They're still very much on the right wing side of many issues, but they are fairly libertarian on economic issues.
The way I would state that, is that the right wing is libertarian on some issues. Describing Cato as "right-wing" is just the way that the pinkos try to ignore them. The right-wingers try to ignore them by denouncing Cato's opposition to the drug war.
A vastly simplified tax would kill that game, which would be a good thing, but I don't see it happening.
If the Berlin wall can be demolished in my lifetime, then we can also dispense with our WW2-era tax system. It will of course be resisted furiously by everyone with a vested interest in the status quo (the congress, the lobbyists, etc.), but the fall of communism was viciously contested, too. If it's all the same to you, I'm not willing to throw in the towel.
I've seen that critique, and I'm still for the FairTax proposal, mostly because it puts an end to the federal government knowing how much we earn, which was never any of their damned business. This is why I consider it superior to Forbes' flat tax proposal, for example.
The main things it has going for it are: 1) it eliminates tax manipulation as a political tool, 2) it causes a massive repatriation of funds to the USA, 3) it removes tax consequences as a criterion for investment decisions and 4) it makes it far more difficult for the feds to conceal how much of our money they're taking. Once it passes, I expect considerable pressures will be brought to bear on the congress to reduce the rate.
Sure, but that's a symptom, not a cause. The parties have gradually increased their ability to keep independents from running (like the way the dems fought tooth and nail to keep Nader off as many states' ballots as they could.) If we eliminated their incursions into state laws, it might set them back a bit but they'd still exist.
Utilities are natural monopolies. Telecoms are natural monopolies. Windows represents a natural monopoly.
Nonsense. The very idea of a "natural monopoly" was a propaganda push by the companies that benefited from government prohibiting anyone from competing with them.
After all this time, why in the hell does the press still insist in pretending that any prat with a web site is a "high-tech" business? We're not talking about technology here at all, we're talking about advertising.
If VC's were really investing in technology in a big way, that would be a good thing, but they're not.
But logically, it's similar to denying someone advertising visibility on your website for some arbitrary reason.
I can refuse to do business with anyone for all manner of arbitrary reasons; only a very small set of those arbitrary reasons are prohibited by law. So, if I refuse to hire someone because I don't like the color of their shoes, or because they watch pro wrestling, that's my prerogative.
Slashdot Mirror
They're still very much on the right wing side of many issues, but they are fairly libertarian on economic issues.
The way I would state that, is that the right wing is libertarian on some issues. Describing Cato as "right-wing" is just the way that the pinkos try to ignore them. The right-wingers try to ignore them by denouncing Cato's opposition to the drug war.
-jcr
Exactlty how important is CATO in the scheme of things.
How important is any think-tank? How important is Academia?
-jcr
Would Apple's position be as lofty if every online music store sold MP3's?
Yes, actually. iTunes+iPod was already well on the way to a dominant market share before the iTMS existed.
-jcr
I am glad the right wing is getting on board in the fight against DMCA.
;-)
If you consider Cato to be right wing, that tells me where you stand.
-jcr
Not exactly. Its purpose is to apportion the number of seats in congress. Gerrymandering within a state is a separate problem.
-jcr
You might try.
-jcr
A vastly simplified tax would kill that game, which would be a good thing, but I don't see it happening.
If the Berlin wall can be demolished in my lifetime, then we can also dispense with our WW2-era tax system. It will of course be resisted furiously by everyone with a vested interest in the status quo (the congress, the lobbyists, etc.), but the fall of communism was viciously contested, too. If it's all the same to you, I'm not willing to throw in the towel.
-jcr
I see you didn't bother trying to argue against it with anything resembling cogent points.
-jcr
Moreover, I feel I must point out that naming your proposal the "FairTax" rather than the "National Sales Tax" is political demagoguery at its worst.
Bite me.
-jcr
Ever filled out census information? Because, if you have, your information is available to anyone
I only filled out the information they need for the constitutional purpose of the census. The rest of it is none of their damned business.
-jcr
Put an end to the IRS gathering this information on every single person on the country. Support the FairTax.
-jcr
The government here in Australia brought it in about five or six years ago, on the promise of lowered income tax
That's where they went off the rails. They managed to make it an additional tax, not a replacement for income tax.
-jcr
Didn't read the proposal, did you?
Follow the link, and read about the rebate.
-jcr
Sorry, "Fair"Tax just irks me a lot.
I've seen that critique, and I'm still for the FairTax proposal, mostly because it puts an end to the federal government knowing how much we earn, which was never any of their damned business. This is why I consider it superior to Forbes' flat tax proposal, for example.
The main things it has going for it are: 1) it eliminates tax manipulation as a political tool, 2) it causes a massive repatriation of funds to the USA, 3) it removes tax consequences as a criterion for investment decisions and 4) it makes it far more difficult for the feds to conceal how much of our money they're taking. Once it passes, I expect considerable pressures will be brought to bear on the congress to reduce the rate.
-jcr
Just ask anyone who's tried to organize a 501 (c)(3) corporation. We do NOT need IRS involved in deciding what is or isn't open-source software.
Lobbying for little tax breaks here and there simply perpetuates the problems of the tax system being used as an instrument of policy.
There's a better way.
-jcr
The party system is codified at the state level.
Sure, but that's a symptom, not a cause. The parties have gradually increased their ability to keep independents from running (like the way the dems fought tooth and nail to keep Nader off as many states' ballots as they could.) If we eliminated their incursions into state laws, it might set them back a bit but they'd still exist.
-jcr
Utilities are natural monopolies. Telecoms are natural monopolies. Windows represents a natural monopoly.
Nonsense. The very idea of a "natural monopoly" was a propaganda push by the companies that benefited from government prohibiting anyone from competing with them.
-jcr
What is the difference between a government-CREATED and a government-TOLERATED monopoly?
The difference is that the government-created monoply gets to use the power of the state to prohibit competition. Google has no such power.
So states require drivers to carry insurance. Doesn't society likewise require you to work and earn?
Do you actually get away with these kinds on non-sequiturs in court?
-jcr
So, is this the Assembler Breakthrough?
I do hope so.
-jcr
I'm pretty sure DNA is already being used to make dogs, among other things :p
;-)
Nah, DNA's just the documentation.
-jcr
Business tip for you: don't try to make a living selling straw men, because you don't build them very well.
The question of taxpayer funding for research is, is that research more important than what all of us may choose to do with the money we earn?
-jcr
After all this time, why in the hell does the press still insist in pretending that any prat with a web site is a "high-tech" business? We're not talking about technology here at all, we're talking about advertising.
If VC's were really investing in technology in a big way, that would be a good thing, but they're not.
-jcr
what do you suggest is a reasonable alternative for funding basic science research that will benefit a range from the individual to a wider society?
Private research foundations, of course. Not everything that's worth doing is important enough to justify the use of force to bring it about.
-jcr
Those things are annoying, but not quite as annoying as pedantic tossers like you.
-jcr
But logically, it's similar to denying someone advertising visibility on your website for some arbitrary reason.
I can refuse to do business with anyone for all manner of arbitrary reasons; only a very small set of those arbitrary reasons are prohibited by law. So, if I refuse to hire someone because I don't like the color of their shoes, or because they watch pro wrestling, that's my prerogative.
-jcr