Is the USA uncivilised?

[Seth]

You seem totally incapable of following an argument. Actually, I know that you follow it perfectly, but choose to continually try and misdirect to avoid the failings of your argument. YOUR ARGUMENT was that corporate handouts are good for the economy.

That's not my argument rEv, which you know perfectly well, which means you're creating a strawman.

Hermit has given you a perfect example of where they ultimately weren't. You know this. Stop trying to misdirect.

You first.

I was comparing corporate subsidies to welfare payments, not making the general claim that "corporate handouts are good for the economy."

[Warren Dew]

However, I think there could be an argument for some sort of subsidy (perhaps via tax breaks) in particular situations, if doing so assists a government policy which would benefit a society. For example, in Oz, solar panels on household and factory roofs should be a no brainer. These days, peak demand tends to come on very hot summer days, when everybody and their dog is turning on the air conditioning. This of course correlates well with high power production from PV panels, particularly if, as we do, some of the panels face west, catching the late afternoon sun. (in fact, knowledgeable commentators were saying that peak demand in South Australia during the recent hot spell was clearly reduced by this factor, and probably prevented major power blackouts)

So, IMO, there would be a good argument for a government to promote the production of PV panels in Oz, perhaps by reducing or eliminating taxes on manufacturers, and/or subsidising their installation, as it creates a social good, in terms of stabilising the power network, and potentially allowing the gradual phase out of the most inefficient of the coal-fired power stations.

There are two problems with that argument.

First, subsidizing domestic production of solar cells makes for economic inefficiency, as it tends to shut out more efficient foreign sources.

Second, subsidizing solar cells at all tends to shut out more efficient alternatives. Perhaps tidal or wind power is actually more efficient, but solar cell subsidization will tend to suppress development of those alternative sources.

If solar cells really are the best way to solve the problem - and in parts of Australia, I can well imagine that they may be - then they won't need any subsidies to be adopted.

[JimC]

However, I think there could be an argument for some sort of subsidy (perhaps via tax breaks) in particular situations, if doing so assists a government policy which would benefit a society. For example, in Oz, solar panels on household and factory roofs should be a no brainer. These days, peak demand tends to come on very hot summer days, when everybody and their dog is turning on the air conditioning. This of course correlates well with high power production from PV panels, particularly if, as we do, some of the panels face west, catching the late afternoon sun. (in fact, knowledgeable commentators were saying that peak demand in South Australia during the recent hot spell was clearly reduced by this factor, and probably prevented major power blackouts)

So, IMO, there would be a good argument for a government to promote the production of PV panels in Oz, perhaps by reducing or eliminating taxes on manufacturers, and/or subsidising their installation, as it creates a social good, in terms of stabilising the power network, and potentially allowing the gradual phase out of the most inefficient of the coal-fired power stations.

There are two problems with that argument.

First, subsidizing domestic production of solar cells makes for economic inefficiency, as it tends to shut out more efficient foreign sources.

Second, subsidizing solar cells at all tends to shut out more efficient alternatives. Perhaps tidal or wind power is actually more efficient, but solar cell subsidization will tend to suppress development of those alternative sources.

If solar cells really are the best way to solve the problem - and in parts of Australia, I can well imagine that they may be - then they won't need any subsidies to be adopted.

The "invisible hand" is not the last word in whether a given policy is a good idea. Market forces are not guaranteed to solve looming problems of energy shortage and global warming. Having said that, I agree that companies that are excessively feather-bedded by government help can lose the tight focus which goes with optimising what they do. However, the subsidies or tax breaks can be used to increase the number of householders choosing to install solar power, rather than direct subsidies to the company.

[pErvinalia]

You seem totally incapable of following an argument. Actually, I know that you follow it perfectly, but choose to continually try and misdirect to avoid the failings of your argument. YOUR ARGUMENT was that corporate handouts are good for the economy.

That's not my argument rEv, which you know perfectly well, which means you're creating a strawman.

Hermit has given you a perfect example of where they ultimately weren't. You know this. Stop trying to misdirect.

You first.

I was comparing corporate subsidies to welfare payments, not making the general claim that "corporate handouts are good for the economy."

ORLY?? - " the case for "corporate welfare" is absolutely clear and compelling. Corporations are wealth-creators and are the lifeblood of any economy. Without corporations there would be no jobs for those who do want to work, there would be no taxes paid, without which there would be nothing available to fund government giveaways to welfare leeches . Therefore it is in the best interests of any government to support and advance commerce, and therefore the economy, by assisting businesses to flourish and expand, thereby expanding the opportunities for citizens to be employed and profit therefrom."

[Blind groper]

Subsidising corporations is a sure way to keep parasites alive, and to maintain those that should die. Inefficient and inappropriate businesses should not survive.

Every nation, and every geographic zone has certain things it can do profitably. They also have things they should not be doing, because they cannot be done profitably. But other nations and zones can do those things and make profit. Trade then permits the two nations or regions to share the benefits of their specific advantages or skills.

Here in NZ, we are expert at pastoral farming. We are crappy at making cars. We produce pastoral products and export them. We import cars. The car makers get the benefit of our skills as pastoral farmers. We get the benefit of excellence in car construction.

When subsidies are given by governments to corporations, it causes them to keep doing stuff they are not good at, because the subsidies are enough to push them over the edge from losing money to making it. The financial difference comes from the pockets of the long suffering taxpayer.

Subsidies harm the nation giving them, through maintaining unprofitable and loss making enterprise, out of taxes. They harm the nations that might trade, through taking away trade opportunities. They harm the taxpayer. Subsidies are a strategy used by communist nations (and see how successful their economies are!) and have no place in a free enterprise society.

[Seth]

However, I think there could be an argument for some sort of subsidy (perhaps via tax breaks) in particular situations, if doing so assists a government policy which would benefit a society. For example, in Oz, solar panels on household and factory roofs should be a no brainer. These days, peak demand tends to come on very hot summer days, when everybody and their dog is turning on the air conditioning. This of course correlates well with high power production from PV panels, particularly if, as we do, some of the panels face west, catching the late afternoon sun. (in fact, knowledgeable commentators were saying that peak demand in South Australia during the recent hot spell was clearly reduced by this factor, and probably prevented major power blackouts)

So, IMO, there would be a good argument for a government to promote the production of PV panels in Oz, perhaps by reducing or eliminating taxes on manufacturers, and/or subsidising their installation, as it creates a social good, in terms of stabilising the power network, and potentially allowing the gradual phase out of the most inefficient of the coal-fired power stations.

There are two problems with that argument.

First, subsidizing domestic production of solar cells makes for economic inefficiency, as it tends to shut out more efficient foreign sources.

But that may be a good strategic decision that's in the national interest. At least that's what China thinks, and they aren't wrong.

Second, subsidizing solar cells at all tends to shut out more efficient alternatives. Perhaps tidal or wind power is actually more efficient, but solar cell subsidization will tend to suppress development of those alternative sources.

This is true, but again it may be in the strategic interest of the nation to distribute power production using solar cells that can be installed on every house rather than depending on large-scale industrial installations that are centralized and therefore more vulnerable to attack. This was demonstrated in WWII when the allies spent much of their time bombing power infrastructure like dams and power plants.

If solar cells really are the best way to solve the problem - and in parts of Australia, I can well imagine that they may be - then they won't need any subsidies to be adopted.

Except that as a technological solution, there is a huge up-front investment in infrastructure just to build them, and to get the industry to the point where it's economical for consumers to buy them in the required quantities the economies of scale require both a massive investment by industry and some sort of guarantee that the technology will reach critical-mass distribution and use levels quickly enough to keep the companies in business. This is particularly true when they have to compete against long established power generation sources that can supply power at a much, much lower per-watt cost due to their economies of scale and long-term investment in infrastructure.

This is in fact why, despite being available for more than 30 years, solar is still just a luxury feel-good power production technology. Without the subsidy of the war on coal and other carbon-based energy sources created by first-world governments solar will likely remain as the marginal solution to power needs in places where grid infrastructure is not available, like remote mountaintop radio sites.

In the meantime, China is socking away money hand over fist from eco-nuts who don't have an understanding of either physics or economics who think that plastering the planet with solar cells is a viable alternative energy source to oil and gas.

It's not. The theory looks good, but the reality is much, much less golden.

I really, really wish that weren't the case, since I've been interested in "off-grid" living since I was 20. I designed a house in college that (theoretically) operated off of solar power, micro-hydro, and hydrogen gas for heating. Unfortunately, at the time (early 70s) the only technology that even existed was solar electric panels at incredibly high per-watt prices, and unsophisticated solar heating systems. I worked long and hard on the energy budget to try to make it work, and it would have, marginally, but I never had the money to build such a house, which required specific site requirements that would have worked for a one-off custom house but which had little practicality as a design for large developments. While mine was much more sophisticated, the closest thing I've seen is a very small development of "Earthship" rammed-earth and tire houses built outside of Taos, NM.

The real problem is that as our technological society advances the power budget goes UP, not down, due to the advent of new electronic devices. While there are energy efficiencies caused by miniaturization and suchlike, the overall trend, due to population increase, is upwards worldwide.

There is no foreseeable end to that new demand for energy and that demand cannot be met with any of the renewable sources that are currently available. Today an average of only about two percent of the world's energy budget comes from renewable sources, and even in places where the proportion is much higher (like Sweden) the infrastructure is very costly to build and maintain and is only viable because the individual society has the disposable wealth to subsidize the initial infrastructure costs, something natives in the heart of Africa, or peons in the cities of Europe are never going to be able to afford individually or collectively...without massive government subsidies, if even then.

[Seth]

Subsidising corporations is a sure way to keep parasites alive, and to maintain those that should die. Inefficient and inappropriate businesses should not survive.

Every nation, and every geographic zone has certain things it can do profitably. They also have things they should not be doing, because they cannot be done profitably. But other nations and zones can do those things and make profit. Trade then permits the two nations or regions to share the benefits of their specific advantages or skills.

Until politics rears its ugly head that is....

Here in NZ, we are expert at pastoral farming. We are crappy at making cars. We produce pastoral products and export them. We import cars. The car makers get the benefit of our skills as pastoral farmers. We get the benefit of excellence in car construction.

Until some nameless Asian nation decides that it wants all the output of that pastoral production for itself to feed its starving people and takes over the country by force. Then you don't get no 'mo cars 'cuz you doan needs 'em no 'mo. (I thought that "Tomorrow, When the War Began" was a particularly lame adaptation of "Red Dawn, but still...)

And WTF happened to NZ's sheep industry? I simply cannot find a quality shearling sheep seat cover for my Mercedes anywhere. I've been looking for months and all I can find are cheap-ass Chinese covers mostly made from faux fabric with a small strip of sheepskin that is so badly tanned that it smells like sheep ass after a mere six hours of continuous driving. I can remember having a high-quality NZ sheepskin seat cover made entirely of top-grade sheepskin that I had on one of my cars for at least six years that never once smelled.

BTW, I love "Footrot Flats." I got introduced to it by a couple from Rotorua (?) whom I met fly-fishing in Yellowstone in the eighties. They were touring the country because the fellow had gotten a big disability settlement from a work-related brain injury. They camped out in their caravan at my ranch for three weeks one summer, and they rewired part of my house in compensation because they were licensed electricians. Nice folks, I wish I knew what happened to them...I always wanted to travel down there and visit them but could never make it happen. Murphy was their name as I recall.

When subsidies are given by governments to corporations, it causes them to keep doing stuff they are not good at, because the subsidies are enough to push them over the edge from losing money to making it. The financial difference comes from the pockets of the long suffering taxpayer.

Or it allows them to change from one thing to another and become good at it while the costs of the changeover are borne by the public because what it needs the corporation to build is not what it's building, and the need not to abandon the productive capacity and then bear the cost of building new infrastructure rather than adapting what exists is greater in the long term than the costs burdened on the public.

Sort of like turning auto manufacturing assembly lines from building cars to building tanks, aircraft and artillery during WWII, a need that was highly subsidized by the taxpayers.

Sometimes short-term inefficiencies and economic subsidies can render much greater long-term benefits to the public, like the Bell System. This is by no means universally true, but there can be valid economic and sociological needs for government subsidies from time to time.

You just think corporations are inherently "evil" because of some socialistic conceit that fails to understand what corporations actually are, which is nothing more than a bunch of people getting together to build or do something by pooling their money to make it possible to take on large, expensive projects.

Subsidies harm the nation giving them, through maintaining unprofitable and loss making enterprise, out of taxes.

Sometimes.

They harm the nations that might trade, through taking away trade opportunities.

Who cares? You want to trade with us, you do it on our terms or not at all.

They harm the taxpayer.

Sometimes. Perhaps even most often these days. But not always.

Subsidies are a strategy used by communist nations (and see how successful their economies are!) and have no place in a free enterprise society.

How.....Libertarian....of you.

[Blind groper]

Seth

As I have told you, I am neither libertarian or socialist. I try to keep a point of view that is balanced between the extremes. I believe in free enterprise, but I also realise that some degree of social welfare is needed to keep society healthy. I do not believe in communist strategies like subsidising corporations. Corporations should be able to stand or fall on their own merits.

In NZ we also have the experience of having gone through the change, removing subsidies, and allowing businesses to collapse if they are not strong enough. The change caused pain, but what emerged was stronger.

And no. We are not going to see some stronger nation invading to take over our food producing enterprises. The reason is simple. They can get that food through trade, and the efficiency of our unsubsidised farmers will continue.

[Audley Strange]

I very much doubt it. I know we've never had a public vote on the welfare system here in the US. But even if that were true, it's irrelevant because no one person or group of people have the right to vote to take someone else's property for the purposes of giving it to another individual for their benefit against the will of the property owner. The magnitude of the "need" or the popularity of the plan is irrelevant because the fruits of ones labor belongs to the worker and the only legitimate claim on that property is in return for some service or amenity that the worker makes use of that is supplied by the government. Thus, the individual determines absolutely how his labor is allocated by his own decisions and actions in making use of public services and conveniences. If he chooses to eschew the use of such services, then he doesn't owe the collective a share of the costs of providing that service.

A non starter. Firstly there are many things in society people do not vote for, this is why they elect representatives, to vote on their behalf. Secondly there is such a thing as eminent domain, which puts paid to the idea of the property owner having some inalienable rights.

No one is enslaved.

If I refuse to give the government the value of my labor that it says I must give to a welfare recipient, eventually men with machine guns will show up at my door and will kill me if I resist being so enslaved. I don't know a much better definition of "involuntary servitude."

Nonsense. The fact that you can refuse, that you can down tools or that you can have a nice holiday at the Grey Bar Inn, paid for by taxpayers, is in no way shape or form the same as being kidnapped, broken, considered property and exploited for profit without any legal restraint or recognition of you as a human being with rights.

am never going to agree that your "right to work" is a mandatory obligation.

Of course you aren't, you're a Marxist. That has nothing whatever to do with the truth of my statement.
[/quote]

Sure, because your statement isn't true. You might think it is, but then as we can see, you have a very odd definition of some words, like truth slavery and Marxism. I'm not a Marxist, not for a long while. In fact it seems to me you are more of a Marxist than I, you still believe in the dialectic, just you've chosen the side of the fat-cats rather than the proles. You're being like a little Christian railing against God by becoming a Satanist. Your still in the game and your thoughts are restricted by your lack of ability to think outside that political theory.

I refute the position that there is a competitive nature of the worker versus the business owner. That both are the same thing, workers, trying to get as much money for as little effort as possible. Some are parasitical scum, but that is not a combative class issue, its an issue of having a planet with scum on it. Also how can you have a dialectic with 3 groups? IO digress.

I think in this discussion both you and BG are doing that.

Interesting, if incomprehensible, notion.

I fail to see what is difficult to comprehend. You are both judging the same behaviours of two minorities of economic parasites as being different based on your political sympathies.

But that's a process error, not a flaw in the fundamental concept.

Well then the problem is the politically motivated distribution method to both individuals and businesses, not the concept of welfare.[/quote]

Depends on what your conception of the concept of welfare is. The need to provide for the health, safety and welfare of those who for reasons beyond their own control cannot do so for themselves is obvious. It's not whether "welfare" is necessary, it's HOW that goal is achieved.

YES!

[mistermack]

The question of subsidies is nowhere near as simple, as ''never subsidise, if it's inefficient, let it die''.

Firstly, if some other country is subsidising an industry, are you going to just let yours die? No, you reply in kind, and try to negotiate ALL the subsidies away.

Also, markets aren't static or stable. You can get a sudden influx of imports from a country that wasn't sending anything previously. Your domestic firms don't get the chance of adapting, it all happens too fast. The big foreign company kills off your own producers, then puts their prices back up, when they have a near monopoly. A well-aimed policy of limited subsidy can prevent the death of your own domestic industries.

Years ago, we were good at making Motorcycles in the UK. That didn't save the industry. The sudden influx from Japan killed all of the British firms off.
The same thing nearly happened to Jaguar Landrover. Now they are thriving and expanding, because they were kept from going under.

You need subsidies as a tool, but they have to be for a good reason, and should be temporary.

[Audley Strange]

You mean like welfare for businesses that might need a hand getting back onto their feet? Sure, same as we should be providing for individuals.

[Seth]

Seth

As I have told you, I am neither libertarian or socialist. I try to keep a point of view that is balanced between the extremes.

Your arguments do not coincide with your claim.

I believe in free enterprise, but I also realise that some degree of social welfare is needed to keep society healthy.

I agree with you. The difference between us is how we believe that social welfare ought to be obtained and provided. You are a socialist because you support the idea that people's wealth (and therefore their labor) does not belong to them to dispose of as they see fit, but rather you see their labor as the property of the state, to be directed and disposed of as the state (the collective) sees fit, and that using force to compel that labor and redistribution of wealth is moral, ethical and appropriate. That is the essence of collectivism (socialism, communism, etc.)

I believe that any time an individual is compelled (however that compulsion is enforced) to labor on behalf of others against their will, that is involuntary servitude (slavery). The fact that those who benefit from that involuntary servitude (the dependent class) have "democratically" voted to enslave others to their desires does not legitimize the enslavement (to rebut Audley's claim).

The distinction between collectivism and individualism when it comes to taxes is very specific and easy to understand. I've said it many times but it seems like there is a deliberate intent to misapprehend. Under individualism, the democratic process of voting to tax, whether directly (as in Colorado, where any new tax requires ratification by the electorate) or indirectly (as in the assignment of representatives to a legislative body tasked with such duties), only applies to government services or infrastructure improvements (hereafter called "services") that any person does, may or has the opportunity to use and enjoy. This includes mandatory services such as compulsory attachment to a sewer, water or electrical system required as a public safety and sanitation regulation. However, in every case there is a service provided by the government to the individual who justly owes his fair share of the costs of providing that service. Highway taxes pay for one's use of the highway. Property taxes pay for things like fire protection, police protection and other routine government services, as well as, in most cases, a primary educational system for children. I personally dispute the justice of using property taxes to fund schools, but I'll let that be for now.

The upshot is that under a democratic individualistic society taxes are only imposed for the purposes of providing government services, and such taxes are justified by the individual's participation in society and use of, or freedom to use, such public services. It's a quid-pro-quo system that allows the costs and benefits of an organized society with public infrastructure to be apportioned fairly.

The problem with compulsory taxation to fund welfare programs is that the taxpayer receives no service or direct benefit, or opportunity to benefit, from that taxation. It's pure wealth redistribution from one individual to another. Therefore it is no longer a quid-pro-quo relationship with the government (the collective), it is a master/servant relationship where the labor of the individual is commanded by and at the disposal of the collective. The degree of "social justice" claimed by the beneficiaries of such government-provided largess is utterly irrelevant to the fundamental underpinnings of the philosophy by which those who advocate and benefit from direct wealth redistribution through compulsory taxation seek to take control of the lives and labor of others.

Nor does the "empathy argument" change anything. The empathy argument is the typical collectivist rebuttal to the objection of individuals to being forced into involuntary servitude for the benefit of the dependent class, and it's utter emotional nonsense. In fact it's nothing more than an attempt to divert the debate away from the actual subject, which is as follows:

Please morally and ethically justify the collectivist idea that the labor and property of the individual are not his to dispose of as he pleases, but rather his labor and property are the property of the collective and subject to the collective's direction and disposal.

Whenever this fundamental argument is brought to the surface, you collectivists immediately switch to ad hominem attack and diversionary tactics in order to avoid the moral and ethical questions that are essential to any rational discussion of the subject.

My argument is that it is impossible to morally and/or ethically justify the collectivist argument, and that the assumption of dominion and control over the labor and property of the individual against that individual's will is the very essence and definition of "involuntary servitude."

I do not believe in communist strategies like subsidising corporations. Corporations should be able to stand or fall on their own merits.

I happen to agree with you, as a Libertarian. However, in this debate I'm merely stating the principles upon which the notion of government subsidy as a public benefit is based.

In NZ we also have the experience of having gone through the change, removing subsidies, and allowing businesses to collapse if they are not strong enough. The change caused pain, but what emerged was stronger.

I agree. But I also can see why, in particular circumstances, it may be preferable from a public policy perspective to grant subsidies in rare cases.

And no. We are not going to see some stronger nation invading to take over our food producing enterprises.

That's what the Ukrainians said in 1931. They were wrong. Fatally wrong for 12 million of them. How long can YOU survive without food?

The reason is simple. They can get that food through trade, and the efficiency of our unsubsidised farmers will continue.

Unless they can't. North Korea comes to mind (gee, I wonder why??). Being embargoed by most of the world and filled with starving people living under the most despotic tyranny on earth, I can see why it would be in North Korea's national interests to invade and take over NZ in order to gain access to its agricultural capacity. Whether North Korea would succeed in doing so, and to what extent other nations might come to the aid of New Zealand is not really relevant.

[Seth]

I very much doubt it. I know we've never had a public vote on the welfare system here in the US. But even if that were true, it's irrelevant because no one person or group of people have the right to vote to take someone else's property for the purposes of giving it to another individual for their benefit against the will of the property owner. The magnitude of the "need" or the popularity of the plan is irrelevant because the fruits of ones labor belongs to the worker and the only legitimate claim on that property is in return for some service or amenity that the worker makes use of that is supplied by the government. Thus, the individual determines absolutely how his labor is allocated by his own decisions and actions in making use of public services and conveniences. If he chooses to eschew the use of such services, then he doesn't owe the collective a share of the costs of providing that service.

A non starter. Firstly there are many things in society people do not vote for, this is why they elect representatives, to vote on their behalf.

Wrong. You don't even understand your own argument. Representative government is "voting" on things, as you note. But that's not really relevant to this discussion because of the distinction between compulsory taxation to pay for services provided by the government and compulsory taxation to redistribute wealth from one person to another at the command of the government, a distinction that you seem to be incapable of understanding.

There is such a thing as eminent domain, which puts paid to the idea of the property owner having some inalienable rights.

Is there? Why is there? Who says so? Where does this "inalienable right" on the part of the collective to take the property of others come from exactly? What are the philosophical and legal underpinnings of eminent domain?

Let me clue you in: Eminent Domain is a principle rooted firmly in religion. It is based on the notion that the sovereign (king) holds title to everything, and that everything is subject to the king's whims and caprices as to disposition. And the king's right to exercise this eminent domain is firmly based in the Judeo-Christian religious belief that the king is the king, and holds this power because, and only because, he is anointed by God, who actually owns everything.

I find it highly amusing that an Atheist would use eminent domain as a philosophical argument in support of dominion and control over all property and labor being vested in some central authority.

No one is enslaved.

If I come to your house, point a machine gun at you and command you to go dig onions to be given to the poor rather than what you want to do, which is to sit around watching football and eating crisps, is that slavery? You bet your ass it is.

If I refuse to give the government the value of my labor that it says I must give to a welfare recipient, eventually men with machine guns will show up at my door and will kill me if I resist being so enslaved. I don't know a much better definition of "involuntary servitude."

Nonsense.

Try it sometime and see what happens. Or ask Randy Weaver or any one of a hundred other tax objectors how that worked out for them.

The fact that you can refuse, that you can down tools or that you can have a nice holiday at the Grey Bar Inn, paid for by taxpayers, is in no way shape or form the same as being kidnapped, broken, considered property and exploited for profit without any legal restraint or recognition of you as a human being with rights.

Really? It looks exactly like slavery to me. Either I work on your behalf against my will or your proxy thugs will come and imprison and punish me for refusing to involuntarily serve you. Even our Constitution recognizes this. The Thirteenth Amendment says so explicitly:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

While Wikipedia is not necessarily an authoritative source all the time, what it says about involuntary servitude is well stated and accurate:

Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs. While laboring to benefit another occurs also in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.

Of course you aren't, you're a Marxist. That has nothing whatever to do with the truth of my statement.

Sure, because your statement isn't true. You might think it is, but then as we can see, you have a very odd definition of some words, like truth slavery and Marxism. I'm not a Marxist, not for a long while.

If it looks like a Marxist, walks like a Marxist and quacks like a Marxist, it's a Marxist.

In fact it seems to me you are more of a Marxist than I, you still believe in the dialectic,

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle

Just because I understand the Marxist dialectic doesn't mean I "believe" in it.

just you've chosen the side of the fat-cats rather than the proles.

Actually, I've taken the side of reason and logic, unlike you.

You're being like a little Christian railing against God by becoming a Satanist. Your still in the game and your thoughts are restricted by your lack of ability to think outside that political theory.

Takes one to know one...

I refute the position that there is a competitive nature of the worker versus the business owner. That both are the same thing, workers, trying to get as much money for as little effort as possible.

Which makes it a competition. *derp*

Some are parasitical scum, but that is not a combative class issue, its an issue of having a planet with scum on it. Also how can you have a dialectic with 3 groups? IO digress.

I should say so...

I think in this discussion both you and BG are doing that.

Interesting, if incomprehensible, notion.

I fail to see what is difficult to comprehend. You are both judging the same behaviours of two minorities of economic parasites as being different based on your political sympathies.

Well, that's how you appear to comprehend it. I submit that this is a natural side effect of narrow-minded Marxist ideology.

Who, in your dialectic, isn't an "economic parasite?"

Depends on what your conception of the concept of welfare is. The need to provide for the health, safety and welfare of those who for reasons beyond their own control cannot do so for themselves is obvious. It's not whether "welfare" is necessary, it's HOW that goal is achieved.

YES!

Well, there's a ringing endorsement of....something...

[Blind groper]

To mistermack

Who asked if, when another country provides subsidies to become more competitive, we do not do the same to remain solvent.

New Zealand did just that in 1984. When we removed all subsidies off our productive enterprises (but especially agriculture) we did not require others to do so first. It was cut throat competition. Our products against theirs, with no subsidies on ours. Guess what? We won. Our products compete very successfully without subsidies. Of course, some of our products went bust, and are no longer made. No loss there. They were no inherently competitive. We are left with a strong economy.

To Seth

You are putting up a lot of arguments against taxes. I agree that taxes are an evil. The problem is that they are a necessary evil. In the USA, the biggest chunk of tax money is spent on the military, and in supporting indefensible wars overseas. Instead of battling social welfare, which helps people, why not fight against the military budget, which has done enormous harm?

[Seth]

You are putting up a lot of arguments against taxes. I agree that taxes are an evil. The problem is that they are a necessary evil. In the USA, the biggest chunk of tax money is spent on the military, and in supporting indefensible wars overseas. Instead of battling social welfare, which helps people, why not fight against the military budget, which has done enormous harm?

What the hell is it with you? Do you have some mental defect that makes you incapable of understanding simple language? Sheesh.

I told you, my argument is not against "taxes" per se, it's only against one specific category of taxes: direct wealth redistribution taxation.

For the love of God man, read what I fucking wrote.