- Joined
- Oct 4, 2011
- Messages
- 27,204
- Reaction score
- 13,299
- Location
- CT
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
My proposal was to outlaw all campaign contributions of every kind. Each candidate would be given a voucher with a set number of funds he can use for advertising and campaigning. To help finance this, certain uses for the funding could be tax deductible. For instance, say a candidate wanted to advertise on CNN, CNN could get a tax break from the government equal to the cost of the spot. This would force the candidates to run a tight budget and stretch their dollars to the fullest, which would be an amazingly important display to the people to see.
I'm not liquidating them of any responsibility, I'm just placing the majority of the blame where it's due, with the government. Big business and government are in bed with each other, and I'd like to destroy that relationship. You'd like to give one of them more power.
In what world are your politicians actually accountable for their actions? Not in the US of A, that's for sure. Most politicians run on promises, then never even attempt to make any of them happen. The government has a monopoly on violence and force, businesses do not. Their only way to get violence and force is through the government, which our politicians readily give them for the right price.
I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how Kinkos is exerting power over Joe Bob by coming to an agreement on labor and payment. Have you ever even been to a job interview? I recently decided to go back to work, and have been in a series of interviews. Do you know what happens there? After we interview each other to decide if they want me, and I want them, we begin negotiations for payment for my labor. They suggest a price, I may suggest a higher price. We can't go forward until we agree on this, and at any point I can walk away. If my kids are starving, I can take the job for a ****tier amount, then use the job as leverage to get a better one. Only socialists sit in their jobs and cry that they're being manipulated.
The history of an all-powerful government, especially a socialist one, most certainly does not agree with you.
The fact that you see owning a business as absolutely anything even remotely similar to being voted into office shows that you have either no respect, or no understanding for property rights, and merit based rewards.And what elects business owners? Being born into means, perhaps? Look, I'm no fan of the US government, but when forced to choose between it and the PS, I'll choose the government.
Oh yeah, I get that, but what you still haven't explained is how any business owner is responsible for the way the system is. They're just players in the game. You demonize absolutely everybody who owns a business, when most business owners aren't the monopoly man you make them out to be. Stop blaming our entire system on business.Have I not explained this to you in my last dozen posts? In a capitalist, free market country with a large gap between rich and poor and a competitive market, one class ends up being exploited by another. The need to generate income, combined with competition for positions forces workers to take whatever positions they can get. If Mr. Bob quits his job, chances are that he won't find a better one, if he's employed at all. In reality, where competition exists, Joe may be stuck in his position, advancement depending upon the will of his employer.
If you're trying to argue it's OK to be a criminal unless you get caught then we have nothing further to discuss.When the well is found to be poisoned then the value of the well will decrease. If however no one found it was poisioned in which you seem to be implying the assumed value will be unaffected. I could sell this poisioned well to anyone I desire assuming I have ownership and I could sell it as if it wasn't poisoned and the value is what it otherwise would be.
How did I steal something from the community??
Indeed.
Assuming they drink of it, yes.
If you're trying to argue it's OK to be a criminal unless you get caught then we have nothing further to discuss.
I'm sure you would argue one isn't a criminal until they get caught - even if they rape the mayor's daughter in the middle of Main St at noon Wednesday.
Which is why no one takes minarchy seriously.Nope, not doing that. I was talking of the value of the well.
And since you shouldn't be punished - put in jail - before you're convicted you have the opportunity to "allegedly" commit several hundred more rapes, murders, etc before someone finally just shoots your ass and goes to jail in your place. (3/3)Nope
Criminal- A person who has committed a crime. That would be a bit hard.
Which is why no one takes minarchy seriously.
And since you shouldn't be punished - put in jail - before you're convicted you have the opportunity to "allegedly" commit several hundred more rapes, murders, etc before someone finally just shoots your ass and goes to jail in your place. (3/3)
:lamo :lamo :lamo
Sorry my reply went over your head.You were talking about the value of the well and so I dealt with that question. Sorry, that you don't like it.
In a rational society the judge wouldn't allow the "alleged" rapist back on the streets without a huge - and probably unavailable - bail amount. If they were charged with a second crime before the first went to court I'm pretty the judge wouldn't let them out on any amount of bail. Of course, the minarchists would let them roam around without any bail at all - allowing them to possibly elude trial and conviction completely. Just move, change your name, and you're free to rape and murder, again. Once more you get 3/3!Well considering you are not found guilty of any crimes at that point..
In a rational society the judge wouldn't allow the "alleged" rapist back on the streets without a huge - and probably unavailable - bail amount.
If they were charged with a second crime before the first went to court I'm pretty the judge wouldn't let them out on any amount of bail. Of course, the minarchists would let them roam around without any bail at all - allowing them to possibly elude trial and conviction completely. Just move, change your name, and you're free to rape and murder, again. Once more you get 3/3!
:lamo :lamo :lamo
Sorry my reply went over your head.
MoSurveyor said:If nothing else you have decreased the value of the well.
The fact that you see owning a business as absolutely anything even remotely similar to being voted into office shows that you have either no respect, or no understanding for property rights, and merit based rewards.
Oh yeah, I get that, but what you still haven't explained is how any business owner is responsible for the way the system is. They're just players in the game. You demonize absolutely everybody who owns a business, when most business owners aren't the monopoly man you make them out to be. Stop blaming our entire system on business.
Inversely, quite blaming our entire system on governance, friend.
You see fit to dish out rhetoric without substance, every time simply ignoring the points made in my posts. Either you agree, or you don't know what to say.
Oh, I understand the theory well enough - and in most cases I would agree - but there are certain crimes that call for extra prudence on the part of judges.Setting bail for an unreasonable amount would clearly restrict the freedom of a person who has only been accused of wrongdoing and who is presumed innocent until found guilty.
I've addressed your points every time, you're the only one here who doesn't see that.
Oh, I understand the theory well enough - and in most cases I would agree - but there are certain crimes that call for extra prudence on the part of judges.
As I was told a long time ago by a lawyer - the "law" is only the opinion of a judge (and I'll add - or judges in some cases).It's not just a theory, but also law.
As I was told a long time ago by a lawyer - the "law" is only the opinion of a judge (and I'll add - or judges in some cases).
there are different libertarian senses.
some more social, some less social.
but none of them forbid a libertarian to support business owners being able to exert power over employees.
libertarian senses just limit business owners in the way how to exert power over employees.
for a libertarian it´s a human right that someone can have more or less power, but the employee should be able to choose the way he wants to live.
Yeah, happy, that's the word. :lamoAs long as that power isn't protected by the government, then yes. In most cases today you'll find big business is using the government as their muscle to protect their power. In a truly free market, an employee makes a voluntary contract with an employer, and no work will take place until both parties are happy with the terms of the deal.
Interesting. To you, the exploitation of workers and the widening of the gap between rich and poor is fine, provided the label slavery is absent.
Exploitation is in the eye of the beholder and the wealth gap is driven a lot by demographics.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?