If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
Well...if its not government guns forcing compliance, it would be corporate guns deciding issues. I think you've argued yourself off the cliff here.
.
yes, and if a frog had wings he wouldn't have a flat ass.
I don't think you can jump directly from a too-powerful government to anarchy. How about a government what uses its taxing power to raise revenue and not to accomplish social goals?
Hoss, you and Hack both believe that if we get the right people in charge, we will have peace, justice, and the American way. I say that that is impossible because power corrupts, and I further challenge you to name any case, beginning with Plato, where a "centrally planned" political system has benefitted its citizens over a reasonable amount of time. It is, in Hayek's phrase, the "ultimate conceit" that men can apply power (corporate or government) beneficently.
yes, and if a frog had wings he wouldn't have a flat ass.
I don't think you can jump directly from a too-powerful government to anarchy. How about a government what uses its taxing power to raise revenue and not to accomplish social goals?
Hoss, you and Hack both believe that if we get the right people in charge, we will have peace, justice, and the American way. I say that that is impossible because power corrupts, and I further challenge you to name any case, beginning with Plato, where a "centrally planned" political system has benefitted its citizens over a reasonable amount of time. It is, in Hayek's phrase, the "ultimate conceit" that men can apply power (corporate or government) beneficently.
I think you are assuming a lot, in order to create an argument you think you can win.
I don't say that to be flippant....its just that you seem to spend a lot of time telling other people what they think. You might try asking instead.
Last edited by Wild Hoss; April 20, 2016, 12:45 PM.
I'm at a loss to see where that is an issue. I think those would be good reforms, but marginal. I think with commercial law we're at that point in the cycle where it's time reintroduce executives to risk. At one point, offering executives limited liability for their decisions was a good idea, to catalyze investment. Now, however, the rules for one environment are applied to a very different one, and we have executives across all economic sectors insulated from the potential consequences of their actions. IMO that's what has to stop. Not a perfect solution or the only one, but in this specific context, I think things won't change until people go to jail.
as usual, I agree, but you are still analyzing things in terms of what is good policy for the subletting of government power. I'm saying we should not sublet government power at all. I agree 100% that we live in a rent-seeking society. and I believe that is a political evil. Of course, I was against the bank bailouts, as an example, but I see the fundamental problem as government's willingness to confiscate the wealth of regular citizens to pay for corporate malfeasance. The banks should have gone bankrupt, as should have GM or Chrysler.
Last edited by Da Geezer; April 20, 2016, 12:48 PM.
Hoss, you and Hack both believe that if we get the right people in charge, we will have peace, justice, and the American way.
I don't think that and certainly hope this thread hasn't given anybody that impression. I think that the best way to avoid corruption is to keep the systems as simple as possible and for heads to roll at every opportunity. And if that means that somebody's or some commercial entity's rights to do something are curtailed because the idiots in government don't understand it, so be it. There are tradeoffs to be made. Government can never match private-sector salaries so it will never have better smarter people, so if it is going to fulfill its role and for society as a whole to reap the rewards of a level playing field, I'm not opposed to keeping it simple. That's the secret to success in the Canadian banking sector, by the way, which is gonna keep on buying up the American banking sector if the crises continue.
as usual, I agree, but you are still analyzing things in terms of what is good policy for the subletting of government power. I'm saying we should not sublet government power at all.
OK. Going back to income tax deductions, I'm saying that it is an inherent right of government (and such a right inevitably entails using force if necessary) to tax citizens for the operation of government. But the government, through the political system in some cases, has decided to subsidize charity, or home ownership, or oil exploration, or growing timber through the tax code in order to accomplish what at first may be legitimate societal goals. Eventually, these code sections become the vehicle with which entities engage in rent seeking.
I never heard anyone analyze the IRS "targeting" in terms of the Tea Party entities seeking recognition as a 501(c)(4). Maybe someone has heard that, but I have not. I say that the core problem in the IRS matter was not the nature of the political beliefs involved, but the blanket subsidy given to entities under section 501(C). I believe it would be more transparent if the government simply cut a check to a homeowner if they wanted to subsidize home ownership, or to a charity if they wanted to subsidize its function. Cutting a check is vastly more transparent than subsections of the code and accomplishes the same thing. But how do you think paying the oil companies or the corporate farmers would go down with citizens in the bright light of day?
I don't believe this in pie-in-the-sky. It is basically what Steve Forbes or Ted Cruz has proposed, and it is what obtains in Estonia.
I do not have time to create such an exhaustive list. For brevity's sake, we can pare it down to just this paragraph:
Hoss, you and Hack both believe that if we get the right people in charge, we will have peace, justice, and the American way. I say that that is impossible because power corrupts, and I further challenge you to name any case, beginning with Plato, where a "centrally planned" political system has benefitted its citizens over a reasonable amount of time. It is, in Hayek's phrase, the "ultimate conceit" that men can apply power (corporate or government) beneficently.
Its scary to see how powerful that explosion was, seeing how that building was constructed. The cement columns, the steel substructure. So much of that just disintegrated by the blast. That was no cracker box. It was a well-built building.
Well, Hoss, so you can't name any assumption you object to. Then how am I telling folks what to think? I perceive myself to be stating what I believe, informed by experience and study.
I'll tell you the assumption that I think you like the least. That is my assumption, taken from The Road to Serfdom and the Bible that men, at their core, are fallen and corruptible. Power corrupts. It is inevitable, but it flies in the face of what we are told every day, being, that things can be made better by giving a certain politician, or corporation, or religion the right to order our affairs. I've come, over a lot of years, to view this as folly and conceit. I believe the best we can do is to limit the accumulation of power in every area of human endeavor.
I'm not telling you what to believe. I'm just telling you that I once believed as you do, and I found that when "enlightened" people or beliefs were put in place, not much changed. A relatively free marketplace for both production and for ideas seems to me to be the best way to disburse power. I don't want to grant anyone unnecessary power to control what I do or how I think.
I believe that one's view of the nature of man as either good or evil (in the philosophical sense) is the underlying assumption of virtually all we come to believe. I believe man is evil, but I've asked you to prove me wrong.
Tweet
Comment