End of Empire

In terms of economic freedom Norway and Canada rank above the USA. However, if we were to look inside the USA and compare cities in terms of economic freedom then we find Baltimore ranks 107 and Democrat run Detroit ranks waaaaay down at 347 in the USSA, one of the least free places to start a business in the US. Of course, Detroit went belly up first. Oh, and in case you didn't know, Japan isn't a cheap place to make a car Joe. Either is Germany. And Germany probably has more stringent laws regarding property than the USSA. So, again, you're smoking crack.

Not that economic freedom is the only ingredient. It's just a measure freedom to trade which is strongly correlated with prosperity. Of course, you need to be able to read and write as well. You also need a culture where a good work ethic is encouraged and rewarded. Most highly socialistic organizations (public institutions) generally reward politicking and boot-licking over hard work. No one at the FDA is going to be promoted for doing a good job. They'll be promoted for working the system. This same thing starts to happen at very large private companies as well - partly because they grow nice and fat and the prospect of needing to provide value for money is lost in the far off distance, until they do us the favor of going bankrupt. Sadly, public institutions are rarely allowed to go bust, and the same is now true for disorganized poorly run private crony capitalistic ones as well. Let's see how that works out for us in the end.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, it's called objectivity.

What threat of violence? The people pay their taxes and the people decide to use the tax money to help other people.

That's what I'm saying: the government should be doing more to supress those rent-seeking capitalist bastards.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And both are more socialistic than the US. So how does that comport with your notions of socialism? Both had and have universal healthcare, you know the healthcare system you like to rant about. Both have public welfare programs. Both have more taxation and more government spending as a percent of GDP, than the US.

Below is a color coded map showing economic freedom by country:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Green and dark green indicate high degrees of economic freedom. Notice, the US, Canada, and Norway are all colored in green. The only countries with more economic freedom are Australia and New Zealand. All of those countries have socialistic components, including Australia and New Zealand, probably more so than the US. All have public welfare programs. All have the government sponsored universal healthcare you are so fond of complaining about. So how do your reconcile those facts with your beliefs Michael?

And you think that makes sense?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why would governmental regulators, who make their living off selling licences to rent-seekers (at a fat profit to their "agency") want to stop doing this? You're asking people to give up their entire way of life. Regulators make a living by sell regulations to rent seekers. They are dependent on selling off various markets to rent-seekers via legal regulatory capture. Many go on to get high paying powerful jobs in the very industries they 'regulate' - as a matter of fact, that's the dream of almost all regulators.

So, you want them to suddenly grow a conscious and do the right thing, give up their job, power, money, pension, healthcare, public holidays, maybe lose their house, pull their kids out of private school and send them to public school - and go work for a living?

Come on.

The only way to get rid of rent seekers is to remove the regulators and regulations who give / sell rent-seekers special rights through regulatory market-capture.

 

Maybe I missed something, because this appears to be non sequitur.

In a democracy the State cannot enact laws that do not reflect the will of the majority of people. If the majority support charity, then there is no need to use force to make them support charity. They, by definition, already support charity. Thus, no need to force them. Thus, no need of government redistribution.

I have a question: Why do you suppose the governments all over the world are attempting to privatize as many services as possible? Why do that? They don't have to worry about going bankrupt, so why the push to privatize everything from White House kitchen to military contractors in Iraq?

 

People pay income tax under coercion. People pay other forms of tax, say gasoline tax, volentarily. As for the people deciding how to use the tax money to help other people - the help other people is usually only an after thought. They prefer to use the tax money to pay for things they want, like public holiday pay, generous pension, top notch healthcare, a nice office, individual office air conditioning, new computers, etc... people take jobs in government because they want a good job, not because they want to be a public 'servant'. They're motivated by the same things that motivate everyone else. The only difference between them and a private company of people is you're forced to pay them whether you like it or not (assuming you want to work or in any way make a living).

THAT is the threat of violence.

 

Sure it can. That's why governments get voted out - because they didn't do what the majority of people wanted.

"Supporting charity" in the abstract is not the same as actually supporting charity financially. For many people, "supporting charity" in the abstract is an excuse for not doing anything real.

It's only a minority of right-wing nuts that are doing that. It's stupid. It doesn't work. Most governments are maintaining government intervention where it's necessary - e.g. health care.

 

I'd say it was the other way around. People are forced to pay gasoline tax, otherwise they can't get from A to B. There are far more ways of getting around income tax than gasoline tax.

 

You have it backwards. "Government regulators" get paid no matter what the "rent-seekers" do - and the rent-seekers will still seek rent even if there are no government regulators. The problem is the rent-seekers. They need to be regulated more, not less.

 

And you have evidence to support your assertions Michael? Of course you don't, you never do. Regulators make a living by regulating the activity they are suppose to regulate. Regulators are paid by the state, not by the regulated. That might be a difficult distinction for you, but it is an important one. One of our problems now is when regulators and legislators leave their public sector jobs and move into higher paying private industry jobs. It creates a conflict of interest.

Removing regulation doesn't solve your "rent seeking" problem. It makes it worse. It doesn't stop the Koch brothers from using their influence (i.e. money) to get legislative bodies to enact rent seeking laws which advantage their financial interests. As explained to you numerous times over the years Michael, the only way to do that is to take the special interest money (e.g. Koch brothers) out of our political system and eliminate the many conflicts of interest present in our current polity. Our elected officials, the ones which create laws, and appointed regulators should be free of conflicts of interest. Just as no employer would want employees with interests which conflict with the interest of the employer, we should expect the same from our elected officials and appointed representatives. Our civil service works pretty well. It's those public employees who are not covered by civil service which are the problem and are the ones who are responsible for the rent seeking behaviors you so abhor.

Removing regulation does nothing but put the rent seekers in charge. If you want to solve the problem. Then solve the problem. Unfortunately, you are still relying on magical thinking.

 

So if you cannot get from say, Michigan to Hawaii, without entering into volentary trade with others around you, suddenly someone is initiating force against you?
That makes absolutely zero sense. It's non sequitur. No one is initiating force against you just because you do not engage in trade with them or they refuse to engage in trade with you.

Suppose there was a woman you liked. You wanted to go on a date with her. She didn't want to go on a date with you. According to your logic, her refusal to go on a date with you is her initiating force against you. Therefor, you argue, it's only right that you use State violence to threaten and coerce her into going on a date with you. It's YOU then that is initiating violence.

If you want to get from A to B and you cannot walk, then you have to form a peaceful voluntary relationship with the people around you. The most efficient way to do this is to trade using a currency or money. It's that simple. No one is going to lift you up and carry you. Pointing a gun in their face may get them to carry you, or getting the State to force them to carry you, may get you from A to B. But it is you that is acting immorally. Either directly or via a State agent. Which is the exact opposite of 'society'. In fact, it's a return to the jungle where might makes right.

The State and it's legal ability to initiate violence against innocent people is antithesis to civility. It's anti-society. A return to the jungle.

No one is born owing you a car to ride from A to B. Or owing you roads to drive on. Or energy. You have to pay for what you use. That MAY involve paying a sales tax or a toll. Just as you have to pay for your own car or pay to rent one or pay for a ride on a bus, train, etc... Through voluntary engagement you will get from A to B. Societies that are allowed to engage in the maximal number of these voluntary free trades increase in wealth and prosperity to the point they start offering money to those that have less. Or offering 'free' services like food samples or free internet - even free phones and etc.... Societies that instead resort to using violence to force people to engage in trade go in the other direction. They become poor, often to the point where they can't even maintain their own population growth as both parents are working full tilt to pay for all the "free" things others are consuming.

The difference between the initiation of violence (the State) a free voluntary society (Private free markets) will become evident as we go in the direction of more State. Over time, the USA will resemble the inner city Public welfare Ghettos in both violence and nature.

Initiation of violence is an evil baked in the Statist's cake that all Citizens are force to eat - the more we eat, the sicker society becomes. You'll see.

 

You really do live in La La land. Tell me Joe, why are Public Government Teacher's Unions formed? They're 'paid by the State' therefor there's no need to worry about that big scary 'free' market.

In places like Detroit Government School employees make triple the average Citizen who's kid's 'education' they're in charge of 'regulating'. And YET, get this, up to 50% of the kids in some districts drop out because it's a waste of time. Of those that "graduate" with their Government regulated "High" school qualification from their Government regulated High School 70% cannot read above the 6th grade level and 20% cannot read AT ALL!

Again, I know it's hard to face up to reality Joe, but the numbers are there for you to see as I've posted them MANY times over again.

IN Government 'regulated' Government schools 1 in 5 GRADUATES are f*cking functionally illiterate. What the hell are YOU missing Joe? Jesus H Christ you State-bots but your Theo-bot cousins to shame. The next time you see a Catholic parishioner in full support of a convicted pedophile Priest defending them with any and every excuse they can pull out of their arse, just remember YOU do the exact same thing for the State you worship.

The State bails out the richest 0.1% with generational debts, illegally starts phony wars killing millions of women and children, uses the NSA to illegally capture all of our communications, even strangles innocent Citizens to death - and taxes the labor of laborers to pay for all this while providing the lowest bottom of the barrel sludge-level quality in goods or service and there you are defending it to the bitter end waving our stupid flag!

Yes Joe, Regulators are people just like any other people. And get this, just like any other large institution, Public institutions filled to the brim with highly paid regulators with NO WORRY about ever having to go bankrupt and NO WORRY about ever losing their jobs and NO WORRY about having competition or having to provide quality service or product instead turn their attention to the one thing they do have to worry about: Internal Office Politicking and power grabs. Thus we now have Government schools that churn out functionally illiterate retards at a rate of 1 in 5 and this is NORMAL. That rate will soon be 1 in 4 and then 1 in 3 and then 50% and finally 100% and everyone will wave our stupid flag as they graduate with their Government regulated degree and think having the ability to read and write a quaint novelty.

Take a good look at the crap cars Communist Germany produced and compare them to West Germany. Look at the sludge that is Government school food - even McDonald's puts that shit to shame! Look at good long look Detroit and Baltimore. That's the future for the USSA.

The answer is NOT less freedom and more State violence.
The answer is more freedom, sound money (including currency competition), laws that protect person / property and uphold contract and less State violence.

 

Government Regulators are ALSO rent-seekers.

As an example: Florists (private) got a Government regulator to create a law making it illegal to sell flowers without a State licence (regulatory capture). This turned florists who own businesses with their licences into private rent-seekers. Government regulators now need someone whose job it is to examine and licence florists. This job is now held by a Public rent-seeker. The Public rent-seeker works hand in glove with the private rent-seeker to limit the number of licences thus limiting competition (regulatory capture) keeping both Private and Public rent-seekers in business. As well as turning any so-called 'profit' making Florists (which was once made in a free market and was virtuous) into rent-seekers who make spoils.

Almost ALL markets in the USSA are now hyper-regulated. The last one was the free market that WAS the internet. But with great fanfare by the functionally illiterate public it was just turned into a Public utility. Soon the market players will begin to be taken to the cleaners by unscrupulous FCC public rent-seekers. Over time the market players will give up and become rent-seekers themselves. Probably in the future we will all require a State issued fee-drive Log-In ID to access the "Public" Internet where the FCC will 'regulate' it just as it does everything else. You will need to show proof there's need to open a website and you'll pay a licence to the State to keep it open. And THAT is how the State works. Slowly, over decades, allowing the Peon's just enough time to normalize. Your grandkids kids will think it very off that people could just log into the net and post whatever, or open a website. The State's economists will call this a "mature market" and it'll turn into shit just as all other Public services are. To the point it will be slower in the year 2080 than in the year 2015. Much like the literacy rate was HIGHER among many Black communities in 1910 when there was no access to 'free' government school compared to 2010.

You'll see. Well, in this case, perhaps not.

The solution is quite simple: More freedom, not less. Less initiation of violence against innocent people, not more. Add to this sound free-market money, laws that protect property and uphold contract.

 

no their not. just because you don't understand it and think that doesn't make it so.

that shows a great misunderstanding of the term but than again you misunderstand almost all economic terms. its not your fault your a libertarian and they intentionally keep the peons like you ignorant so you won't question the ideology.

first off you do know that your childish changing of the USA is against forum rules. and secondly no markets are not hyper regulated. that you claim that is purely an emotion stance ironic coming from someone who claims to be driven by reason.

and that shows just how hyper ignorant your are. the FCC making the internet a public utility has ensured net nuetrality which will keep the market free. itsd was your favorite entities the big corporations that were trying to end it. but of course your calling their intent to rig the internet game in their favor and rent seek "freedom" your kind of freedom the freedom of the powerful to harm the weak. the weak don't rate "freedom" in your book. also the Us is not functionally illiterate though if right wing hack like you keep getting your way we will be.

your dishonest comparison bare little in mind for facts. your making things upo again micheal.

bo we won't because as always your wrong.

except for the violence you love that of the powerful against weak. that kind of violence and coercion you want because thats "freedom" the ability to fuck the little guy. and your still on the sound money bullshit. what you want would destroy a modern economy. multiple currencies don't work the problems can't be fixed. that you demand such a thing onky goes to show your general ignorance of history and economis

 

There are libertarians and than their are libertarians. The first aren't militant about it like your self; smart, educated, and doesn't feel the need to redefine half the words in the English language to suit your needs. Than there are the ones like micheal, militant as all hell. His type are the ideological libertarians, overly militant, and treat it with a cult like fanaticism. Look at micheal's repeated use of the term USSA. Mainly uses ideological "pure" sources. Misrepresent the views and motives of ideologies he doesn't like. Insults those who disagree with him has sheep incapable of rational thought. I may use the libertarian label that you both claim for your selves but I'm not referring to the same group. one is group of decent upstanding people working for what they honestly believe to be the best course of action. the other is mix of greedy elitist thugs who will do what ever it takes to mantain there elite status and their dupes.

I'm not eager that is where your wrong. I refuse however to allow someone that wrong to act like their better than everyone else and pontificate to others. I'm merely treating him how he treats others.

Do you have a point? or do you just enjoy getting involved in disputes that don't involve you so you can brow beat people? You proclaim me eager to insult but perhaps you should look in a mirror. Also given your seeming fetish for attacking people on grammar and spelling I'm reasonable certain it should be boneheaded as your using it as a verb.




If he wants to be treated like an adult perhaps he should act like one? I will lecture him as i damn well please. If you have a problem with him being called out on his general ignorance and intellectual dishonesty rather than get pissy about him being called on it you could teach him not to. But as long as he continues to act as a petualant child I will continue to treat him as such and I do not care if it bothers your delicate sensibilities.

 

Provide evidence of this.

What caused the web slow-down? Not Comcast, TWC, or Verizon

Oh, looks like the FCC was not needed because there NEVER WAS a problem. So, given this data is available to everyone, WHY hasn't the FCC rescinded power back to The People? Why isn't the head of the FCC coming out in public and discussing how the FCC is NOT required because there is no evidence Comcast or any other ISP purposely slowed the internet. As a matter of fact, IF an ISP did do so - they could be in breach of their contract and sued both by individuals as well as the other providers that buy and resell from them. The FACT is the internet has thrived for the sole reason it has been free FROM government. The FCC and it's idiotic rules have ruined media to the point most people under 30 wouldn't waste their time. This so-called "Net Neutrality" is a power grab by a dying agency looking for relevance in a world where it is not needed nor wanted.

Not that facts or evidence matters. Who cares about them when you can be sold another good story about the big bad free-market. Given the free-market is us collectively buying and selling, then it's really free people who are actually hated.

How ironic.

 

In Wyoming: Taking A Photo Of A Polluted Stream Could Land You In Jail

LOL

Land of the Fleeced
Home of the Slave

Look, maybe you didn't get the memo? Your role on the Farm is that of Tax Chattel. So keep your head down, produce milk and meat, die. It's pretty simple. Your Farmers will take care of the thinking and eating part.

 

Suppose the majority of people want Slavery? Or suppose the Government doesn't actually support the 'Will of The People' because, in reality, there isn't such a thing. Most people are not informed, can not be informed, of the majority of decisions being made in Governmental agency (whom are NOT voted into being). Does the average citizen understand the finer points of international banking regulations? No. Do they vote on the various pedagogic strategies implemented by the DoED? Nope. Hell, even the people working INSIDE the DoED have little idea as to what is an 'efficient' means of 'educating' other people's children into 'good Citizens' of the State. Not to mention, what YOU want for your child may not align with what a childless bureaucrat with slight OCD who ticks boxes and creates and enacts regulations that will 'educate' your children 'wants'. You probably want a creative independent child who can succeed in a competitive world and has built on an area/s of interest which means being good at this particular endeavour (hopefully one they find interesting). An EoED bureaucrat may prefer a complaint child who raises their hand when they need to pee, does average on the State assessment tasks and is in no way measurably better than or worse than the next nameless child of the tens of millions of children. Let's say 'equal' to the rest. To them, your child being average is for the 'Good of Society'.

 

The IRS Seized 107,000 USD from This North Carolina Man’s Bank Account

L & M comprises a gas station, convenience store, and a small restaurant serving hot dogs, hamburgers, and catfish sandwiches. One day last July, more than a dozen federal, state and local law enforcement agents swarmed Mr. McClellan’s business, including agents from the FBI and the North Carolina Alcohol and Law Enforcement agency—and they were “asking” for him. When Mr. McClellan arrived, he was escorted by two federal agents into his stock room for a private chat. The agents showed him paperwork indicating that he had made two cash deposits totaling 11,400 within a 24-hour period in his bank account at the Lumbee Guarantee Bank. They informed him that the papers also indicated that he had a history of “consistent cash deposits” of less than 10,000, which was a violation of the the Federal law against “structuring.” They also informed him that the IRS had seized all of the 107,702.66 in L & M’s bank account.

What Mr McClellan did not know was that it was against the law to make cash deposits of less than 10,000. Banks are legally obligated to report any deposit of more than 10,000 to the U.S. Treasury Department. But if an individual makes several cash deposits of less than 10,000 over an unspecified period of time that total more than 10,000, then he is presumed to be a money launderer or drug trafficker who is committing the dastardly crime of structuring, that is, seeking to circumvent the bank’s reporting requirement and maintaining the privacy of his financial affairs Thus banks are also required to file “suspicious activity reports” on cash deposits of less than 10,000. Based on these reports, if one is merely suspected–not convicted–of structuring, his bank account is seized by the IRS under “civil asset forfeiture” laws, which permits seizures of money or other property suspected of being related to a crime. Government agencies have a financial incentive to invoke civil asset forfeiture laws because the law permits the seizing agency to keep the assets and use them to expand their activities without an appropriation from Congress.

In its insatiable hunger for funds, the IRS even “deputizes” state and local law enforcement agencies to go through “suspicious activities reports” in exchange for a cut of the loot subsequently seized by the IRS. This is probably how a small entrepreneur like Mr. McClellan living peacefully in a sleepy hamlet was targeted for destruction in the War on Cash. Months after the seizure of his bank account, the federal government offered Mr. McClellan 50 percent of his money back if he agreed to a settlement. He heroically refused and intends to pursue the matter in court. Unfortunately, under the oppressive and despotic “civil asset forfeiture” laws, he bears the burden of proving his innocence. But as he puts it:

It’s not fair to the American people [translation: Tax Chattel] who work for a living that one day they can knock on the door, walk in their businesses, and say, ‘We just took your money’ … I always thought your money was safe in the bank, but I wouldn’t say that now.​

---
LOL

Looks like this one is stepping out of place. Oh well, in time he'll learn he should have accepted the 50% slice the Agents of the Federal Government were offering. You know: for "The Good of Society" and because he "Uses the Roads". Just shut up, keep his head down and keep producing milk and meat for his Farmers. I wonder? Maybe the IRS should check to see if his children aren't part of this "Drug Cartel"? Maybe the IRS can start looking into their affairs too? Maybe they're the mules? How about his customers? I bet they could use some fine tooth combing by the IRS. You know, for the GOOD of society. With the NSA, records of his customers and their activities should be easy enough to look up. A fat peach like 100K could just about cover the expenses for a few month to do the work. OR.... he could settle for a small payment of 50K and everyone walks away a winner.

...... life on the Farm.

Good ole' USSA
Land of the Fleeced
Home of the Slave