scudco

By sending them to die in foreign(for them and the US) wars? I'm reminded of the scene in Gangs of New York where Amsterdam is getting off the ship and the Army is there enlisting people right on the dock.

I think this kind of policy reeks of Imperialism.

Krugman shilling for Keynesian get-rich-quick schemes and insisting that what Obama(read The Executive Branch) needs is simply more power to spend our way out of The Greater Depression? Say it ain't so!

All kidding aside Krugman accurately points out that the Republicans are simply posturing themselves as "champions of careful Congressional deliberation." The big problem I find with his line of thinking, however, is that he assumes Obama is not posturing himself as the "champion of quick and decisive action." Krugman further magnifies his blind-spot in the following excerpt:

"The biggest problem facing the Obama plan, however, is likely to be the demand of many politicians for proof that the benefits of the proposed public spending justify its costs — a burden of proof never imposed on proposals for tax cuts."

That is, we are likely going to be unable to spend our way out of this mess because people are unsure about this whole magical plan that spending and printing money will actually be a viable plan toward recovery. Secondly he firmly plants his flag in statist territory by insisting that tax cuts are never held to this same standard. By this he seems to be suggesting that when government spends money what rulers need is nearly carte-blanche ability to spend as they see fit; but when we want to steal less from citizens then we had better have some careful deliberation that this tax cut is going to positively effect them!

I hope to not be "that guy" but wasn't this plumber's ultimate motivation money? I mean he was out of it and needed it. He was willing to work at a loss(or lower profit) so he could get business. He innovated and won. If he had had customers immediately then is he suggesting that his motivation would've been the love of money? Given his track record of honesty I would guess not.

I hope no one gave him this cliche as literal advice as he mentions in the first section. The first time I heard this cliche the first thought that popped into my head was, "That's a fun way to describe why programmers are always 'thinking out' ways to make tasks more 'efficient and maintainable.'"

I'm curious to know how other people understood this cliche when they first heard it.

I tend to think "economies of scale" or simply economics is a very difficult thing to understand. Governmental economic policy, whatever it may be, is the implicit practice of saying "We, the chosen few, understand one of the most complex things in the world and we will control it for you." I'm pessimistic of anyone claiming omniscience in something so complex whether they are an individual or a mouthpiece for a group of people.

Order in economy tends to come about more quickly and more judiciously when government is not involved. Corporations though they may finance or have interests in a warfare state are only allowed to exercise power through the fictitious legitimacy of the state. If Joe's Diner went to war with Bob's Diner we quickly see the cost of war. They are both out of business because war is expensive. Not to mention ordinary folks would not say to themselves, "Well Joe over here is fighting for my rights! Support The Troops (of Joe's Diner)!" This, of course, is ridiculous.

So this is why we need taxes? Warfare or welfare. I would rather be peaceful and sleep at night. I would rather trade with my neighbors than impoverish them through blockades, embargoes, or whatever else the government can only do through force of arms.

I notice you are very strident about what taxes must be used for, but my whole point on taxes is that if we MUST have these things then let us do them voluntarily through cooperative efforts. If you and I both want an organization to achieve goal X let us get together and achieve that goal. If someone doesn't want to help us out then let's try to convince them we're right not through force of arms(taxation), but through discussion and friendship. Be peaceful.

I think you might do well to study Winston Churchill's policies during and leading up to World War II. He and FDR both colluded to embolden western government to become more interventionist and war-like. I have heard that quote before, but I would challenge you, seriously, to consider a world without government. Start small with a family, then a city, then a region, then a continent. At what point does government intervention by force of arms against peaceful non-compliers become okay? I only ask that you answer that question for yourself.

Am I leeching off the state or is the state leeching off its citizens? I did not go to public school, but the state still told my school what they must teach to be considered legitimate. I have been to a hospital. I have driven on a road in a car, on a motorcycle, on a moped, on a bicycle and I have even walked on roads. I am using the PG&E power grid as I type this. And, of course, I am using the internet to respond to your post.

I replied to this kind of thinking in another post in this comment thread, but I do not have a choice in the matter as to whose roads I use if I wish to go from place to another because they are monopolized by government. I would like it if the government did not have monopoly control over things, but I do not deny that they have control. It may be of some consolation to you that I pay and have paid taxes in the past. The government, in my mind, is simply "a gang of thieves writ large" as Murray Rothbard once said. They provide services but they can only do so by monopolizing the service they provide and _taking_ other peoples money to finance the administration of that service.

If you can rob a bank peacefully I would very much like to see that for the sake of argument.

What if I want to simply secede from the government entirely?

To your final point, though, I find this talk of emigration strange. Many people ask me this question and I concede that it is not entirely out of the realm of possibility for me. However, am I not petitioning for the same thing a voting population is? The difference I see is that I do not want to affect change through the apparatus of the state because I find it illegitimate. Instead I will try to affect change through non-violent means. I'll speak with you and try to convince you that non-violence is the way toward a peaceful and sustainable society. I will not use the barrel of a gun personally or by proxy(the police) to tell you or anyone else what to do. I will not get together with my friends to vote on what you must and mustn't do.

Be peaceful.

Fines or jail time are merely the better alternative once one has decided to non-comply. If one nonviolently non-complies with the state's demands to pay taxes they will likely fine her. If she refuses to pay the fine they will likely come knocking with armed men. If she further refuses the authority of the armed men to arrest her then the only recourse that the state has is to perform an act of aggression against her. It is true that they might drag her to jail--subduing her, a non-violent person, in the process. This is hardly what I would call humane. Anyways now she is in jail and still believes the state to have no authority over her. What recourse does she have to get out without capitulating to the state's authority over her? If she attempts escape she will be severely punished or killed. It is easier for her to fall in line and listen to the state than disobey simply because the consequences of choosing alternatives are much, much worse.

Her death could actually happen a variety of ways but I only wanted to go off the example you mentioned. If you need further clarification I mention this topic and how it relates to voting here http://is.gd/3WIh

I don't want to go to jail. What is the alternative to spending years in jail? Paying 30% of my income? It is better than prison, but we ought to call this act of aggression what it really is--theft. Tax is simply a euphemism for theft, in my mind. And not to derail the topic you mentioned, but I would ask you to consider what good taxes have ever done besides making powerful people more powerful and financing wars where we justify the killing of innocents for some elusive greater good.

Thanks for your question.

Do I have a choice? Aren't all(if not most) of the things you've mentioned government-controlled monopolies?

More to the point, though, I want these services, but I think it is wrong to take money from people to finance these services. If you and I both agree that roads, food and drug testing, transportation, etc. are worth paying for then let us get together and pay for them ourselves. However, we ought not take money from people who don't want these services simply because we do. Voting specifically obscures this moral dilemma because it is rule of a majority over the minority. Democracy _seems_ good, but it can only serve to justify theft, as it does today. If 51% of people agree that stealing from Tom and Dick to benefit Harry is okay then magically it is okay? Take care of the means and the end will take care of itself. Don't steal or aggress against your neighbor either individually or en masse. Be peaceful.

What if I chose to remain and not pay taxes. Am I then free to live peacefully and not be a part of the state? Essentially, what happens when I peacefully non-comply?

I would like to live in peace with my neighbors. The only justifiable way to achieve this goal is through non-violent noncompliance against the coercive state.

Also the post I linked to in my first comment explains why any illegitimate power must resort to murder to assert its power over others.

Out of fear of being murdered, yes. Honestly, this may sound like an exaggeration to prove a point, but I honestly pay taxes to save myself from certain death. But I am glad you asked because I am interested in not paying federal taxes next year. Instead of simply keeping the money for myself, however, I want to calculate what the federal government would like to rob from my wages and giving it away to charity. If you're interested in doing something like this with me let me know.

I know this might rile a few people up, but I think voting is coercive. Personally, I don't see myself ever participating in a vote unless I know everyone involved in its consequences is a consenting individual. So I respectfully disagree that it is my duty or anyone's duty to participate in a coercive vote. http://is.gd/3WIh

All the other bureaucratic positions made out of thin air have worked out so well for the American people so far that I just can't wait to have my life more regulated in new and interesting ways. How exciting! I'm always so happy when we finally give power to a single individual to let us know the best way to spend other people's money. Life is so complicated with people arguing over better ways to do things with their products and services and all that rubbish. I'm genuinely looking forward to VictoryOS and the new VictoryBook laptop that the Ministry of Technology has in store for us. They will likely be leagues ahead of all the other horribly sub-par technologies we're forced to put up with today.

Personally, I think our new Chief Tyranny Officer should be someone who has the following qualities:

  - extensive experience forcing other people to do their bidding
  - no regard for civil liberties
  - a deeply flawed understanding of technology
  - passionate interest in maintaining and extending her power
  - desire to get filthy rich by propping up companies and providing subsidies to suffering industries

In America these problems are systemic because government has gotten in bed with powerful banks to create a monopoly via the Federal Reserve. We have given all economic power over the issuance of credit to very few with zero oversight. We have centralized (economic) power. "The fundamentals of Keynesian economics are sound" Just keep saying it to yourself, Mr. Hutton.

In Britain they have their own central bank monopolizing their credit issuance, as well, through their confiscatory Bank of England.

We yammer on endlessly about the evils of capitalistic greed and never once consider that governments(i.e., the people with the guns) are the ones controlling this entire system.

Mr. Hutton seems to be suggesting what Mr. Frank Shostak sarcastically suggests: "If central bankers and government bureaucrats can fix things in difficult times, why not in good times too? Why not have a fully controlled economy and all the problems will be fixed forever?" http://mises.org/story/3131

Herbert Hoover's interventionism prolonged the depression. The government enables monopolies. The government is currently enabling every rich wall-streeter's favorite monopoly, The Federal Reserve. We don't need the bailout. We need these companies to fail and prices to fall on assets which were obviously overvalued.

I can't say I took the time to read all of the articles. I will say that the few I did read stop short of explaining root causes. Here's what I've been passing around http://mises.org/story/3128

Yes, because liberals and conservatives in the sense he is talking about are so amazingly different. How about we get real and start to talk about how we all want to control our neighbors. Both liberals and conservatives, in his definition, love aggression and guns.

I think I can agree that CEOs will always take the highest-risk/highest-reward these days because the government continually bails-out this kind of bad behavior. However, I think it is the government itself which is the root cause of all these failures. We have a fractional-reserve banking system propped up by a fiat currency. This means credit is easily created and when the government decides that everyone should own a home (Fannie and Freddie) then we use our fractional-reserve system to lend money which, frankly, does not exist. This leads to the business cycle of endless booms and busts. I think that rich people will take advantage of this system of easy credit. This is exactly what happens when you subsidize something--you get more of it. In this case we are subsidizing risky financial behavior. If the government did not run the banks in this country then Fannie and Freddie would be forced to default on a majority of their loans and a lot of people would be hurt, but we're essentially just making our children and grandchildren inherit our debt because we believe that home ownership in 2008 is more important than long-term financial stability. We should work to end the monopoly the federal government has on the banking industry so that consumers can demand more fiscally responsible credit managers (or riskier ones if they so choose). Right now we all have to put our faith in a currency backed by winks and nods rather than something with implicit scarcity. And beyond that, we put the printing presses under the control of the government, which has most assuredly wasted more money funding a welfare/warfare state than any bailout would ever amount to.