90% of the media is controlled by 6 mega-corporations
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-09-2012, 02:45 PM
RE: 90% of the media is controlled by 6 mega-corporations
(11-09-2012 02:38 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  If governments want a successful economy they only need get out of the way and let it work, free-markets regulate themselves pretty damn well.
Except that the establishement of a free market allows monopolies to be formed very quickly. Drinking Beverage If anything, a social market is the way to go.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2012, 03:23 PM
RE: 90% of the media is controlled by 6 mega-corporations
(11-09-2012 02:45 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(11-09-2012 02:38 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  If governments want a successful economy they only need get out of the way and let it work, free-markets regulate themselves pretty damn well.
Except that the establishement of a free market allows monopolies to be formed very quickly. Drinking Beverage If anything, a social market is the way to go.

Okay, yes I think breaking up monopolies are a good idea. So I am not for 100% Free-Markets, but I still take a minimalist approach. Government should be EXTREMELY limited in the roll of economics.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-09-2012, 09:01 PM
RE: 90% of the media is controlled by 6 mega-corporations
(11-09-2012 03:23 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  
(11-09-2012 02:45 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Except that the establishement of a free market allows monopolies to be formed very quickly. Drinking Beverage If anything, a social market is the way to go.

Okay, yes I think breaking up monopolies are a good idea. So I am not for 100% Free-Markets, but I still take a minimalist approach. Government should be EXTREMELY limited in the roll of economics.


Content companies who force bundle would seem to be anti-competetive. However courts have ruled that exclusive offering of content does not rise to the level of monopoly.

Leveraging monopoly power to reach into new areas of business is exactly what anti-trust laws had in mind to curtail. Microsoft and IE is a perfect example. MS bundled their browser into the OS, thereby greatly damaging the companies who offered that product as a stand-alone offering. Now if that were any other operating system than Microsoft, that bundling wouldn't have done much damage. But bundling products with something that has monopoly status damages competition.

ABC-Disney owns ESPN, and exclusive content agreements for sporting event coverage is leveraged to force cable operators to carry unpopular content like ABC News Now. And ABC-Disney has slowly been using exclusive access to content to force ISPs to bundle their products with internet service.

I would be ok with a light touch on regulation of content companies so long as exclusive content is considered a monopoly power.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2012, 01:44 PM
RE: 90% of the media is controlled by 6 mega-corporations
(11-09-2012 02:38 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I do indeed own myself. I am not a slave, and the earth is not a conscious being, I have no idea what you are talking about there. You seem to be mixing economics and social issues with meta-physics that I don't buy into. (Correct me if I am wrong.)
Ethics is always evolving and so is the theory of law and human rights. You may be aware of things like digital ownership and privacy rights, these are relatively new. But the latest invention are the environmental rights. The rights of planet Earth and our rights to live in a safe, clean, aesthetic and biodiverse environment, plus the rights of our future generations for that. Earth as a legal entity, how do you like it? Earth doesn't have to be conscious to have rights, people in coma aren't conscious and they have rights too.

No, you're not a slave, that's a fallacy ad absurdum. Slaves have no rights, you have a lot of rights. Clever people agreed that we have certain inborn human rights, that we can't get forfeit even if we wanted. It only takes a little imagination to realize that there must be also human duties. It's a fact of life, we're not born into nothingness, all that we are and that we have must come from somewhere. We are a part of a greater system, for good or bad, whether we like it or not.

(11-09-2012 02:38 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  As for cooperations, no they are not people and do not deserve the rights as people, but the people that work for the cooperation do. If that company wants to make things overseas because of lower tax rates, why not? They are over-regulated, I would do the same thing. Governments can only morally tax me if I consent to it. I rarely use physical money anyhow but that it not the point. They can collect more than enough taxes to fund themselves without making is populace slaves. If they tax my work then that is slavery. It is not reasonable. If they want to increase sales taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, tobacco taxes to compensate for the tax they are not receiving from my work, that is perfectly fine (within reason) because then I am choosing to accept that tax.
Look at the big picture. In America there's a big problem because so many things are produced abroad that Americans can't get a job.
You mix several things together, government taxation, people's (employee) rights and corporation rights. I do not think of business as separated from the environment, state and people. Don't know how about you, but I'm aware of such things, I notice systems and patterns and I part of my education is technical.
The business is not some Monopoly game, it's an engine, it drives everything. Every engine needs a car around it and passengers, that's the purpose of an engine. There are some deluded people who pride themselves on having the biggest engine that runs fastest and carries the least workload, but that is a wrong, absurd idea. The engine in a car exists solely to drag the weight of a car plus the passengers within. Just as the business exists to fund the state and provide for the people. Only the state is a car that carries people not through space, but through time. And we can not drive through time faster than 60 minutes per hour. Therefore, it is absurd to have an economy that expands! Economy needs to get at a certain optimal rate (lower than today) and stay there.
Taxation can be thought of as a clutch, that carries the energy from engine to the rest of the car. Obviously, the engine has a certain RPM at which it is most efficient, consuming least fuel for giving most power. A good driver will do his best to not tax the engine so that it would get below, or let it run free into high RPM.

And a good driver also would not allow his engine to be moved elsewhere, when his car is running. That's why I'm in favor of laws that forbid companies and their property be sold to foreign buyers. Business must be tied to a certain place and held responsible to its state and people. Don't tell me it makes no sense, because it does, it works in our cars and it would work in our governments.
But in social sphere there are people who damage this technology on purpose, to have greater personal profit, which is already inordinately high.

The thing that is wrong about taxes, is how the people up there use them. Sometimes they tax the wrong people and don't tax the right ones and always they drag the money upwards to state-wide pool and then let them rain downwards again. Which gives a plenty of opportunities to fund thieves along the way.

(11-09-2012 02:38 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Hell, I would much rather not use the US currency at all if given the choice because it is a fiat money system regulated by private banks that devalue the dollar creating a backdoor tax but that is another topic completely that I could rant about for pages and pages. If governments want a successful economy they only need get out of the way and let it work, free-markets regulate themselves pretty damn well. Fucking around with inflation rates creates bubbles that inevitable collapse sooner or late. You have to liquidate the debt or else you will turn into Greece. When governments attempt to use the tax for good it is always inefficient, and money is lost to bureaucrats who exist only to exist leaving less money for those in need. Charitable contributions worked well before and they could and would work well again.
Yeah, I must agree about everything. I've read about a case in Brazil where businessmen wanted to help the beggars on streets, but the government was so corrupted that nothing would get to the needy. So there was one young American hero of mine who arranged a transparent locally operating nation-wide organization called S.O.S. (Something Obras Sociale) to which businessmen could donate food and everything. But again, if the government wasn't corrupted, it would work just fine with local government insitutions.

And yes, US private fiat money system, that's the real life conspiracy. Hell, I'd rather scrap it all and operate on non-inflation currency (another fascinating topic, a zero and negative inflation currency, yay!). But the whole global stock market system is one huge fiat money/inflation machine and that would also be on another big topic. Technically speaking, t's an engine with zero workload being driven on full throttle by some thoroughly evil and criminally insane people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-09-2012, 02:45 PM
RE: 90% of the media is controlled by 6 mega-corporations
(12-09-2012 01:44 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(11-09-2012 02:38 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I do indeed own myself. I am not a slave, and the earth is not a conscious being, I have no idea what you are talking about there. You seem to be mixing economics and social issues with meta-physics that I don't buy into. (Correct me if I am wrong.)
Ethics is always evolving and so is the theory of law and human rights. You may be aware of things like digital ownership and privacy rights, these are relatively new. But the latest invention are the environmental rights. The rights of planet Earth and our rights to live in a safe, clean, aesthetic and biodiverse environment, plus the rights of our future generations for that. Earth as a legal entity, how do you like it? Earth doesn't have to be conscious to have rights, people in coma aren't conscious and they have rights too.

No, you're not a slave, that's a fallacy ad absurdum. Slaves have no rights, you have a lot of rights. Clever people agreed that we have certain inborn human rights, that we can't get forfeit even if we wanted. It only takes a little imagination to realize that there must be also human duties. It's a fact of life, we're not born into nothingness, all that we are and that we have must come from somewhere. We are a part of a greater system, for good or bad, whether we like it or not.

(11-09-2012 02:38 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  As for cooperations, no they are not people and do not deserve the rights as people, but the people that work for the cooperation do. If that company wants to make things overseas because of lower tax rates, why not? They are over-regulated, I would do the same thing. Governments can only morally tax me if I consent to it. I rarely use physical money anyhow but that it not the point. They can collect more than enough taxes to fund themselves without making is populace slaves. If they tax my work then that is slavery. It is not reasonable. If they want to increase sales taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, tobacco taxes to compensate for the tax they are not receiving from my work, that is perfectly fine (within reason) because then I am choosing to accept that tax.
Look at the big picture. In America there's a big problem because so many things are produced abroad that Americans can't get a job.
You mix several things together, government taxation, people's (employee) rights and corporation rights. I do not think of business as separated from the environment, state and people. Don't know how about you, but I'm aware of such things, I notice systems and patterns and I part of my education is technical.
The business is not some Monopoly game, it's an engine, it drives everything. Every engine needs a car around it and passengers, that's the purpose of an engine. There are some deluded people who pride themselves on having the biggest engine that runs fastest and carries the least workload, but that is a wrong, absurd idea. The engine in a car exists solely to drag the weight of a car plus the passengers within. Just as the business exists to fund the state and provide for the people. Only the state is a car that carries people not through space, but through time. And we can not drive through time faster than 60 minutes per hour. Therefore, it is absurd to have an economy that expands! Economy needs to get at a certain optimal rate (lower than today) and stay there.
Taxation can be thought of as a clutch, that carries the energy from engine to the rest of the car. Obviously, the engine has a certain RPM at which it is most efficient, consuming least fuel for giving most power. A good driver will do his best to not tax the engine so that it would get below, or let it run free into high RPM.

And a good driver also would not allow his engine to be moved elsewhere, when his car is running. That's why I'm in favor of laws that forbid companies and their property be sold to foreign buyers. Business must be tied to a certain place and held responsible to its state and people. Don't tell me it makes no sense, because it does, it works in our cars and it would work in our governments.
But in social sphere there are people who damage this technology on purpose, to have greater personal profit, which is already inordinately high.

The thing that is wrong about taxes, is how the people up there use them. Sometimes they tax the wrong people and don't tax the right ones and always they drag the money upwards to state-wide pool and then let them rain downwards again. Which gives a plenty of opportunities to fund thieves along the way.

(11-09-2012 02:38 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Hell, I would much rather not use the US currency at all if given the choice because it is a fiat money system regulated by private banks that devalue the dollar creating a backdoor tax but that is another topic completely that I could rant about for pages and pages. If governments want a successful economy they only need get out of the way and let it work, free-markets regulate themselves pretty damn well. Fucking around with inflation rates creates bubbles that inevitable collapse sooner or late. You have to liquidate the debt or else you will turn into Greece. When governments attempt to use the tax for good it is always inefficient, and money is lost to bureaucrats who exist only to exist leaving less money for those in need. Charitable contributions worked well before and they could and would work well again.
Yeah, I must agree about everything. I've read about a case in Brazil where businessmen wanted to help the beggars on streets, but the government was so corrupted that nothing would get to the needy. So there was one young American hero of mine who arranged a transparent locally operating nation-wide organization called S.O.S. (Something Obras Sociale) to which businessmen could donate food and everything. But again, if the government wasn't corrupted, it would work just fine with local government insitutions.

And yes, US private fiat money system, that's the real life conspiracy. Hell, I'd rather scrap it all and operate on non-inflation currency (another fascinating topic, a zero and negative inflation currency, yay!). But the whole global stock market system is one huge fiat money/inflation machine and that would also be on another big topic. Technically speaking, t's an engine with zero workload being driven on full throttle by some thoroughly evil and criminally insane people.

Lumi, I think we are just at a disagreement here. I partially agree on the problem (overseas manufacturing), disagree on the solution completely, (We should regulate and lower taxes for businesses and abolish Federal Income Tax), and we have similar views on the money system (It's shit). I think my solutions will not only solve a lot of economic problems, but it is the most ethical choice between us, and will solve some social problems as well. The unintended consequences of government interventionism is causing much of the problems crippling our economy, no matter what the intentions of the law makers were.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 08:03 AM
RE: 90% of the media is controlled by 6 mega-corporations
(12-09-2012 02:45 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Lumi, I think we are just at a disagreement here. I partially agree on the problem (overseas manufacturing), disagree on the solution completely, (We should regulate and lower taxes for businesses and abolish Federal Income Tax), and we have similar views on the money system (It's shit). I think my solutions will not only solve a lot of economic problems, but it is the most ethical choice between us, and will solve some social problems as well. The unintended consequences of government interventionism is causing much of the problems crippling our economy, no matter what the intentions of the law makers were.
Well, I think it's mostly a misunderstanding. Doesn't matter what we do, but how close it is to enlightened self-interest of an organism or purposeful design and use of an engine. I'm just an ocassional driver, but I must admire beauty of the principles. Understand the principles and you can only make mistake by not representing them adequately enough in reality.

Our cars have four stroke engines, so they run smoothly. Our economy is like the shittiest engine you can imagine that shakes the hell out of everyone. The car has damper springs, but they're mostly used to help with bumps on the road. Our economy is so shaky, that it uses the dampers (social welfare system) to smooth out its usual cycles. And it's all made worse by some imbecile who believes the acceleration pedal must be down all the time, otherwise it's not a good ride. And also by his idiot cousin on the next seat, who thinks that sending the billionaire money back into the system is not really all that necessary (just create new money). There must be a special kind of mental diagnosis for those who are dangerously out of touch with reality. My economist president, for example.

“Anyone who believes in indefinite growth on a physically finite planet is either mad, or an economist.” - David Attenborough
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 09:51 AM
RE: 90% of the media is controlled by 6 mega-corporations
(13-09-2012 08:03 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(12-09-2012 02:45 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Lumi, I think we are just at a disagreement here. I partially agree on the problem (overseas manufacturing), disagree on the solution completely, (We should regulate and lower taxes for businesses and abolish Federal Income Tax), and we have similar views on the money system (It's shit). I think my solutions will not only solve a lot of economic problems, but it is the most ethical choice between us, and will solve some social problems as well. The unintended consequences of government interventionism is causing much of the problems crippling our economy, no matter what the intentions of the law makers were.
Well, I think it's mostly a misunderstanding. Doesn't matter what we do, but how close it is to enlightened self-interest of an organism or purposeful design and use of an engine. I'm just an ocassional driver, but I must admire beauty of the principles. Understand the principles and you can only make mistake by not representing them adequately enough in reality.

Our cars have four stroke engines, so they run smoothly. Our economy is like the shittiest engine you can imagine that shakes the hell out of everyone. The car has damper springs, but they're mostly used to help with bumps on the road. Our economy is so shaky, that it uses the dampers (social welfare system) to smooth out its usual cycles. And it's all made worse by some imbecile who believes the acceleration pedal must be down all the time, otherwise it's not a good ride. And also by his idiot cousin on the next seat, who thinks that sending the billionaire money back into the system is not really all that necessary (just create new money). There must be a special kind of mental diagnosis for those who are dangerously out of touch with reality. My economist president, for example.

“Anyone who believes in indefinite growth on a physically finite planet is either mad, or an economist.” - David Attenborough

Yeah, I get it. You think I'm a retard on economics because you think I don't understand your line of thinking. I understand your general position, and I am against it. That doesn't mean mean anything more than I don't agree with you. In my opinion, your position is immoral, and of course because of that I hate your position.
You do indeed think I should be a slave, you just don't have the balls to call a spade a spade (that isn't meant to be a slur). A slave is not someone with NO rights. A slave is someone who is being coerced by someone else. Someone who is forced to work without compensation. Now, you could argue percentages if you want to. You could say, the slaves of yesteryear had to give up 90% of their labour, you only have to give up 10%, or 15%. But in essence, when that state takes from you without your consent, or otherwise puts your behind bars or in chains for not allowing them to take what they want from you, and letting you keep a percentage, that is slavery. I will not vote, or promote the idea we should all be enslaved. It is sickening.

Don't understand what the reason for the Attenborough quote is, of course I'm not silly enough to believe that everything can be lollipops and sunshine forever. Yes, I know resources are finte, but that not something we as a human race will have to worry about for an extremely long time. We will likely be gone for millions of years before that occurs ( In my opinion). That does nothing to discredit Free Market, or Austrian Economics.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2012, 09:54 AM
RE: 90% of the media is controlled by 6 mega-corporations
If Americans are bamboozled by slick ads and slanted journalism, they deserve the screwing they get. Stupidity is the only sin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2012, 01:15 PM (This post was last modified: 16-09-2012 01:23 PM by Luminon.)
RE: 90% of the media is controlled by 6 mega-corporations
(13-09-2012 09:51 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Yeah, I get it. You think I'm a retard on economics because you think I don't understand your line of thinking. I understand your general position, and I am against it. That doesn't mean mean anything more than I don't agree with you. In my opinion, your position is immoral, and of course because of that I hate your position.
You do indeed think I should be a slave, you just don't have the balls to call a spade a spade (that isn't meant to be a slur). A slave is not someone with NO rights. A slave is someone who is being coerced by someone else. Someone who is forced to work without compensation. Now, you could argue percentages if you want to. You could say, the slaves of yesteryear had to give up 90% of their labour, you only have to give up 10%, or 15%. But in essence, when that state takes from you without your consent, or otherwise puts your behind bars or in chains for not allowing them to take what they want from you, and letting you keep a percentage, that is slavery. I will not vote, or promote the idea we should all be enslaved. It is sickening.
I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. I don't think you're a retard on anything, quite opposite. That's why I think you're worthy of understanding. You might have something I overlooked. I might get however satisfied if I find out that it's you who's overlooking things, not me. You can be wrong all you want, but I can't, I'm gonna study these things and write a thesis about them.

Taxes are definitely unpleasant. What if they are actually kind of a moral duty, but so terribly, excruciatingly unpleasant that you think they're immoral?

If we're calling spades spades, then technically this whole commercial system (can't bring myself to call it economic) is in fact a slavery. We are forced to work, often in jobs that are not good for us, environment or anyone else. That's because even the basic necessities can't be obtained but for money. (although the Universal declaration of basic rights says so) We could survive without work and money, but we couldn't have a life and family. Work takes at least 8 hours off your day, that's half of your waking time. Compared to that, taxes are just a nuisance. I was lucky to have a shitty job just once, and taxes were the least thing bothering me. Jobs involving conveyor belts should be banned by law as inhumane. Followed closely by office jobs. Cubicles, paperwork, mediocrity.

What's bothering you about taxes? Why is it a problem to give up a part of your labor? You take from nature without its consent. You take from your parents and might use services paid by other taxpayers. So where's the problem? I suppose it is the mentality of scarcity, you're worried that you might not have enough money. Which is a very reasonable concern, but it's not about taxes, it's about scarcity and lack of social security. But if all public services were privatized, each one of these businessmen would charge you a big fat margin.
As unpleasant as taxes are, they're very moral, it's a service to something greater than yourself that you're a part of. They should be called a true service to your country, instead of the military Smile Anyway. it might be more worrying if nobody really wanted your labor, nobody to share with Tongue OK, this is a bit too dark humor, sorry.

As for more dark humor, it's possible that 70% of your money might end up with the government anyway, mostly through VAT and consumer tax (which includes petrol), not social and health insurance. I'd prefer Northern Europe, where the government takes "only" 50%, but they do it openly, you see where the money are going and they provide services for that.

(13-09-2012 09:51 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Don't understand what the reason for the Attenborough quote is, of course I'm not silly enough to believe that everything can be lollipops and sunshine forever. Yes, I know resources are finte, but that not something we as a human race will have to worry about for an extremely long time. We will likely be gone for millions of years before that occurs ( In my opinion). That does nothing to discredit Free Market, or Austrian Economics.
Resources are very limited. Regardless when the oil runs out, when the price hits about 160 bucks per barrel*, it gets too expensive for the whole system. We could have decades of oil left (which aren't worth anything, considering our consumption rate) but when recently the price hit about 160 dollars, the world economies came to a halt. Oh, they quickly opened some new fields, but that's only buying time for a while. The end isn't in 80 years, it's on 160 dollars per barrel. (* I don't remember exactly the price the article said, but it was already here, a price on which the cars and tractors of the world are just too expensive to run. Hell, I don't remember where the article was, I'm in a big-ass dorm moving and school-starting operation, so be easy on me for a while, please?)

But the true danger is a climate change. The atmospheric envelope is very thin and humanity is capable of fucking up the current comfortable climate pattern for centuries to come and we worked very hard all the 20th century to achieve that goal. We're already almost there, all we need is to keep the current frantic commercial effort for 10 or 15 years more. Then probably the methane ice deposits melt and fuck up everything for centuries, bye bye Gulf stream and Manhattan. I'll miss Netherlands though.

The main thing to start with to save ourselves is to share the wealth. Some rich Europeans call for higher taxes. The problem is, wealth does not get distributed. Rich people get richer and instead of redistribution, they just print or digitally generate more money so poor suckers like us don't get suspicious and still have something to work for, staying ahead of the recession that is. Of course, almost all money and resources end up with the rich, it's the way the system is set. That's your glorious free market, nothing but an idea. The first winner in a free market makes sure to secure his position and stay up forever and then it's not a free market anymore. There is no large or plentiful free market in the world, it's all oligopoly in lands ruled by oligarchy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-09-2012, 02:22 PM (This post was last modified: 16-09-2012 02:36 PM by Dark Light.)
RE: 90% of the media is controlled by 6 mega-corporations
(16-09-2012 01:15 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(13-09-2012 09:51 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Yeah, I get it. You think I'm a retard on economics because you think I don't understand your line of thinking. I understand your general position, and I am against it. That doesn't mean mean anything more than I don't agree with you. In my opinion, your position is immoral, and of course because of that I hate your position.
You do indeed think I should be a slave, you just don't have the balls to call a spade a spade (that isn't meant to be a slur). A slave is not someone with NO rights. A slave is someone who is being coerced by someone else. Someone who is forced to work without compensation. Now, you could argue percentages if you want to. You could say, the slaves of yesteryear had to give up 90% of their labour, you only have to give up 10%, or 15%. But in essence, when that state takes from you without your consent, or otherwise puts your behind bars or in chains for not allowing them to take what they want from you, and letting you keep a percentage, that is slavery. I will not vote, or promote the idea we should all be enslaved. It is sickening.
I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from. I don't think you're a retard on anything, quite opposite. That's why I think you're worthy of understanding. You might have something I overlooked. I might get however satisfied if I find out that it's you who's overlooking things, not me. You can be wrong all you want, but I can't, I'm gonna study these things and write a thesis about them.

Taxes are definitely unpleasant. What if they are actually kind of a moral duty, but so terribly, excruciatingly unpleasant that you think they're immoral?

If we're calling spades spades, then technically this whole commercial system (can't bring myself to call it economic) is in fact a slavery. We are forced to work, often in jobs that are not good for us, environment or anyone else. That's because even the basic necessities can't be obtained but for money. (although the Universal declaration of basic rights says so) We could survive without work and money, but we couldn't have a life and family. Work takes at least 8 hours off your day, that's half of your waking time. Compared to that, taxes are just a nuisance. I was lucky to have a shitty job just once, and taxes were the least thing bothering me. Jobs involving conveyor belts should be banned by law as inhumane. Followed closely by office jobs. Cubicles, paperwork, mediocrity.

What's bothering you about taxes? Why is it a problem to give up a part of your labor? You take from nature without its consent. You take from your parents and might use services paid by other taxpayers. So where's the problem? I suppose it is the mentality of scarcity, you're worried that you might not have enough money. Which is a very reasonable concern, but it's not about taxes, it's about scarcity and lack of social security. But if all public services were privatized, each one of these businessmen would charge you a big fat margin.
As unpleasant as taxes are, they're very moral, it's a service to something greater than yourself that you're a part of. They should be called a true service to your country, instead of the military Smile Anyway. it might be more worrying if nobody really wanted your labor, nobody to share with Tongue OK, this is a bit too dark humor, sorry.

As for more dark humor, it's possible that 70% of your money might end up with the government anyway, mostly through VAT and consumer tax (which includes petrol), not social and health insurance. I'd prefer Northern Europe, where the government takes "only" 50%, but they do it openly, you see where the money are going and they provide services for that.

(13-09-2012 09:51 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Don't understand what the reason for the Attenborough quote is, of course I'm not silly enough to believe that everything can be lollipops and sunshine forever. Yes, I know resources are finte, but that not something we as a human race will have to worry about for an extremely long time. We will likely be gone for millions of years before that occurs ( In my opinion). That does nothing to discredit Free Market, or Austrian Economics.
Resources are very limited. Regardless when the oil runs out, when the price hits about 160 bucks per barrel*, it gets too expensive for the whole system. We could have decades of oil left (which aren't worth anything, considering our consumption rate) but when recently the price hit about 160 dollars, the world economies came to a halt. Oh, they quickly opened some new fields, but that's only buying time for a while. The end isn't in 80 years, it's on 160 dollars per barrel. (* I don't remember exactly the price the article said, but it was already here, a price on which the cars and tractors of the world are just too expensive to run. Hell, I don't remember where the article was, I'm in a big-ass dorm moving and school-starting operation, so be easy on me for a while, please?)

But the true danger is a climate change. The atmospheric envelope is very thin and humanity is capable of fucking up the current comfortable climate pattern for centuries to come and we worked very hard all the 20th century to achieve that goal. We're already almost there, all we need is to keep the current frantic commercial effort for 10 or 15 years more. Then probably the methane ice deposits melt and fuck up everything for centuries, bye bye Gulf stream and Manhattan. I'll miss Netherlands though.

The main thing to start with to save ourselves is to share the wealth. Some rich Europeans call for higher taxes. The problem is, wealth does not get distributed. Rich people get richer and instead of redistribution, they just print or digitally generate more money so poor suckers like us don't get suspicious and still have something to work for, staying ahead of the recession that is. Of course, almost all money and resources end up with the rich, it's the way the system is set. That's your glorious free market, nothing but an idea. The first winner in a free market makes sure to secure his position and stay up forever and then it's not a free market anymore. There is no large or plentiful free market in the world, it's all oligopoly in lands ruled by oligarchy.

I am going to fixate on taxation of labour, which is the part that I think is immoral. Very breifly, the environmental issues, that comes down to property rights. If I pollute and damage your property, it should be illegal. I should be punished for doing it.

Now, on to the part that really upsets me....It is a position of morality, so you are either going to think it is or is not immoral. To me slavery, or coercion, is immoral. Forcing people to do something against their will, whether it is through force, or threat of force, to me is one of the most atrocious acts a human can commit. I am not against all taxes, but I want to have a choice in the matter. If I buy gas (petrol), there is a tax on it. I can choose to not buy that gas. I can produce my own fuel with a wood gasifier, I can walk, or ride a bicycle, or just stay home. I can go to the grocery store and buy some vegetables, or I can avoid the tax buy growing my own vegetables, or buying them directly from a local farmer. I can not avoid labour and continue to live. When they tax my labour they own me. They take the fruits of my labour, and allow me to keep a percentage of it. If I do not comply I will be imprisoned and/or they will act in accordance of the laws, which they passed, to take my money against my will. That is theft. That is coercion. That is immoral.

If you REALLY want to understand economics, the the redistribution of wealth (long and dry read) may I suggest reading Lysander Spooners ideas on the subject.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: