gouging, what is to stop a new competitor undercutting them?
Monopoly utilitys providing electricity, water, telephone etc. all took advantage of government support when starting up.
Name some large monopolies and we'll see.
So you're saying I don't have to obey the law and pay tax? Interesting.
The only reason why is because the government is the only one who can get away with stealing the land to do so - eminent domain. Theft is defined as 'the taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent.' It doesn't matter if they were compensated, because they were never given a choice in the first place, so it is still theft.
Firstly, it is not just a question of incentives that is lacking, but the fact that central planning lacks the complexity required to organize effectively. Lacking both information inputs and computational resources.
Secondly, you are aware that Libertarian socialism cannot take advantage of economies of scale, which means such economies will be far worse off than those which do integrate with a larger society. And indeed it is not possible to support the worlds population in such a way. Yet you consider it a viable alternative?
Because the government already does exactly what you want right?
You do realize how large the government would have to be in proportion to the society for it to work well right?
By the way, how do you quantify need? In terms of human happiness.
Do you think if you asked one of the politicians (or local councillors) you have voted for, they would be able to tell you what makes you happy and what you enjoy eating for breakfast?
Wow. I'd have killed someone...
Actually no. I'd have killed everyone in the government if they asked me to pay a 102% tax rate.
How is an unhappy life considered healthy?A need is something that is necessary for humans to live a healthy life
Satya, you may wish to actually consider other peoples points of view in some depth. Rather than stating 'irrelevant' or 'read the thread' because you only have a superficial understanding of the other points of view presented.
Its not a competition and the point isn't to ram your point of view down other peoples throats.
Not everyone lives in the USA, so those specifics don't apply to all cases. Secondly, how is taxation (or regulation etc) not a economic issue? Not that it matters as this was supposed to be a philosophical discussion, which means that the general definition is certainly more useful.
Undercutting competitors only ever works temporarily - you cannot maintain a monopoly this way. Sooner or later someone else will want to grab a slice of the pie and have enough backing to survive the initial period. An excellent example would be the Australian domestic air travel market which used to be an oligopoly.
How is an unhappy life considered healthy?
Satya!! Is your only interest to prove everyone who dissagrees with you, wrong? and make them change opinion so that it fits your own?
Ironically, this is the cause of 90% of our political troubles. Neither party really wants to cut spending, and if you aren't going to raise taxes, that leaves only the option of spending wisely. Right now the country is living like an unsupervised teenage girl with a credit card at the shopping mall.
The only incentive you should ever need is to seek out new life and new civilisations and boldly go where no man has gone before!
I'm sorry. The capitalists were right; I cannot ever be motivated by anything other than money.