hierophant,

you're a product of government "money signs for eyes" syndrome.

The pure capitalist system existed in america so long as the tax percentage remained low (ie-- lower than pre revolution days).

Government is only responsible for three things: education, defense, transportation. Outside of these things is all just fluff. you got it: welfare, social security, government sociological research, government scholarships for private education... all FLUFF.

its all things that wouldnt be needed if you gave people their flipping taxes back to them. take it this way, lets say we keep the current military budget, expand education and transport (which includes shipping). even leaving a total coverage of 33% taxes, that means that if a person was earning a net value of ten dollars under the current system, they only get a total of 2.50 an hour, while under the new system, people would be getting 6.60 an hour. now, thats close to three times as much. if you were getting to pocket three times as much, how do you think you'd be doing in the world right now?

That's a pretty big call. One thing I'm wondering though, is what do you think government actually is? I'm not trying to deflect you with semantics. What is it that separates a government from say a large, successful 'capitalist' corporation? One that specialises in the mental control and direction of a particular group of people? And, more importantly, who defines what 'the government' is and isn't actually designed for?


So do you think prices and money supply would stabilize without government interference? Remember I'm asking you this in all earnestness. Don't take my questions as personal attacks.

Your opinion -- and only your opinion. A differing opinion could be that government is only there for the environment, the arts, and public parks -- and that transportation and national defense should be privately owned.

I try to be more accurate -- the government is there to provide the public good and other externalities that would not be provided by pure capitalism. Now, we can let experts argue about what those externalities are -- Roads and Defense are pretty clearly on the list, for instance. However, there will still be some areas of disagreement -- for instance, I think education could be privatized more easily that environmental regulation could be.

Anyway, just trying to correct you on a finer point here.

i define government by the varying principles of government as i have learned them through various methodologies.

Through my study of philosophy-- all men have a right to property. they also have a right to property of others if it can be gained through any means. therefore, societies form in order to protect the property of the weak from members who are stronger and would otherwise rob the weak. This is what i mean when i say that the governments job is to defend.

Through my study of chaos theory/evolution-- evolutionary advancement can be found in the advance developement rate of the young. generally, this means that the more advanced an animal the earlier in the growth phase the child must be born, thereby increasing the length of developement outside the womb during which the child cannot take care of itself. thus the purpose of society is to develope and raise the young towards more advancement. This is what i mean by the governments job is to educate.

Through my study of political science-- the more advanced a nation and the higher its standard of living, the more it must rely on transportation of goods since certain population centers can no longer produce all the items needed to provide for the needs of the people. it is therefore the governments responsibility to provide the means for transportation of goods (including regulation of imports, customs, roads, harbors, etc).


yes, i think that given time the prices would restabilize at a much lower level. i base this conclusion off of the fact that they always seemed to do so prior to the introduction of the current welfare state (and even prior to the civil war, when there was even less governmental regulation).

i dont take your questions as personal attacks, they make me think and test my position, which is a good thing.

I had to laugh when I read this - I am currently studying for a degree in effectively the subject of what the government is responsible for. Thats how diverse the opinions on the subject are - you can study them for three years like I've done and barely scratch the surface. So for you to say, as if all reasonable people agree with you, that the government is only responsible for three things is either due to a high degree of obscurantism or possibly because your expertise in this area doesn't quite extend as far as you'd like us to believe.

Your opinion, and I stress that it is just that, is not only not universally accepted but it is not even widely accepted. In fact most laissez faire libertarians would probably think you were going a bit far. Even Robert Nozick thought a degree of regulation of property transfer was necessary...

And I'd just like to quite Kurt Vonnegut as well, while we're on the subject of liberal economics and its methods of dealing with poverty (or not). He remarked in Timequake: "Why throw money at problems? That is what money is for. Should the nations wealth be redistributed? It has been and continues to to be redistributed to a few people in a manner strikingly unhelpful.".

According to basic economic theory, yes. In practice, no, not judging by the experience of the UK since the introduction and subsequent raising of the minimum wage.


It appears to be the true capitalist system that allows 50 million americans to go without any health cover. That's almost the entire population of the UK! Markets allocate efficiently in most cases, but certainly not fairly.

[ 04-26-2004, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

If ALL the government workers actually worked we wouldn't need half of them!At least half of them sit on their fat asses all day and play solitare on their computers,while picking up a big fat govment check.After which they kiss their uncle Georges butt and say "lets keep those fools in the White House ,so I can keep my free money!!"

Just so you know there is no conclusive empirical evidence that public sector workers are more inefficient than private sector ones - some studies go one way and some the other, which leads me to beleive at least that it depends on the situation, not the nature of ownership of the enterprise in question. Also modelling Bureaucrats behaviour is notoriously difficult - there is an entire field of political theory devoted to it. Suffice to say its very hard to consistently model them as doing as little as possible and getting as much money as possible - most empirical data seem to suggest they also value prestige and even (shock, horror) pride in their work, as extremely important. By empirical data I don't mean simply what bureaucrats tell us but what is inferred from systematic study of their behaviour.

allow me to reiterate for barry:

and arguement is a conversation where i state my point/opinion and then some reasons why i believe it. you said: "Your opinion, and I stress that it is just that" and i say AMEN. that is my opinion. and i provided reasoning for my OPINION. now, you have stated a different opinion but have failed to provide reasoning for that opinion: ie, you have not provided an arguement but rather a personal disagreement without basis.

so, to start off with, what exactly IS your major? i must admit that my studies all relate to Physics and computer science, with minor background in biology and chemistry, so this isn't my area of expertise.

If you think that the government should be responsible for more than those three things, please, tell me what they are and why you think so, otherwise its not debating, just &*#ching and moaning.

Third, if you think the current system of 75% of every dollar going back to SOME form of taxes is reasonable, as opposed to drastically lowering taxes and letting people make their own decisions as to health care, retirement packages, etc... WHY?

now, in regards to shamrock:

"According to basic economic theory, yes. In practice, no, not judging by the experience of the UK since the introduction and subsequent raising of the minimum wage."

america and the UK are two completely different animals with entirely different backgrounds in governmental control of the industries. America didnt have minimum wages back in it's early days, and yet people seemed to somehow manage back then. the problem with setting minimum wage is that it also limits the number of employees the boss can hire without raising his prices. If we cut taxes, we don't need such a high minimum wage. by having lower minimum wage, but higher capitol gain per person, the person actually has the same or more buying power. also, by lowering minimum wage, the employer can afford to hire more employees, and get rid of forced overtime, thereby lowering the level of unemployment.

"It appears to be the true capitalist system that allows 50 million americans to go without any health cover. That's almost the entire population of the UK! Markets allocate efficiently in most cases, but certainly not fairly."

actually, a true capitolist system would leave ALOT more without medical coverage *AT FIRST. private corporations already offer much better coverage than public sector (on average). if average joe shmoe could be convinced to invest in his own health coverage, and then given a tax cut to cover the costs, he and his family would ACTUALLY have better health coverage. yes, there would be those who would not invest in health coverage and may one day go without care... thats the nature of accountability for decisions. maybe their friends would help them out (you know, a virtue... called charity)

[ 04-27-2004, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: promethius9594 ]

Um... ignoring promethius (sorry), I note that Barry's first response seems to be in line with (if a bit more detailed) what I said in my last post.

Regarding this comment:
I'd like to point out that that's not the point. With nearly 40% of Americans depending on the government for income in one form or another (from my wife, a prosecutory, to a government housing beneficiary), those people will VOTE for candidates who support increases in government expenditures. This ultimately leads to a flaw in the Democratic model, whereby voters begin to use the system for their own pecuniary gain. This can lead to a downfall of Democracy.