Fat Tax (1 Viewer)

[Planck]

Bring on a gay and contraceptive tax imo to cover lost taxes and economic productivity
Also mandate community excercise daily thru the telescreens

Gays contribute *so* much to the economy because they don't have kids. They spend spend spend spend spennnndddd.

 

[kfnmpah]

Some skinny people like fatty foods as well and we shouldn't suffer.

Pfft, body size isn't just the problem.
Skinny people can suffer and die from heart disease too. You can be thin and have life threatening cholesterol levels.

Anyway, in theory this idea works. But practically it has flaws, obviously. People who have food addictions aren't going to stop buying it because it costs more. The ones that desperately need help are the ones that aren't going to stop buying junk food.

It's a vicious cycle, it is.

 

[Planck]

Yes libertarian policies support an overly simplistic view of society. They say a child born into a really poor family has the same freedoms as everyone, when really his opportunities are completely restrained by the circumstances of his life. At least the leftist point of view actually recognises this and attempts to create freedoms for people in the real sense. Not just the simplistic liberty to do so.

You're not talking of equality of opportunity, such as a public schooling system or voucher based system or things along those lines.

But equality of outcome, which is beyond idiotic.

We can provide fairly close to equality of opportunity by letting people choose what public schools they go to with vouchers, the current system is a stagnating mess of marxist rhetoric and idiocy that is seriously harming the quality of education received by the average person.

 

[SylviaB]

Looks like you can get out of poverty within leftist policy.

he doesn't mean leftist policy as in public schools. he means far-left stuff like redistributing wealth and the like

im against public schooling, but it isn't the most left-wing thing ever


but you notice the less left-wing the system, the greater outcomes are achieved.

 

[Planck]

An example of a poorly executed plan is not a blight against an entire perspective on governance. What about the uncountable amount of times when there state intervention has been required because of market failure? Do you think that ruins your libertarian perspective? Because according to you it does.

Do you understand what unintended consequences are?

Every dollar that is taken from someone is a dollar that they would have spent on something else.

This broken window fallacy shit is getting tedious.

 

[Planck]

I'm quite sure that poverty existed in China before communism. It didn't just start. China is a DEVELOPING country, you see. Look at India...Different political system, same level of poverty. America is a DEVELOPED country...with high levels of poverty compared to other OECD nations.

Capitalism and free trade are the greatest liberators of the poor. India and China have a burgeoning middle class, and while their income levels are not comparable to the first world, look at them in comparison to Africa, a country that the west has thoroughly embargoed (Particularly the EU) but attempted to fix with giant aid payments.

A basic comparison of the two shows the legitimacy of the argument.

 

[badquinton304]

he doesn't mean leftist policy as in public schools. he means far-left stuff like redistributing wealth and the like

im against public schooling, but it isn't the most left-wing thing ever


but you notice the less left-wing the system, the greater outcomes are achieved.

He?

On the last point: Na I reckon theres a sweet spot which changes with the environment. Adaptability is important.

 

[BlackDragon]

he doesn't mean leftist policy as in public schools. he means far-left stuff like redistributing wealth and the like

Are you talking about me? I am not far left. I think markets are fundamental and that globalisation is the most important thing in lowering poverty levels in the world. Especially the removal of protectionist policies. Its just that I don't agree with extreme libertarianism that negate the fact that there is a need for a government and the creation of positive freedoms. I just think purely anarchic policies are too simplistic in their definition of what it means to be free. I think the solution is definitely a combination of the two.

 

[BlackDragon]

Capitalism and free trade are the greatest liberators of the poor. India and China have a burgeoning middle class, and while their income levels are not comparable to the first world, look at them in comparison to Africa, a country that the west has thoroughly embargoed (Particularly the EU) but attempted to fix with giant aid payments.

A basic comparison of the two shows the legitimacy of the argument.

I agree.. protectionism of western agriculture is significantly damaging to developing countries. I was just saying that changing the status quo of society too far to the right would be a mistake.

 

[redmayne]

Libertarianism, like communism, sounds feasible and somewhat attractive in ways, but will never, ever work.

It's a load of shit.

Anyone who believes in it is a fool. No two ways about it.

 

[Anonymous-]

Libertarianism, like communism, sounds feasible and somewhat attractive in ways, but will never, ever work.

It's a load of shit.

Anyone who believes in it is a fool. No two ways about it.

m8, please stfu. what do you know m8

 

[BlackDragon]

I think what we have to realise that the answer is neither in the extreme left or the extreme right. It would be undesirable to have either totalitarianism and anarchism. The answer is a combination of both approaches in a reasonably applied way. There will always be disagreement, but that is healthy.

 

[Planck]

The third way!

 

[SylviaB]

Blackdragon, what positive liberties are currently missing from society in your opinion?

Libertarianism, like communism, sounds feasible and somewhat attractive in ways, but will never, ever work.

It's a load of shit.

Anyone who believes in it is a fool. No two ways about it.

communism: has been used, failed miserably. Either destroys a nation's wealth or human rights. Or both

Libertarianism: never been truly used, though the closer a country moves to it, the more prosperous they have become and the higher standard of living they have had

to compare the two is moronic to the extreme

 

[SylviaB]

and guys stop treating libertarianism as a purely economic philosophy, because the whole giving people self-ownership of their lives and not initiating force is you know, kind of awesome

 

[badquinton304]

the third way!

 

[ComingUpForAir]

Libertarianism: never been truly used, though the closer a country moves to it, the more prosperous they have become and the higher standard of living they have had

What happens if this libertarian country is invaded?

 

[Planck]

What happens if this libertarian country is invaded?

Self-defense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[SylviaB]

What happens if this libertarian country is invaded?

well libertarians hold that one of the few roles of government should be security/defence, so the nation would defend itself


which is obviously not initiation of force, coz they started it LOL

 

[SylviaB]

also we'd have nukes so they wouldn't have invaded