Skuzzy: Whether or not you realize it, you have gotten so deep into the political quagmire you are not able to be objective anymore. That is just an observation.
I disagree but as you've said, I may not realise it. So that is a chance for anyone to point out flaws in my premises or logic, not just my presonality.
I will try to post more appropriately - like starting threads instead of causing to derail others. Some times my opinion on what constitutes a derailment may differ from other's. I appologise. My goal is not to piss people off - even those who love to be pissed off.
When a post starter explicitely says what kind of discussion he is trying to elicit, I do not violate it.
So, you are advocating socialism? You do not like a majority ruled government.
As Tarmak said, I an against socialism. State socialism was started by Bismark in mid 1800s kaiser Germany - hardly a "majority ruled government".
If a government cannot take away people's property trough taxes of regulations, it does not matter whether it is a democracy or other republican form.
If a government can take take away people's property, democracy would accelerate slide into socialism but is not a cause of it.
There is no such thing as a perfect government and your ideas have just as many flaws as any others I have witnessed.
There are more or less perfect governments. Those that lead to increase in civilisation are certainly better that those that lead to its downfall. Right now we are at the peak of our prosperity, not in the middle of a real war. Nevertheless there are several unsustainable trends that cannot be solved withing a generation and there are no answers how to solve them in the future except through crisis. That does not seem to me like a stable system.
US was growing sustainably for long periods, so we know it's possible.
Many people realise we have problems - economic, social, democraphic. Most people do not realise that they were caused by government intervention into economy since about 1913 or even earlier, as in the case of the business cycles.
The only thing I noted was he was against paying taxes without having the immediate ability to dictate how the money was spent.
Leaving the question of the military budget and dept of justice aside, the majority of the budget is used to (unconstututionally) fund services that can be much better provided by a private market, local governments or state governments rather than teh federal government.
When a private individual spends money to buy necessary services or for charity, he dictates how it is spent. That is how it was in US for largest part of its history - which also saw the spectacular rise in human welfare despite a huge continued inflow of impoverished immingrants.
You have soured your credibility as you no longer appear to be able to just discuss without putting a political spin on a topic. Basically, you come off as an activist, whether you mean to or not.
I freely admit that am an a political activist. If I put it in an improper place, that reflects on my sense of tact but why would it affect my credibility? Speaking out of place is different from lying.
Saurdaukar: Discussions are fun, arguments are more fun, personal attacks are orgasmic, but attempting to advance your own political opinions in every thread you enter, regardless of its initial topic, gets extremely annoying after awhile.
I appreciate such kind of comments very much. I wish you said so sooner. I will try to be more considerate.
Obviously it is hard to estimate for me - or any other person - how closely people take matters that are of great importance to a speaker. For instance I cannot imagine spending a minute of my time watching or discussing a spectator sport, but many people seem to do it to the level of obsession. I bet that people treat your own playing AH as a form of obsession if you bring it up in an improper place.
But saying sings out of place bears no reflection on whether they are true. Not liking or believing my ideas or their implications does not affect my credibility.
Kieran: pretty smart economists in the world who have access to public media, and you don't hear the incessant "We're all doomed!" funeral dirge we frequently hear here
But that was the case before many previous collapses. The establishment is greatly involved in funding media and education, so it is natural to expect certain bias.
Nevertheless, plenty of noted economists are saying the same thing I do on public forums and in the media.
It's almost as if he believes he possess a unique knowledge of economy simply no one else has yet grasped.
That's a bit of an overstatement. I make no secret that my economic views are of Austrian School - that was officially established in 1870, has quite a few adherents, many other famous schools acknowleging the correctness of most of their theories (suppy-siders, monetarists) and the wealth of books is easily available.
The Mises institute website is ranked about 2,500 and libertarianstudies.org is around 700 by Alexa - above washtimes.com, worldnetdaily.com, rushlimbaugh.com, townhall.com, etc. The philosophy is not widespread but not obscure.
Comparing tax dollars to actual bondage?
Both are based on coercion by (tthreat of) violence. The difference is only in degree and labels attached.
but to suggest we've never been in trouble straits before seems uninformed
Depends on what you mean by "we". If you mean USA, we have experienced more visible troubles in our downfall to socialism.
If you mean "humanity" and by troubles you mean occasional downfalls of civilisations, I do not care to live throug one of them without trying to prevent it.
The downfall of Rome set the progress of civilisation back by 500 years and it took about 1000 years to return back to about the same point. We could be living in a year 3500 right now if they did not screw with monetary and fiscal policies that we are promoting now in US and for the rest of the world.
Regards,
miko
