When the USA interacts with, say, China, we have the interaction of a free market and a non-free market.
The US is not a free market. More free than China, yes, but definitely not a free market. The first prerequisite of a free market is that the individual retains 100% control over his wealth and where to invest that wealth. Today, the average US citizen pays nearly 50% of his yearly earnings to government through federal, state, and local taxes and fees combined. You do the math.
The USA, in isolation, is a relatively free market -- with relatively little government intervention
Are you out of your mind?
The average US citizen pays nearly 50% of their yearly earnings to government through federal, state and local taxes combined. A purely free market requires that individual participants in the market retain 100% of their wealth and 100% control of that wealth -- each individual deciding for themselves if, where, and when to spend that wealth. This is anarcho-capitalism, and it doesn't exist at this time (and never has). The opposite is communism, where government owns 100% of all wealth and property and retains 100% control over where to spend that wealth, and the individual has absolutely no ownership of the fruits of his labor.
So, do you think we're closer to a free market, or closer to communism? The answer is, of course, neither. We're just about in the middle -- you could say "half-free", or you could say "half-communist", but there's no way you can sit there with a straight face and claim "relatively little government intervention". In the US, the truth is that government is deeply entangled in the market.
The actual number is something like 45%, although it doesn't explicitly say that in this article. I have long been an advocate of a simple yearly "citizen's fee", where government sends you the bill and the citizens see EXACTLY how much they're forking over. (There may or may not be seperate bills for federal/state/local governments.) As it is, government has designed their system to be as un-noticable as possible -- they don't suck us dry all at once, they suck us dry little by little so the average joe has no clue how much he's really paying. If we don't know how much we're paying, how can we determine whether or not we're getting our money's worth?
If there is no public property, how are free speech rights protected?
I don't see how freedom of speech is automatically protected under so-called "public" (government-owned) property. Look what happened at the Republican convention!
Charity only does so much because our means to donate is severely hampered by government -- both financially and psychologically. Did you know that the average US citizen is forced to pay nearly 50% of their yearly earnings to government through federal, state, and local taxes combined? It's no surprise that the typical citizen is unwilling to donate, after government assumes both the means and the responsibility.
I don't know about you, but I'd be a hell of a lot more willing to donate if I wasn't so busy making ends meet on what little of my earnings government "allows" me to keep.
I suspect there is a broad consensus on the issue of limiting government spending
I'd have to disagree. The average slashdotter thinks government should provide "free" broadband and force everyone to fund it whether they like it or not. That's big government if I've ever smelled it.
everybody and their mother has their own idea about how the money should be divided up and spent
Exactly, and that adds up to an endorsement of big government, not limited government. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, and much to government's delight, the pie just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
No, you elect a politican to initiate force on your behalf. Anything your "leader" will do and possibly could do will be accomplished through force, not voluntary association.
If I had said "government is the problem, not the solution" (which is really saying the same thing), I would have got modded DOWN. The mods chose "funny" because they don't really agree with my point (that government itself is the source of the problem, and rewarding them with more revenue will only make the problem worse).
Oh, I care. More than you can imagine. I care enough that I refuse to endorse an inherently corrupt way of thinking.
The core principle of government is force. Government does not do business through peaceful, voluntary cooperation -- government does business through force. Anything government does and could possibly do will be done by violence or the threat of violence.
(If government were voluntary, it wouldn't be government -- it would be free enterprise. The "social contract" theory is void once you realize that it is impossible to "voluntarily agree to be forced", just as it is impossible to force a person to voluntarily agree. The two modes of interaction, force and voluntary association, are mutually exclusive and incompatible.)
The problem is not that power (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end) is simply in the wrong hands, as the statist hopelessly believes. The problem is that power exists in the first place.
When you demand that I vote you are demanding that I accept your way of thinking -- that force is the answer, not voluntary cooperation. Do you understand the issue now? I will NEVER accept that force is the answer.
Nor is there any indication that the free market is a good model to start with, let alone the best model.
Sure there is, when you look at what free market economics really is (compared to government-controlled economics). It is the difference between interaction through voluntary association and interaction through force. (Like you said, we do not live in a purely free market -- not even close.)
As human beings we learn from an early age that voluntary association is a better model than force. Some of it is learned from our parents, and some of it is learned through experience. This does not happen by chance. We have evolved to respect each other -- to interact primarily through voluntary association -- because it benefits the species more than interaction through force. This is human nature. The "indication" you were looking for is simply human nature.
Sure, there are times when people are tempted to invoke force as a means to an end (theft, fraud, murder, etc). But these are the exceptions, not the rule. We deal with them as they come.
In answer to your claim, I propose that voluntary association is certainly a good model to start with, and in the end, nearly always a better model than interaction through force (except for the case of self-defense).
Private individuals and groups routinely initiate offensive force without government sanction and evade punishment or retribution of any kind.
Well, isn't that a failure of government? Isn't that why "we" have "granted" goverment so much power in the first place: so they can protect us against the initiation of force?
it is the ability to initiate force successfully. And many private groups possess that ability
If you know about these incidents, then presumably government knows about them (obviously these incidents are no secret). So where was government at the time, and why haven't they addressed these problems as they were supposed to? They must have either turned a blind eye, or "approved" of the behavior beforehand somehow. I'm not trying to excuse the unethical behaviour of some corporations, just pointing out how easy it is to exploit the law. If the law is explitable, that's a failure of government.
You seem to be confusing offensive force (the initiation of force) with defensive force (self-protection). The first is immoral and unjust; the second is moral and just. This isn't some obscure disctinction I'm just making up for the sake of argument. This is a fundamental law of human nature which we learn (hopefully) at a very early age. If we could't differentiate between the 2 modes of human interaction, the entire concept of morality would be arbitrary and meaningless.
If a thief breaks into your house, that is an initiation of force (specifically, a violation of property rights). If you get out your bat and beat him down, that is NOT an iniaition of force. That is force used in self-defense, a retaliation to the thief's initiation of force. (The key word here is "initiation".)
government simply has more force than private groups do
Private individuals and groups posess absolutely no power (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end) UNLESS it is sanctioned by government, in which case the private group becomes just another arm of government. Private groups who initiate force without the blessing of government are criminal, and should be dealt with accordingly.
How can you claim to love freedom while simultaneously denouncing something that was decided through a free vote?
How can a "free vote" represent freedom when force will be invoked as a means to an end?
Realize that the core principle of freedom is voluntary association. The only thing that stands in the way of voluntary association is the other (opposite) mode of human interaction, force.
I hold that any initiation of force (including the business of government) is necessarily incompatible with freedom. Don't fool yourself into believing that democracy or the voting process somehow removes power (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end) from government. If government was voluntary, it wouldn't be government -- it would be free enterprise.
Yes, with a full-size layout, a full-size backspace key, and the backslash and pipe keys in the correct location (directly over the enter key). I absolutely will not buy a keyboard that doesn't meet this criteria. If you use the command line, you know exactly what I'm talking about.
(PLEASE tell me if you know where I can buy a keyboard like this. I'll buy 5 instantly.)
Unfortunately, it's getting very difficult to find a keyboard made right anymore. Most keyboard makers are going to the dark side, squeezing everything together to make room for useless "hot" keys that dazzle the morons.
These same points could be applied to the leaders of business, education, religion and public service groups.
The fundamental difference is that government holds the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, while private individuals and groups (including business) do not. Interaction through force is what defines government; interaction through voluntary association is what defines private organizations. (Any private individual or group which initiates force without the backing of government is criminal.)
It doesn't matter what type of government you're talking about, or what era. The one thing that seperates government from private groups, and always will, is the ability to initiate force as a means to an end.
When government discovered it could make a profit off it. Whether the project is a "success" or not is irrelevant; they will still make a buck on the adminstration costs. The more it costs to implement this tracking system, the bigger the benefit to those in power.
Remember the simple business model of government: You confiscate wealth from some people, you distribute some of it to special interests (either directly or in the form of some public service), and you keep a cut for yourself.
Everything government does and could possibly do follows that simple business model. With that, it's pretty obvious why beaurocrats are so eager to spend tax money, even when it's an obvious waste -- they will profit either way.
Capitalism by definition isn't necessarily supposed to be fair
Capitalism is the most "fair" economic system possible, because the core principle of capitalism is voluntary association. All other systems rely on organized coercion to achieve their goals.
I hold that voluntary association is always and absolutely more fair than coercion, not only in business, but in every aspect of life. If a transaction is agreed upon voluntarily by all parties involved, how could it NOT be fair?
How about never? There is absolutely no way to abolish private property and the state at the same time, because the only possible way to abolish private property is via the state (organized coercion). In the absence of organized coercion, private property is the natural state of affairs.
Slashdot Mirror
The US is not a free market. More free than China, yes, but definitely not a free market. The first prerequisite of a free market is that the individual retains 100% control over his wealth and where to invest that wealth. Today, the average US citizen pays nearly 50% of his yearly earnings to government through federal, state, and local taxes and fees combined. You do the math.
Are you out of your mind?
The average US citizen pays nearly 50% of their yearly earnings to government through federal, state and local taxes combined. A purely free market requires that individual participants in the market retain 100% of their wealth and 100% control of that wealth -- each individual deciding for themselves if, where, and when to spend that wealth. This is anarcho-capitalism, and it doesn't exist at this time (and never has). The opposite is communism, where government owns 100% of all wealth and property and retains 100% control over where to spend that wealth, and the individual has absolutely no ownership of the fruits of his labor.
So, do you think we're closer to a free market, or closer to communism? The answer is, of course, neither. We're just about in the middle -- you could say "half-free", or you could say "half-communist", but there's no way you can sit there with a straight face and claim "relatively little government intervention". In the US, the truth is that government is deeply entangled in the market.
The actual number is something like 45%, although it doesn't explicitly say that in this article. I have long been an advocate of a simple yearly "citizen's fee", where government sends you the bill and the citizens see EXACTLY how much they're forking over. (There may or may not be seperate bills for federal/state/local governments.) As it is, government has designed their system to be as un-noticable as possible -- they don't suck us dry all at once, they suck us dry little by little so the average joe has no clue how much he's really paying. If we don't know how much we're paying, how can we determine whether or not we're getting our money's worth?
Exactly.
I don't see how freedom of speech is automatically protected under so-called "public" (government-owned) property. Look what happened at the Republican convention!
Charity only does so much because our means to donate is severely hampered by government -- both financially and psychologically. Did you know that the average US citizen is forced to pay nearly 50% of their yearly earnings to government through federal, state, and local taxes combined? It's no surprise that the typical citizen is unwilling to donate, after government assumes both the means and the responsibility.
I don't know about you, but I'd be a hell of a lot more willing to donate if I wasn't so busy making ends meet on what little of my earnings government "allows" me to keep.
He must be a socialist.
I'd have to disagree. The average slashdotter thinks government should provide "free" broadband and force everyone to fund it whether they like it or not. That's big government if I've ever smelled it.
everybody and their mother has their own idea about how the money should be divided up and spent
Exactly, and that adds up to an endorsement of big government, not limited government. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, and much to government's delight, the pie just keeps getting bigger and bigger.
No, you elect a politican to initiate force on your behalf. Anything your "leader" will do and possibly could do will be accomplished through force, not voluntary association.
Technically, the term "lossless" does not even apply, because (as you said) wav isn't a compressed format.
If I had said "government is the problem, not the solution" (which is really saying the same thing), I would have got modded DOWN. The mods chose "funny" because they don't really agree with my point (that government itself is the source of the problem, and rewarding them with more revenue will only make the problem worse).
That's classic. When government fails, reward them with more revenue. You'd make a great politician.
Oh, I care. More than you can imagine. I care enough that I refuse to endorse an inherently corrupt way of thinking.
The core principle of government is force. Government does not do business through peaceful, voluntary cooperation -- government does business through force. Anything government does and could possibly do will be done by violence or the threat of violence.
(If government were voluntary, it wouldn't be government -- it would be free enterprise. The "social contract" theory is void once you realize that it is impossible to "voluntarily agree to be forced", just as it is impossible to force a person to voluntarily agree. The two modes of interaction, force and voluntary association, are mutually exclusive and incompatible.)
The problem is not that power (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end) is simply in the wrong hands, as the statist hopelessly believes. The problem is that power exists in the first place.
When you demand that I vote you are demanding that I accept your way of thinking -- that force is the answer, not voluntary cooperation. Do you understand the issue now? I will NEVER accept that force is the answer.
Sure there is, when you look at what free market economics really is (compared to government-controlled economics). It is the difference between interaction through voluntary association and interaction through force. (Like you said, we do not live in a purely free market -- not even close.)
As human beings we learn from an early age that voluntary association is a better model than force. Some of it is learned from our parents, and some of it is learned through experience. This does not happen by chance. We have evolved to respect each other -- to interact primarily through voluntary association -- because it benefits the species more than interaction through force. This is human nature. The "indication" you were looking for is simply human nature.
Sure, there are times when people are tempted to invoke force as a means to an end (theft, fraud, murder, etc). But these are the exceptions, not the rule. We deal with them as they come.
In answer to your claim, I propose that voluntary association is certainly a good model to start with, and in the end, nearly always a better model than interaction through force (except for the case of self-defense).
Amusing? I'd say it's disgusting. But entirely expected. As the saying goes, power will be abused. The more power, the more abuse.
Well, what fun is posting if you're in agreement? ;)
Well, isn't that a failure of government? Isn't that why "we" have "granted" goverment so much power in the first place: so they can protect us against the initiation of force?
it is the ability to initiate force successfully. And many private groups possess that ability
If you know about these incidents, then presumably government knows about them (obviously these incidents are no secret). So where was government at the time, and why haven't they addressed these problems as they were supposed to? They must have either turned a blind eye, or "approved" of the behavior beforehand somehow. I'm not trying to excuse the unethical behaviour of some corporations, just pointing out how easy it is to exploit the law. If the law is explitable, that's a failure of government.
If a thief breaks into your house, that is an initiation of force (specifically, a violation of property rights). If you get out your bat and beat him down, that is NOT an iniaition of force. That is force used in self-defense, a retaliation to the thief's initiation of force. (The key word here is "initiation".)
government simply has more force than private groups do
Private individuals and groups posess absolutely no power (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end) UNLESS it is sanctioned by government, in which case the private group becomes just another arm of government. Private groups who initiate force without the blessing of government are criminal, and should be dealt with accordingly.
How can a "free vote" represent freedom when force will be invoked as a means to an end?
Realize that the core principle of freedom is voluntary association. The only thing that stands in the way of voluntary association is the other (opposite) mode of human interaction, force.
I hold that any initiation of force (including the business of government) is necessarily incompatible with freedom. Don't fool yourself into believing that democracy or the voting process somehow removes power (the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end) from government. If government was voluntary, it wouldn't be government -- it would be free enterprise.
Yes, with a full-size layout, a full-size backspace key, and the backslash and pipe keys in the correct location (directly over the enter key). I absolutely will not buy a keyboard that doesn't meet this criteria. If you use the command line, you know exactly what I'm talking about.
(PLEASE tell me if you know where I can buy a keyboard like this. I'll buy 5 instantly.)
Unfortunately, it's getting very difficult to find a keyboard made right anymore. Most keyboard makers are going to the dark side, squeezing everything together to make room for useless "hot" keys that dazzle the morons.
The fundamental difference is that government holds the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, while private individuals and groups (including business) do not. Interaction through force is what defines government; interaction through voluntary association is what defines private organizations. (Any private individual or group which initiates force without the backing of government is criminal.)
It doesn't matter what type of government you're talking about, or what era. The one thing that seperates government from private groups, and always will, is the ability to initiate force as a means to an end.
When government discovered it could make a profit off it. Whether the project is a "success" or not is irrelevant; they will still make a buck on the adminstration costs. The more it costs to implement this tracking system, the bigger the benefit to those in power.
Remember the simple business model of government: You confiscate wealth from some people, you distribute some of it to special interests (either directly or in the form of some public service), and you keep a cut for yourself.
Everything government does and could possibly do follows that simple business model. With that, it's pretty obvious why beaurocrats are so eager to spend tax money, even when it's an obvious waste -- they will profit either way.
Capitalism is the most "fair" economic system possible, because the core principle of capitalism is voluntary association. All other systems rely on organized coercion to achieve their goals.
I hold that voluntary association is always and absolutely more fair than coercion, not only in business, but in every aspect of life. If a transaction is agreed upon voluntarily by all parties involved, how could it NOT be fair?
How about never? There is absolutely no way to abolish private property and the state at the same time, because the only possible way to abolish private property is via the state (organized coercion). In the absence of organized coercion, private property is the natural state of affairs.
Sure, we'll hold them at gunpoint and educate the bastards! (What exactly do you think the word "force" means?)
And we'll make the taxpayers fund it all, whether they like it or not! ("Force" implies government, and we all know how government gets its revenue.)
But hell, if you're in power, what do you have to lose?