[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / choroy / dempart / freeb / lounge / tingles / vichan / x ]

/liberty/ - Liberty

Non-authoritarian Discussion of Politics, Society, News, and the Human Condition (Fun Allowed)

Catalog   Archive

Winner of the 82rd Attention-Hungry Games
/tikilounge/ - Relax, take it easy

June 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Verification *
File *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Show oekaki applet
(replaces files and can be used instead)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Ya'll need Mises.

File: 8088c3322668db1⋯.jpg (144.15 KB, 1536x1142, 768:571, 1475086790390568552.jpg)


>Today's anti-civilization is a mix of economic authoritarianism ("do whatever you are told") and social infantilism ("be whatever you want"). Civilization requires the very opposite: a mix of economic libertarianism ("do what you want") and social maturity ("be what you ought").

>Hence the following one-sentence recipe for civilizational revival: get rid of scientism and "postmodernism" in favor of Aristotelian Thomism, get rid of legal positivism in favor of natural and common law, and get rid of social democratic statism in favor of classical liberalism/libertarianism.

but what is aristotelian thomism? believing in objective truth, beauty, goodness?

File: fdee44f4fabb58f⋯.jpg (104.8 KB, 881x603, 881:603, gold standard inequality.jpg)


Are leftists EVER going to notice the connection between inequality and the FED? I'm really getting annoyed about how even so much as auditing the fuckers has gone nowhere. Instead, more and more attention gets forced on just increasing taxation even more.


They'll say the same thing whether they are notice cause and effect or not. Whining about inequality is a tool to raise taxes and grab power, not to fix any sort of problems. Not that I mean to imply that inequality is any kind of genuine problem, of course.


It works that way in Nationstates, but one graph doesn’t suffice to prove works that way in real life. Instead of notice-bitching, learn to construct speculative causal constructs. Where but Nationstates would you even notice this? The defenders of the gold standard never mentioned egalitarianism when they were allowed for a time to pretend integrity mattered in governance. So if you did get this from Nationstates, notice, if you’re going to be obedient to one random simulator for your egalitarian policy guidance, you can still do better than nakedly asserting the correlation.

I have this one in the uncertainty bucket because I haven’t come up with a speculative causal construct for it.



Without a concern for inequality how the blazes can someone be libertarian? Flat power distribution is the ultimate guarantor of rights. That’s a big part of why we support gun rights! Chunk egalitarianism out of libertarianism and you’ll eventually lose your guns.


File: c65eb7ae84d82a8⋯.jpg (692.45 KB, 1280x800, 8:5, shut_the_fuck_up_egalitari….jpg)


Equality is a false god, and incompatible with the market economy. The division of labor, by definition, necessitates that men are not created equal, that some are more capable and some are less. To deny this is to deny reality, which is why Rothbard called egalitarianism a revolt against nature; the man wrote a whole book on the subject. I don't support gun rights out of a desire for "equality" or any other leftist nonsense. I wish to own guns so that I might defend myself.

File: f2a85cb49e0ae47⋯.png (57.43 KB, 1205x570, 241:114, my political scale value f….png)


Libercucks, once the goverment stops protecting you, how will survive? There will be no police to enforce laws that protect you from niggers, commies, fascists, etc

>inb4 i will teleport behind them and shoot them in a milion pieces with my mcnuke

12 posts and 3 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>then why has violence fallen dramatically over the last 300 years? has society becomes more societal?

I am very skeptical. The 20th century was one of the most violent in the history of mankind.

Other than that, yes, people have become more societal overall, we are taught how to get along with each other more than we used to, and in fact more than is good for us. Unironically, people these days are too complacent. Just a few weeks ago, I was told by a social worker that I have no right to self-defense, that is how complacent people are. The very idea that sometimes, violence might be a solution, is appalling to many.


>There will be no police to enforce laws that protect you from niggers, commies, fascists, etc

The laws don't protect you, the police does (currently, more on that soon). South Africa, Honduras, Germany and Sweden have esentially the same legal protection against homicide, yet their homicide rates a very different. The reason is partially culture, partially that the police in Germany and Sweden actually does its job (kinda). There are many factors that influence crime rates, the law isn't one. To act like "the law" mysteriously protects you as soon as the police enforce it is to get things exactly backwards, it's the police that protects you by enforcing the laws, not the law protecting you by being enforced by the police. You got me? To say otherwise is essentially allegorical. There is nothing wrong with it 90% of the time, but this discussion is the rest of the 10%.

Now, after we've hopefully settled the semantics, let me point out that ancaps are big fans of personal armament precisely because it enables you to defend yourself from niggers and commies, and that we have always maintained that a private police works. There are several historical examples, from the railway police to some startup firm in America that was set up by cops who got sick of how inefficient the police force was. Throughout thePost too long. Click here to view the full text.



You're assuming they'd have a monopoly on violence. If they start demanding too much, you can leave them and join another company. If you can't, then that still doesn't suggest they'll be untouchable. You *might* end up with a mafia, but that can be the case even now. Mexico has a mafia and it's not lacking in government, and the Chicago Police Department has acted like a mafia in the past (probably still does). The police department in my town of birth has bossed my family around more than any mafia in the area.


Its track record when it comes to protecting my family is also abysmal. My family was once asked by the DA to take care of the store of a neighbor who was put in custody for selling drugs. So we did, but that meant selling much of his inventory. We talked about this with his lawyer, and he gave it his okay. We assumed the lawyer knew what he was talking about.

A rather short time later, our neighbor got out. He threatened us at least three times, and each time, the police took way too long to respond. First time, they didn't come at all when I called them, just laughed in my face and pretty much told me I deserved it for hanging out with drug dealers (at the request of the DA?). My mother had to call them, they arrived an hour after the guy was gone. Second time, two cops came, they seemed like two genuinely nice guys, but they couldn't do anything, apparently. Third time, my mother had to tell them the history we have with the neighbor including the deal we had with the DA, our family history, her blood group and the history of Constantinople in the 4th century before they would come.

Last time I called the cops was on a different matter. This time, they charged me for protecting myself, and their police reports were worthless. They didn't even know what the area looked like. It was clear they didn't want to work on the case, and yet they did.

So, the next time anyone gets in my face, I will not bother to call the cops. Post too long. Click here to view the full text.



>My family was once asked by the DA to take care of the store of a neighbor

Why was your family obligated (or forced?) to manage your neighbor's business?



We weren't obligated. We could've denied the request, but back then, we didn't think it was that much of a big deal, and we certainly didn't expect such a big shitstorm from developing out of it. Most importantly, we didn't think the DA would fuck us over so badly. You'd think if you responded to their request, they'd actually care a little bit about your wellbeing, but no. Nothing. There is very little loyalty in the public sector.



kike tier double-post. reported

HookTube embed. Click on thumbnail to play.


Will the U.S. ever declare its independence from Israel?

39 posts and 6 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



/pol/ is variable, some are straight cappies



You're right. classical liberals arent. Neolibs are just fiscally conservative social liberals



I feel like most of the pro-market /pol/acks have moved away from the board and don't lurk or post there all that often. Purity spiraling has turned it into a NEETSoc circlejerk.


>Neolibs are just fiscally conservative social liberals

Assuming you mean the old definition of neoliberal instead of the contemporary one (which may be defined as "blue neocon"), I wouldn't say that's really true. Neoliberals in the vein of Mises were more apathetic on social issues than they were socially left. They didn't virtue-signal for faggotry and didn't demand that people break freedom of association to accomadate it, they just didn't care enough to expend effort in opposing it. This attitude of apathy, however, created the environment that allowed the faggotphiliacs to gain influence.



>Purity spiraling has turned it into a NEETSoc circlejerk.

Stupid question, but how could we possibly utilize this effect to turn something into an ancap circlejerk?


File: a37e166c20fe34c⋯.jpg (96.6 KB, 1280x970, 128:97, Hey anon, what's your poli….jpg)


How exactly would one purify spiral in ancap? It's already based on first principles that are followed without exception, caveat, or contradiction. It's rather hard to purity spiral when you've already taken your premises to the most radical conclusion (as Rand said: "Extremist? I am merely consistent in my convictions"). The only way we can really purity spiral from here is to start unironically advocating for ancap ball-tier interpretations of the NAP.

File: a5efa1b4011fdd6⋯.jpg (41.49 KB, 589x400, 589:400, 2570713-9416505256-dont-.jpg)


Google whistle blower shares the following

>Insider: Google "is bent on never letting somebody like Donald Trump come to power again."

>Google Exec Says Don't Break Us Up: "smaller companies don't have the resources" to "prevent next Trump situation"

>Google Head of Responsible Innovation Says Elizabeth Warren "misguided" on "breaking up Google"

>Insider Says PragerU And Dave Rubin Content Suppressed, Targeted As "Right-Wing"

>LEAKED Documents Highlight "Machine Learning Fairness" and Google’s Practices to Make Search Results "fair and equitable"

>Documents Appear to Show "Editorial" Policies That Determine How Google Publishes News

>Insider: Google Violates "letter of the law" and "spirit of the law" on Section 230

Video: https://www.bitchute.com/video/re9Xp6cdkro/

Btw, this video was deleted from their channel on youtube (owned by google) obviously

The full interview:


Ancaps will defend this

26 posts omitted. Click reply to view.



>A corporation is abusing its power in order to unfairly influence the US elections and is subverting and diluting Americans constitutional rights

And everyone here agrees that this is a bad thing. The problem is that people like you, I assume, is to give the government even more power, because you assume that the government exists to fight corporations or something. In the current year, large corporations and government are one in the same. Strengthening government is simply sharpening the teeth of the corporations that you hate so much.

>ranting about jews

No one's doing that.



*think that the answer is to give the government even more power



>And everyone here agrees that this is a bad thing

Literally every post in this thread that not me is trying to dodge this point completely and try to spin this around and pin the blame on the government wholly by concocting retarded conspiracy theories that make literally no sense.

People can use any position of power to abuse it for their own gain, be that through the state or private business. Google would outright ban you from the internet for wrong think if they had it their way, and you guys are still cucking out to them because they are a business.



Point to one post in this thread, any post, that depicts Google in a positive light.



>concocting retarded conspiracy theories

Such as?

>Google would outright ban you from the internet for wrong think if they had it their way, and you guys are still cucking out to them because they are a business.

Why won't this strawman end? No one is exonerating google for their obvious abuse of power but it is myopic to solely blame google when the state facilitates such abuse through the incentive system known as corporate welfare.

File: 95e320c842ea49e⋯.png (323.34 KB, 640x427, 640:427, ClipboardImage.png)


So far in the #YouTubePurge;



The Great Order



Martin Sellner

James Allsup

Steven Crowder

Red Ice TV


Videos deleted-

Angelo John Gage

Gavin McInnes


Red Ice TV

Black Pigeon Speaks

Drunken Peasants

Press For Truth

J.F Gariepy

And many more


Libertarians support 1984, as long as it is 1984 achieved through private methods, not public methods. They can't be taken seriously as they have no genuine interest in *positive freedom*, ie real freedom.

120 posts and 23 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



I remember reading an article about Zuckerberg pushing for more regulation so yeah I can see that happening.



>Elite, n.

>1.a. A group or class of persons considered to be superior to others because of their intelligence, social standing, or wealth



>the sad state of free discourse

Given the power of these tech companies to censor and influence public speech, I think the libertarian policy is to have the government get involved in some way. The present situation is intolerable. Far too much power over discourse is concentrated in too few hands. A few cunts from San Fransisco shouldn't be able to silence many millions.



>I think the libertarian policy is to have the government get involved in some way.

The government is already involved. These tech companies became powerful due to both direct and indirect government assistance. Ideally you'd remove the government from interfering entirely. In the event that isn't practical, I have no ethical qualms about using the state against another part of the state.



I'd rather have the possibility of small, alternative media than regulatory capture ensuring that those same giant tech companies are the only platforms in town >>103623 .

YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.


I know it's from microdick Bananaman and friends, but this is honestly the greatest takedown of Lolbertarians I have ever seen.

My favorite is the libertarian redneck who asks how Congress got its power and he didn't.


I'm not watching e-celebs, give it to me in your own words.


What exactly were you expecting?


File: 3265a8ff7e8072e⋯.jpg (11.79 KB, 241x277, 241:277, 35f12cfe.jpg)

>1st Question = false equivalency

I realize this is bait, but how is this a takedown?

1. Schools could be unaware of such bullying, and addressing such complaints are seldom effective (onus of proof is on the accuser).

2. School bullies could operate their bullying activities outside the school's jurisdiction (e.g. bus stops).


File: 5b1c58c4a7d2b68⋯.webm (11.49 MB, 640x360, 16:9, richlaugh.webm)

>implying I'm watching that

I know it's from Reddit Letter Memia, but this is honestly the greatest reaction to shitty one video "takedown" threads I have ever seen. My favorite is the part where you didn't say anything with your meaningless OP.

File: a5d6cfbc059bba8⋯.png (31.51 KB, 676x548, 169:137, ancap argument.png)

File: 6376946b3541bff⋯.jpg (77.88 KB, 695x703, 695:703, ancap destroyed.jpg)


Egalitarians cannot defend their positions at all. The only thing they can do is resort to social shaming and appeals to authority, which reveals a lot about how they themselves came to adopt that belief. Even more educated speakers consistently fall back on dishonest rhetorical tactics designed to prevent actual discourse. It's even more hilarious in the case of anarchists who will be enslaved by the very subhuman they love, perhaps this is what they want.

>dude fascism means opressium lmao

1 post omitted. Click reply to view.


File: 60526854c68bcb6⋯.png (150.13 KB, 250x381, 250:381, ClipboardImage.png)


>dude egalitarianism sux

>posts low-effort anti-ancap memes


File: a8300def3601dc5⋯.png (119.53 KB, 320x489, 320:489, free market power.png)

why can't the left meme?





is the belief natural rights an egalitarian belief?



They lack free minded individualists.

File: 036cc46a4fd7135⋯.jpg (96.01 KB, 649x960, 649:960, 92bb9deb26e6225ee34cb68153….jpg)


What will the age of consent in your private community be?

39 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



You shouldnt insult your masters, /pol.


The antipedo is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, tranny, swindler, cuck, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him a Jew and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”

One cannot defend himself against the anti. He attacks with lightning speed from his position of safety and uses his abilities to crush any attempt at defense.


Quickly he turns the attacker’s charges back on him and the attacker becomes the liar, the troublemaker, the terrorist. Nothing could be more mistaken than to defend oneself. That is just what the anti-pedo wants. He can invent a new lie every day for the enemy to respond to, and the result is that the enemy spends so much time defending himself that he has no time to do what the anti really fears: to attack. The accused has become the accuser, and loudly he shoves the accuser into the dock. So it always was in the past when a person or a movement fought the anti-pedo. That is what would happen to us as well were we not fully aware of his nature, and if we lacked the courage to draw the following radical conclusions:


The fact that he shouts and complains about such a movement therefore is only a sign that it is right. We are therefore delighted that we are constantly attacked by anti-pedos. They may shout about terror. We answer with Mussolini’s familiar words: “Terror? Never! It is social hygiene. We take these individuals out of circulation just as a doctor does to a bacterium.


1st trimester

File: d7319c6435740a9⋯.png (296.31 KB, 1000x500, 2:1, cars_comic_strip_by_jrroma….png)


Can /liberty/ give me the rundown on the car market crash and why it happened?

File: c082756279ea5be⋯.jpg (40.94 KB, 1080x490, 108:49, 1558114078682.jpg)


The most relevant question.

Given libertarianism is true (defined: the state needs to be drastically rolled back or abolished), what should the average Western man do what's he's persuaded?

Here's the basic categories of options. There is overlap:

>Sequester yourself from the state, reject involvement in state government system on principle. Don't vote.

>Plan for overthrow in your lifetime.

>Engage in system politics, vote for libertarian policies to be incremented.

>Blackpill: give up.

I believe option 3 is the most practical and mature. Here is why:

Take the most urgent case of abortion. Babies are being murdered and there's no end in sight. In latest development, a (medically) retarded mother in the UK is being forced to have an abortion against her and her own caretaker mother's wishes, because the female judge decided she knows better than them.

Given that the state exists so a consensual system of preventing abortion is unenforceable, it is not a compromise for me as a libertarian to argue for state persecution of abortionists. By supporting anti-abortion legislation I am not agreeing that this is the way it ought to be.

Same for immigration and border control. My striving for no more non-white immigration and a higher border defense budget does not mean I consent to the existence of the state.

At the same time as I'm lobbying for these basic requirements of a society to be in place by the state, I'm advocating for less and less state intrusion everywhere else. I can also prepare my family for a financial collapse, and join a preparatory revolutionary outfit.

Please, help me refine my outlook.



What should the average Western man do *when he's persuaded.



I agree with you in some respects (politically active libertarians should use legislative and judicial means to achieve change in a relatively peaceful manner). On the subject of abortion, given a libertarian view of natural rights, it would be more consistent at least for the life of a baby to be afforded the same protection under the law as any other human being.

However, in terms of immigration/border defense, I think it would be unwise to try to correct the ill effects of government policy by adding more policy on top of it. We should strive to simplify and increase consistency rather than increase complexity, and this means we ought to attack the government policies which fuel the existence of an "immigration crisis" in the first place–the "immigration" part and the "crisis" part: Welfare programs creating malinvestment by giving immigrants false incentives to migrate to Western nations. Governments should not be subsidizing the flow of immigrants into a nation; if they come here, they ought to feed and clothe themselves with their own money and labor. Military intervention forcing many out of their home countries. The "War on Drugs" precluding the production and consumption of drugs by safe, legal means and ultimately leading to the rise of violent cartels. Minimum wage, "bottlenecker" licensure programs intended to minimize competition, and other restrictive regulations that place an artifically high price on local labor, causing many businesses to resort to either automation or illegal labor, or simply outsource.


I think doing activism in the legislature and judiciary helps but I think it acts like a stop gap. Agorism could complement it to build a long term free society while the legislature work buys breathing room for the agorists.

File: 4d30e6ae06c100f⋯.jpg (88.74 KB, 960x796, 240:199, 147275687199-0.jpg)


question to ancaps

do you feel alienated?

15 posts and 2 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



People don't necessarily disagree with ancap, they only disagree when you call it ancap.



i disagree



Aside from pedantic communists who want to claim the word "anarchy" for themselves, I think this is only because when they hear "libertarian" they think of safe, social liberal types like Gary Johnson who just want low taxes and legal drugs.



We have the economics nailed, we're a more stable and less degenerate bunch than them no matter how hard they try, and we remain somewhat homogenous - a better word would be "harmonious" - even though we are split across several countries, religious denominations, and philosophical schools. Also, we recruit from the same pool: Young people who recently grew disillusioned with politics and society. SJW's and commies recruit from a completely different pool, and they don't steal members from the NEETsocs. In other words, we're in competition, and dissuading people from joining us is how they attract more members.

Then there are complete faggots, like True DilTom, who started out as libertarians, but then had to move on to more retarded and esoteric philosophies to retain their status as online-intellectuals. Fools like him give you the impression that their "grand theory of everything" is just around the corner, they just gotta read Heidegger and Hans Blüher and then they have it all nailed. They reinvent themselves once a year, they have no sense of tradition no matter how much they claim otherwise, basically, they are never content with what or who they are, and that is why they have a strong tendency to declare everything they believed a week ago to be utter bullshit. Online intellectuals are a funny group.



>Online intellectuals are a funny group.

Yes they are. Its funny seeing them on twitter. The trad right sperged out over a picture of a truck stop in Pennsylvania.

File: d9bb70b7b91883f⋯.jpg (13.73 KB, 413x259, 59:37, pope-cat-wailing-wall.jpg)


>pope francesco


51 posts and 14 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.



>How about you prove the claim wrong



I would stick it in her pooper if she was down, yes.



It's been a week, I'm still waiting.



You'll be waiting forever, faggot, because your claim makes no fucking sense.



pope jp2 was used to priests being accused of pedophilia because he lived in communist poland and communists did not like catholicism and wanted to degrade priests by such accusations

so jp2 probably thought that these accusations were false just like accusations in communist poland

File: a567b1823df915d⋯.jpg (19.8 KB, 480x360, 4:3, 1504448148611575949.jpg)


french-national-socialist-homo-e-friend of mine told me that niggers there in france dont vote, and he does not believe that they are being imported for the left to win elections

what about burgerland? what percent of your niggers vote?


File: 3a441d7cfb7f463⋯.webm (2.27 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, coalburner.webm)



Niggers don't understand the concept of "voting", and in the U.S., politicians have to cajole them to go to the polls like toddlers. A good chunk of niggers vote, but I doubt they understand the implications of casting one.




They have some of the worst turnout of any demographic (I think only spics are lower than they are), but you don't need very high turnout when you absolutely saturate a district or two with them. And as niggers drive down property values and encourage the productive members of society to move away, even if they're just a large plurality to start, the wonders of Section 8 housing means they become a majority before too long.



what is section 8 housing?

File: 9cde2ab664ca921⋯.png (40.15 KB, 628x294, 314:147, guardian_work_less.png)



Guys! If we just work less, there will be less pollution! Darn those greedy capitalists!

5 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view.



The leftists try to take credit for it, but it was mostly a result of the industrial revolution and factory lines. We Are Capitalists made a short (2-4 minute) labor day video on it a few years ago but it seems to have been removed from youtube. Here's the accompanying article if I remember correctly. https://fee.org/articles/thank-capitalism-for-the-weekend/

I have some other sources but I won't even get home for about 12 hours between work and the gym. I'll try to remember to post them tonight. Polite sage because shit thread.


File: 23207359aca41b1⋯.mp4 (5.16 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, 40_hour_Work_week.mp4)

Here's that video I was talking about. It was on fagbook of all places, but it let me access the post without an account somehow. This was the accompanying text.


I could have sworn FEE, Reason, and a number of other websites wrote articles on this topic, but I can't seem to find them. Then again I haven't been heavily invested in discussing this topic in detail since around 2015-2016. I know at least a company in New Zealand experimented with a 32 hour work week where they paid their employees the same but asked them to only come in four days a week instead of five, and the results were that they maintained the exact same level of productivity, but that there was a…

>24% increase in work-home balance reported by employees

>Higher productivity from the employees when they were in the office

>Attendance increased significantly (employees were punctual in showing up on time, didn't leave early, and took fewer breaks when they were in the office)

Sweden did a similar study where they reduced the work day from 8 hours to 6 hours, and found that the employees working 6 hour days were less likely to quit, take sick days, or otherwise provide poor performance. They also found it heavily reduced the number of emails sent or meetings requested since people were trying to maximize what they did during those six hours. Sahlgrenska University Hospital tried something similar, and while the initial costs to the hospital were pretty damn high (about $1.5 million USD per year), they managed to increase their operations by 20%, take on operations they'd normally send elsewhere, reduced sick leave to almost nothing, and decreased the waiting time on surgeries from months down to weeks. Basically the biggest downside they found to the 6 hour work week was that employees who weren't part of the program bitched up a storm and became more likely to quit when their counterparts got to work 2 hours less for the same pay.

Article related from 2017: https://archive.fo/jid9s

What needs to happen Post too long. Click here to view the full text.



Interesting, you mention wages would that decrease somewhat. I know you said that it should be more hours cut then wages but I just wonder how much of the wages would be cut.



so what does the government *actually* do to stop this?

'taking your money' is not an excuse, because without government services you would be paying for your own schools, security, pension, and paying more for everything subsidised



The answer is still "taking my money." The top three federal expenditures, which make up a supermajority of the budget, are two different kinds of welfare and defense spending a third kind of welfare. It's safe to say I receive zero benefit from any of these things. I don't use the vast majority of the other services the state provides, either. Those few I do use frequently involve me waiting in lines for far longer than I like, filling out far more forms than are necessary; that is to say these services are undersupplied, overpriced, and of inferior quality. This isn't even getting into the amount of overhead costs involved in collecting taxes, which are decidedly higher than what a business spends on ensuring receivables. Per the Economic Calculation Problem, among other things, it can be shown that these services will be allocated efficiently by the private market, rather than being under or over supplied. By the same token, private supply is of these goods would be lower in price and higher in quality. All of this translates to an immense amount of productive that simply does not exist thanks to the public sector. Because this productivity has gone down the drain, we must work more hours per week to compensate.

Further, regardless of the quality or efficiency of government services, the coercive nature of taxation means that the very act of taxing necessarily kills productivity, regardless of how the money is used. Taxation is alwats a redistribution of wealth, from the taxpayer to the tax receiver. Even if no welfare system is in place, wealth is still redistributed from the taxpayers to the government and government contractors. This redistribution increases the payoff of being a tax receiver, and decreases the playoff of being a productive tax player. If there is less incentive to be productive, people will stop being productive and become tax receivers. This increases the total cost of the tax receivers and decreases the revenue from tax payers, meaning that the tax rate must be increased to pay for the tax receivers. The tax increase causes a further decreased incentive to be productive, which causes fewer people to be productive, which necessitates a further tax increase…

Post too long. Click here to view the full text.

Delete Post [ ]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]
| Catalog | Nerve Center | Cancer
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / b2 / choroy / dempart / freeb / lounge / tingles / vichan / x ]