patrick.net

Mexifornia needs trade schools …. not welfare qualification junior colleges .. but, real trade schools.

Yep. If we care about job skills and global competitiveness, we really need to replace junior colleges with trade schools.

4x...

Really? Shouldnt children be taken care of and not taken advantage of for cheap labor?

Children should never be forced to work against their will, but in many parts of the world, taking care of children means providing them with employment opportunities.

So, we should not show compassion or concern for those that are left out of the profits?

I think Free Market Utilitarianism is a viable moral system. It may not display much compassion, but I believe the end result will have exactly the same qualities and values that compassion strives for.

Whether wealth is a zero-sum game depends on your perspective and your value system.

Today the world posesses billions upon billions of times more wealth as it did a thousand years ago.

Then Zimbabwe must be the fastest growing economy in the world.

Peter P says

Whether wealth is a zero-sum game depends on your perspective and your value system.

No, it's not actually. The world is undeniably wealthier now than it was 20, 50 or 100 years ago. You can't even argue it. Factories are more efficient, farmers are more efficient, technology has improved many, many fold...

The world is undeniably wealthier now than it was 20, 50 or 100 years ago.

100 ago, it was men exploiting men. Now, it is just the opposite, but it is the same thing.

Wealth is really about control. No amount of efficiency or productivity can change the dynamics of human societies.

I much rather be a medieval king than a Star Trek peon.

Peter P says

Wealth is really about control. No amount of efficiency or productivity can change the dynamics of human societies.

To the extent that wealth controls natural resources, I agree 100%. This is why I'd like to see very high unimproved commercial land value taxation and severance taxes on natural resources, to level the playing field for the less well off. This idea comes from Henry George, who over 100 years ago detested the (real) Socialists of his day.

I'd like to think the libertopian minarchy would actually work under this tax regime, since wealth would have to be put to actual work, not just engaged in naked rentierism as it is now.

Peter P says

I much rather be a medieval king than a Star Trek peon.

That *really* fails Raws' "Veil of Ignorance" test LOL

Peter P says

Wealth is really about control. No amount of efficiency or productivity can change the dynamics of human societies.

Are you kidding me? You don't think human societies, as a whole, aren't better off than they were hundreds of years ago?

Yeah, most of Africa still sucks, but in most of the world we've eliminated slavery (real slavery, not the bullshit people are complaining about on this forum), democracy exists in more places than it does not, and on and on.

It's no coincidence that the poorest societies are the ones where you most commonly find despots. Whether freer societies create more wealth or more wealth creates freer societies is irrelevant, what's important is that the two go hand in hand.

Troy, I agree that land tax is much more fair and much less damaging than income tax.

You don’t think human societies, as a whole, aren’t better off than they were hundreds of years ago?

We have made a few superficial improvements but we are still human.

It’s no coincidence that the poorest societies are the ones where you most commonly find despots.

I think the poorest societies are also the least capitalistic. China is far from democratic but since its experiment with capitalism the people have become much wealthier.

I agree that economic freedom is very important, because a market must be given breathing room. Political "freedom" can become despotic without adequate regulation of democracy. This is why the Constitution was draft to protect the people from the people.

Real slavery? I guess people used to be literally eaten alive by cannibals. Now, they are merely figuratively eaten alive by banksters. Progress huh?

Here's an article all the freedom lovers (tm) may find interesting:

"In Search of Morale, Are Americans Too Broken for the Truth to Set Us Free?"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24126.htm

-

"It’s no coincidence that the poorest societies are the ones where you most commonly find despots. Whether freer societies create more wealth or more wealth creates freer societies is irrelevant, what’s important is that the two go hand in hand."

Kevin, its no coincidence that the poorest societies, the ones where you most commonly find despots, are almost universally the ones who are suffering under having to recover from being systematically destroyed by the 'freer' societies in search of wealth, and you'll usually find that many of the despots have been set up and supported by outside societies in order to continue the pillaging. You should read a bit about what the Dutch did for gems in africa, or what the Spanish did to South America, and there are many examples closer to home if you care to look. The thing that tweaks me about your line of thinking is how conveniently bereft of context and history it is. There is no cause and effect, there's only what we have currently. Its basically the FYIGM argument.

kentm says

Kevin, its no coincidence that the poorest societies, the ones where you most commonly find despots, are almost universally the ones who are suffering under having to recover from being systematically destroyed by the ‘freer’ societies in search of wealth, and you’ll usually find that many of the despots have been set up and supported by outside societies in order to continue the pillaging. You should read a bit about what the Dutch did for gems in africa, or what the Spanish did to South America, and there are many examples closer to home if you care to look. The thing that tweaks me about your line of thinking is how conveniently bereft of context and history it is. There is no cause and effect, there’s only what we have currently. Its basically the FYIGM argument.

Not every despotic regime is the result of first-world plundering, nor is every country that is the product of first-world plundering a despotic regime.

...but that's not even the point I was making. I know it's fun to throw our hands in the air and pretend like we can ignore real solutions to poverty by complaining about how europe screwed up so much of the world, but it has very little to do with the simple correlation of which I spoke.

Peter P says

We have made a few superficial improvements but we are still human.

Superficial improvements? Are you fucking kidding me? It used to be the *NORM* for powerful people in a society to be allowed to murder, rape, and otherwise injure the lower classes with impunity. We used to allow human beings to be bought and sold as property. Most people lived in a constant state of warfare (think Afghanistan or sub-saharan africa today -- only everywhere).

Yes, we've come a long way. As good as it makes people feel to bitch about whatever petty problems that they face today ("oh no taxes" "oh no unemployment" "oh no my 401kaaaaaay"), it's immeasurably better today.

Could we still use improving? Absolutely, and we always will. If you honestly think things are bad as long as we're human, you may as well just kill yourself now.

Peter P says

I think the poorest societies are also the least capitalistic.

One has little to do with the other. India and China are comparably wealthy (with china perhaps slightly ahead), but they have very different levels of capitalism. There aren't a whole lot of "capitalistic" third word cesspools because those places tend to not have any economy at all. You can't have capitalism without a strong, stable government to protect it.

Peter P says

Real slavery? I guess people used to be literally eaten alive by cannibals. Now, they are merely figuratively eaten alive by banksters. Progress huh?

Anyone who refers to taxation as slavery is being just as stupid as people who compare health care to genocide.

No, comparing anything that we have to deal with today to the hardships endured by slaves is so far from being a rational argument that it's not even really worth debating.