Protect Our Borders

[ncurd]

I do agree there are a few "Degrees" which TBH could have been taken in 6th type college (poly's) rather than a uni.

I think you're misunderstanding what the difference between Polytechnics and University's were a degree of the same classification (e.g. 1st Honours Bachelor's) is exactly the same thing as something from Cambridge or a Polytechnic. The main difference is polytechnics use to specialise in more applied learning to actual jobs as opposed to being purely academic. They use to be favoured by some areas of work like Engineering for this reason. A degree is still a degree at the end of the day and basically boils down the difference between getting GCSE's at Scumbag Comprehensive and Eton. Your way more likely to do better and have to work harder to get into one but at the end of the day it's the same thing.

That's oversimplifying it a little obviously. But the main reason for Poly's changing to uni's was due to unwarranted stigma attached the courses have barely changed in terms of their root philosophy.


Fees were a big thing back in my college days(some 14 years ago now since I started) as they'd just been introduced which is one reason why I say he's kidding himself if he doesn't think kids of that age aren't poltically active. we were also going through the beginnings of Afghanistan back then and Iraq.



Finally yup I've looked at old papers as well (including the 11+) and I've never seen anything that particularly warrants the exams were easier in my day argument. The only major difference is the prevalence of calculators but they've only replaced other things kids were given in papers. The major difference I think in exam results are two things, a) teachers are way more results driven and get measured by them, they teach kids how to pass exams way more than they once use to, b) pressure is way higher on kids in my Dad's day 5 O-Levels was considered pretty good going. Me I was expected to get all A*-C in every subject, kids now only A & A* seam to count. Now we have a system thanks to the bloody idiot Gove where kids yardsticks change form year to year based on how well their other class mates do.

 

[valley commando]

It makes as much sense as you having access to a keyboard. Of course, if these were typical of the kind of courses on offer, I'd agree with you. We know though, both of us , that you're that you're being deliberately disingenuous by being highly selective. You missed out engineering (of many differing specialist types), science, mathematics, the arts, languages, IT (without which you'd just be shouting crap out of your window instead of typing it) etc. I haven't even scratched the surface of the kinds of degrees available, not to mention the fact that FE includes far more than university level learning. Those apprenticships you're bleating about? Furthern Education, by definition. You want an electrician in your house who doesn't know what an electron is or what it does?

By the way, you started this thread with a blanket insult to all immigrants, so don't come all over precious when you get some back. That's intellectual cowardice.

This report from BBC's Education correspondent 18 months ago is just one many reports re the dumbing down of education in the UK, so don't tell me I'm wrong or ill informed -:

Young adults in England have scored among the lowest results in the industrialised world in international literacy and numeracy tests.
A major study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shows how England's 16 to 24-year-olds are falling behind their Asian and European counterparts.
England is 22nd for literacy and 21st for numeracy out of 24 countries.
The OECD's Andreas Schleicher warned of a shrinking pool of skilled workers.
Unlike other developed countries, the study also showed that young people in England are no better at these tests than older people, in the 55 to 65 age range.
When this is weighted with other factors, such as the socio-economic background of people taking the test, it shows that England is the only country in the survey where results are going backwards - with the older cohort better than the younger.
'Shocking'
The study shows that there are 8.5 million adults in England and Northern Ireland with the numeracy levels of a 10-year-old.
"This shocking report shows England has some of the least literate and numerate young adults in the developed world," said Skills Minister Matthew Hancock.
"These are Labour's children, educated under a Labour government and force-fed a diet of dumbing down and low expectations."

 

[ncurd]

Post the smegging link...it's not rocket science.

Edit:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24433320

Done it for you

Nice for you to pick out the bit that agreed with your statement. What you missed out whilst it does help you argument it does actually prove nothing.

However, for England, when the results are separated from Northern Ireland, there was a different and unusual pattern, with almost no advance in test results between the 55 to 65-year-olds and those aged 16 to 24.
This younger group will have many more qualifications, but the test results show that these younger people have no greater ability than those approaching retirement who left schools with much lower qualifications in the 1960s and 1970s.
The grandchildren are not any better at these core skills than their grandparents.
Global race
Mr Schleicher says it might suggest evidence of grade inflation and it shows that better qualifications do not necessarily mean better skills.

Key word is might. It doesn't actually prove anything on top of that where is the proof of your bull**** assertion the 11plus is harder than a degree?

 

[ncurd]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10094248
http://www.theguardian.com/politics...olly-curtis/2012/jun/21/have-gcses-got-easier
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/aug/21/ben-goldacre-bad-science-exams
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...A-level-results-are-exams-getting-easier.html

BBC, Guardian & Torygraph good enough for you?

The second article was interesting especially the example papers certainly wouldn't say the 1985 paper was anything I wouldn't of expected to see In the papers I took in 2001.

- - - Updated - - -

Full disclouser: These were all articles from searching on google for "are exams easier now" none really said they were.
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=are%20exams%20easier%20now

 

[profitius]

"Before taxes and benefits, the richest fifth of households had an average income of £78,300 in 2011/12, 14 times greater than the poorest fifth, who had an average income of £5,400.

Overall, taxes and benefits lead to income being shared more equally between households. After all taxes and benefits are taken into account, the ratio between the average incomes of the top and the bottom fifth of households (£57,300 per year and £15,800 respectively) is reduced to four-to-one."

(http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/house...ome/2011-2012/etb-stats-bulletin-2011-12.html)

Clearly, the poorest benefit from having a state.

That said, on the topic of taxation, the idea that anyone pays 50% of their income in tax is really off the mark.

Let's start with income tax. For example, say someone is earning £200,000. In the UK, they would get £10,600 tax free. They would pay 20% on £10,601 to £31,785. They would then pay 40% on £31,786 to £150,000 and then 45% on anything over £150,000.

So 20% of (31,785 - 10,600) = 4,237
40% of (150,000 - 31,786) = 47,285.6
45% of (200,000 - 150,000) = 22,500

Total tax = 74,022.6 (37% of income, despite a top tax rate of 45%)

Second, consider earnings from investments. The amount of tax people pay on income from investments is tiny compared to what they would through PAYE. See: http://www.thesimpledollar.com/how-do-the-rich-pay-lower-taxes-and-how-can-you-do-it/

Third, the affects of indirect taxation. The poorest pay heaps more on indirect taxation (such as VAT and Council Tax) than the richest. This really balances out the amount of taxation that the poorest pay compared to the richest. See: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...aying-more-than-the-rich-in-tax-10353982.html

Taxation is a mess in the Western world, because the state is held hostage by the richest. They use their political and media clout the peddle the lie that they pay too much in tax in order to reduce their own tax burden. Income tax comes down, whilst truly regressive taxes such as Council Tax and VAT remain the same.

I would agree fully with the highlighted part and agree with a lot more of what you wrote. Thats why libertarianism appeals to me. The wealthy cannot corrupt it.

Instead of looking at money, I look at it as wealth, to simplify things. The rich steal the wealth of the people by rigging the system to suit themselves and the socialist system in place helps them do that. People say that libertarianism doesn't look after the poor, but they're wrong. Wealth would remain more equal because the rich cannot steal from the poor. The government would not be allowed control the money system hence they wouldn't be able to steal peoples wealth through inflation, favouring big business, interest rates etc (and obviously taxes).

- - - Updated - - -

Extreme ends of the spectrum always fail, which is just as true for libertarianism as it is for socialism. Socialism assumes man can't be trusted with the destiny oh his people, whilst libertarianism falsely assumes that man is both rational and that there should be no interference in the actions of individuals because their collective action will ultimately be for a common good.

Both sets of assumptions on their own lead to disaster. As for "velvet gloves" - I'd contend libertarianism is the "velvet glove" of anarchism.

There are many kinds of libertarianism. Most prefer limited government which would basically be there to protect the borders and one or two other basic things. Some would like no government at all. As for anarchism, when we hear that word we think of some kind of mad max society but to me most or a large portion of libertarians are fairly conservative. A mad max scenario wouldn't happen because in a libertarian society everyone would be free to have guns if they choose.

Big business loves socialism? Really? Maybe you have a precedent you can cite in Ireland that can demonstrate that, but that's sure as f##k not how big business operates in Australia, because I certainly don't remember global giants like BHP Billiton funding a massive advertising campaign FOR the government's re-distributive proposed super profits mining tax. But they sure as heck had a pretty f##king big hand in getting rid of the Labor government that had the audacity propose Australians get more bang for our buck out of resources owned by the state that were being sold at massively inflated prices (this was back when iron ore was selling $180+ a tonne and BHP were recording profits in excess of $20 billion).

You've just made my point. Governments are easily corrupted. Its actually legal to lobby government officials (in the USA at least but probably in most countries) which is basically companies dangling buckets of cash in front of politicians to change some of their complex rules for the benefit of the company. The politician who was voted in by the people, is now controlled by a corporation. Give a small group of people too much power and see what happens.

The United States of Europe is slowly forming? Don't you mean "slowly falling apart"? It was "slowly forming" in the decades leading up to the creation of the post-state structure of the EU, but since the financial crisis Europe has been making clear moves AWAY from becoming more integrated.

As for immigrants, just because some people hate them doesn't mean everyone does. If immigration were a defining issue for people, then in the UK we'd have seen UKIP win in a landslide. They didn't, and actually ended up losing ground. THAT's democracy for you.

No its forming. They've more power and more rules every year. One or two countries are having second thoughts about joining since the economy got into trouble.

As for UKIP, democracy these days is manufactured by the media. Once again a few people can control the masses easily. Theres your modern democracy. Funny that governments constantly go against the will of the people like Britains troops going to Afganistan. Once they're in power, **** democracy.

 

[RoosTah]

There are many kinds of libertarianism. Most prefer limited government which would basically be there to protect the borders and one or two other basic things. Some would like no government at all.

Indeed, just like there are many types of socialism I suppose. The point is both philosophies were developed when our understanding of human psychology was rudimentary at best, and thus both are doomed to failure. As I said, at the core of libertarianism is an embarrassingly naive belief in human rationality, something we know to be false. People don't simply rationally pursue self-interest; their goals and motivators are more complex and driven by often very short term needs that our species developed over the course of its considerable evolution.

As for anarchism, when we hear that word we think of some kind of mad max society but to me most or a large portion of libertarians are fairly conservative. A mad max scenario wouldn't happen because in a libertarian society everyone would be free to have guns if they choose.

Oh yes, and we know how well that works out don't we? The most gun happy country in the world, the United States is the global home to mass killings. Funny how making guns as easy to buy as chocolates can have unintended consequences. There's a reason the U.S. is alone in the developed world in its incredibly lax approach to fire-arms - they're constantly providing yet more evidence as to just why it's not a good idea to make instant and long range deadly force available to anyone and everyone.

You've just made my point. Governments are easily corrupted. Its actually legal to lobby government officials (in the USA at least but probably in most countries) which is basically companies dangling buckets of cash in front of politicians to change some of their complex rules for the benefit of the company. The politician who was voted in by the people, is now controlled by a corporation. Give a small group of people too much power and see what happens.

Again, this is just another place where libertarianism proves itself woefully poor at understanding human nature and how power develops. Strip away the state and basically allow societies to run with a bare bones system of rules and you very quickly end up with what are essentially internal corporate empires that then crowd out the competition. It's the reason why purely free markets and the notion of "perfect competition" is never enacted purely in real life - because in real life perfect competition is impossible, and success is a reinforcing phenomenon that leads very quickly to small groups of people with too much power. The only difference is that in a libertarian society that power is utterly unchecked and those groups are also able to essentially arm themselves too, in effect becoming quasi state actors.

No its forming. They've more power and more rules every year. One or two countries are having second thoughts about joining since the economy got into trouble.

What are you basing that on exactly? The financial crisis has massively eroded confidence in the European Union across every member state, the willingness of parliaments to agree to new legislation put forward is declining and there is talk of disbanding it altogether.

As for UKIP, democracy these days is manufactured by the media. Once again a few people can control the masses easily. Theres your modern democracy. Funny that governments constantly go against the will of the people like Britains troops going to Afganistan. Once they're in power, **** democracy.

I'm not sure what your argument is here. UKIP are manufactured by the media? How so, and to whose benefit? What's the end game for "the media" (which is pretty nebulous and driven by a variety of interests)?
As for British troops going to Afghanistan, which deployment are you referring to? At some points there has been quite popular support in both Britain and in my country for that. But it's almost beside the point - Britain is a close ally of the the United States and no country ever has entered into a military alliance which has a get out clause for one side that says "will only engage in joint security and defence operations if popularly supported by domestic public opinion.

No offence mate, but there's a reason that libertarians aren't taken terribly seriously and have little sway across the western world. You're very much the mirror image of the communist; blind idealists who view humanity how you'd like it to be rather than the way it really is.

Like socialists, most libertarians eventually grow up once they've learned a little more about world history and develop an understanding of how in conflict their theory's ideals are with basic human nature.

Western democracies aren't perfect and yes they're vulnerable to corruption, but in the immortal words of Winston S. Churchill "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

 

[profitius]

Again, this is just another place where libertarianism proves itself woefully poor at understanding human nature and how power develops. Strip away the state and basically allow societies to run with a bare bones system of rules and you very quickly end up with what are essentially internal corporate empires that then crowd out the competition. It's the reason why purely free markets and the notion of "perfect competition" is never enacted purely in real life - because in real life perfect competition is impossible, and success is a reinforcing phenomenon that leads very quickly to small groups of people with too much power. The only difference is that in a libertarian society that power is utterly unchecked and those groups are also able to essentially arm themselves too, in effect becoming quasi state actors.

Actually understanding human nature seems to be a strong point of l.ibertarianism. Its strength is its simplicity. What has the complex system of rules today done? Has it stopped some corporations from having too much power and wealth? I was watching something last year - i forget what - but there was a man on it I never heard of and it mentioned what he earned last year. I forget the figure but they mentioned it was about 54,000 times the average British wage. Thats just one man.


The elite are getting richer from stealing the wealth of the working classes because they've rigged the game. Now, if they cannot rig the game they're not going to be stealing the wealth of the working classes.


In a libertarian system, you benefit by being creative/productive. The wealthiest will not be wall street traders but people who actually contribute by developing or making something that benefits everyone. As far as I'm concerned its the current system that creates the massive gap between rich and poor by funneling wealth up to the elite through complex rules and regulation thats difficult for normal people to understand but the insiders know the score.


You mentioned about a corporation having a monopoly. In a libertarian society, without all the current rules and regulations, we would have real value for money. A monopoly, trying to keep prices high would fail because others could do things cheaper. So if a company tried to buy out other companies to raise prices, the raised prices would encourage new companies to come in and compete. And under libertarianism there isn't a whole host of regulations stopping new companies from forming. Its actually governments who cause monolopies.


You say a corporation can form a private army, unchecked. I wouldn't be worried about that. There would be private security forces to protect the people and unlike todays police who work for the government, the private force would actually protect the people because they would be paid directly by the people! Today you have a police force that cannot do anything to stop the local gangsters but as we've seen in the USA, crime is low where guns are legal. Put it this way, I don't think the mafia would last too long in Texas. There are plenty of ways to stop corporations going bad. Nowadays we have gangsters, mafia, street scum, drug gangs etc all thriving under the current system. How would you deal with it?

What are you basing that on exactly? The financial crisis has massively eroded confidence in the European Union across every member state, the willingness of parliaments to agree to new legislation put forward is declining and there is talk of disbanding it altogether.


I'm not sure what your argument is here. UKIP are manufactured by the media? How so, and to whose benefit? What's the end game for "the media" (which is pretty nebulous and driven by a variety of interests)?
As for British troops going to Afghanistan, which deployment are you referring to? At some points there has been quite popular support in both Britain and in my country for that. But it's almost beside the point - Britain is a close ally of the the United States and no country ever has entered into a military alliance which has a get out clause for one side that says "will only engage in joint security and defence operations if popularly supported by domestic public opinion.

No offence mate, but there's a reason that libertarians aren't taken terribly seriously and have little sway across the western world. You're very much the mirror image of the communist; blind idealists who view humanity how you'd like it to be rather than the way it really is.

Like socialists, most libertarians eventually grow up once they've learned a little more about world history and develop an understanding of how in conflict their theory's ideals are with basic human nature.

Western democracies aren't perfect and yes they're vulnerable to corruption, but in the immortal words of Winston S. Churchill "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

Re the EU. Everything is becoming more and more centralised as more and more rules are introduced by the EU every year. That was there plan from day 1 but they told the people it was just a trade union.


Re UKIP. The media turned against UKIP. Look at the treatment Ron Paul got in the last US elections for an example. If you're not mainstream they'll turn against you.


I can't speak for all libertarians (they make very strong points but I wouldn't be 100% sure about it myself) but just because communism failed big time, doesn't mean libertarianism would go the same way, especially since there are varying forms and not all are pure libertarian.

 

[RoosTah]

Actually understanding human nature seems to be a strong point of l.ibertarianism. Its strength is its simplicity. What has the complex system of rules today done? Has it stopped some corporations from having too much power and wealth? I was watching something last year - i forget what - but there was a man on it I never heard of and it mentioned what he earned last year. I forget the figure but they mentioned it was about 54,000 times the average British wage. Thats just one man.

The elite are getting richer from stealing the wealth of the working classes because they've rigged the game. Now, if they cannot rig the game they're not going to be stealing the wealth of the working classes.

Profitius, I sincerely suggest you read more about political theory if you think that a libertarian system would actually mitigate against this situation. In point of fact, a libertarian approach to governing would drastically exacerbate it. Indeed, when you look at how we've come to have such an increasingly unequal world, the finger is often correctly pointed at globalisation. Which is to say the capacity of corporations to effectively avoid the requirements of their home state and engage in most of their profit generating activities in off-shore jurisdictions with significantly more lax approaches to human rights.

Ironically, such a lack of intrusion on the part of the state in these countries in areas like workers rights are precisely what a libertarian would advocate for, so effectively your "solution" to inequality would be to bring developed western democracies down to the level of developing states with little to no oversight on labour that would consitute a "race to the bottom."

There's a sort of social darwanism to libertarianism that argues that this is in some way desirable, and whether you believe that to be a good thing I don't you, but one thing it doesn't do is bring people equality and to suggest it ever could says to me that perhaps you're not that well acquainted with libertarianism's central tennets.

In a libertarian system, you benefit by being creative/productive. The wealthiest will not be wall street traders but people who actually contribute by developing or making something that benefits everyone. As far as I'm concerned its the current system that creates the massive gap between rich and poor by funneling wealth up to the elite through complex rules and regulation thats difficult for normal people to understand but the insiders know the score.

Please don't take this the wrong way profitus, but this comment makes you sound more like a communist than a libertarian. If you don't mind humouring me for a moment, can you explain just how it is you think wall street traders make money? Because I have a feeling you don't quite understand...

The banking system is complex, but fundamental rules regarding how people make their money through it are actually not, and if you think a libertarian system of government would some how bring bankers and traders onto a level pegging with carpenters, then you need to do a lot more reading. Libertarians would have to completely eliminate the stock exchange and the notion of public companies for that to ever happen, and since they don't like messing with the rules set about by private corporations, that isn't going to happen.

A communist system could certainly achieve what you seek, but what about a libertarian system would tell banks they couldn't "sell" poor people mortgages, who could never afford them and then package those mortgages along with shares in things like tech companies and other seemingly safer investments as some sort of mid tier investment product with a safe return rate? There's nothing in any of that which should be of any concern to a libertarian.

No, what a libertarian would likely say that if that happened to go to hell like it did in the GFC there'd just be no bail outs. The problem with that of course is that it ironically risks concentrating power even more, because banking is in essence a complex form of gambling and the banks who bet against those investments would have made a tidy profit from the downfall of its competitors.

Another question, if you want a society where "people who make things of value to society" get the most rewarded, then how are you going to ensure people like footballers and actors get paid less than say engineers who work on new forms of transport that actually does benefit everyone, or a surgeon?

The economy is essentially an exercise in crowd funding in different scales, and the concept of "inherent value" is only true up until a point. If it had any real truth to it, then a guy like David Beckham would have had to keep a day job and should never have been able to dream of earning as much as say a surgeon.

But a libertarian system would never have an issue with that, because ultimately it's happen to leave earnings to the market, and if the market says a guy running in a park playing with a ball is worth more than a woman who can save you from dying, then that's just what it says, and who is the state to argue?

You say a corporation can form a private army, unchecked. I wouldn't be worried about that. There would be private security forces to protect the people and unlike todays police who work for the government, the private force would actually protect the people because they would be paid directly by the people! Today you have a police force that cannot do anything to stop the local gangsters but as we've seen in the USA, crime is low where guns are legal. Put it this way, I don't think the mafia would last too long in Texas. There are plenty of ways to stop corporations going bad. Nowadays we have gangsters, mafia, street scum, drug gangs etc all thriving under the current system. How would you deal with it?

Well, it varies from country to country, but that's much worse in the U.S. where guns are plentiful and barely a problem at all comparitively speaking in Australia. Sure, we have crime, but nothing to the level the U.S. experiences with its lax gun laws.

As for the Texas example, this is what's known as a "zombie argument"; it's one put forward by people at the NRA constantly because they assume their members have no idea how many times its been shot down.

The problem with it is that small midwestern towns having lax gun laws isn't proof that lax gun laws make people safer, they're evidence that smaller populations and tighter nit communities are statistically less likely to produce such violence through both vastly smaller sample sizes from which such people can arise and the fact that anti-social behaviour in places where everyone knows eachother is less likely to occur.

Not that they don't mind you - Sandy Hook occurred in precisely such a place after all. But the fact is cities like New York or L.A. necessarily provide more crime because they simply have more people and those people are more disconnected form eachother. Again, this is an issue of psychology and the law of large numbers that libertarianism can't seem to comprehend.

As for the Mafia not being in Texas, well google the "Dallas Crime Family" and get back to me on that ;-) . As a rule, organised crime tends to stick to larger metropolitan areas though, because there's more money to be made. If you think a few cowboys in the mid west would scare them off, then you are in for a very rude shock.

Indeed, the Russian Mafia these days are the bigger problem in the U.S., and I can guarantee you a couple cowboys in Texas would stand a chance against them if they decided to set up shop in a place like Austin and Dallas.

Why you ask? Because such organisations are made up of people who are not like you and I; they are almost universally ruled by sociopaths who are often also highly intelligent. Just having a gun doesn't make you safe from them.

 

[valley commando]

Profitius, I sincerely suggest you read more about political theory if you think that a libertarian system would actually mitigate against this situation. In point of fact, a libertarian approach to governing would drastically exacerbate it. Indeed, when you look at how we've come to have such an increasingly unequal world, the finger is often correctly pointed at globalisation. Which is to say the capacity of corporations to effectively avoid the requirements of their home state and engage in most of their profit generating activities in off-shore jurisdictions with significantly more lax approaches to human rights.

Ironically, such a lack of intrusion on the part of the state in these countries in areas like workers rights are precisely what a libertarian would advocate for, so effectively your "solution" to inequality would be to bring developed western democracies down to the level of developing states with little to no oversight on labour that would consitute a "race to the bottom."

There's a sort of social darwanism to libertarianism that argues that this is in some way desirable, and whether you believe that to be a good thing I don't you, but one thing it doesn't do is bring people equality and to suggest it ever could says to me that perhaps you're not that well acquainted with libertarianism's central tennets.



Please don't take this the wrong way profitus, but this comment makes you sound more like a communist than a libertarian. If you don't mind humouring me for a moment, can you explain just how it is you think wall street traders make money? Because I have a feeling you don't quite understand...

The banking system is complex, but fundamental rules regarding how people make their money through it are actually not, and if you think a libertarian system of government would some how bring bankers and traders onto a level pegging with carpenters, then you need to do a lot more reading. Libertarians would have to completely eliminate the stock exchange and the notion of public companies for that to ever happen, and since they don't like messing with the rules set about by private corporations, that isn't going to happen.

A communist system could certainly achieve what you seek, but what about a libertarian system would tell banks they couldn't "sell" poor people mortgages, who could never afford them and then package those mortgages along with shares in things like tech companies and other seemingly safer investments as some sort of mid tier investment product with a safe return rate? There's nothing in any of that which should be of any concern to a libertarian.

No, what a libertarian would likely say that if that happened to go to hell like it did in the GFC there'd just be no bail outs. The problem with that of course is that it ironically risks concentrating power even more, because banking is in essence a complex form of gambling and the banks who bet against those investments would have made a tidy profit from the downfall of its competitors.

Another question, if you want a society where "people who make things of value to society" get the most rewarded, then how are you going to ensure people like footballers and actors get paid less than say engineers who work on new forms of transport that actually does benefit everyone, or a surgeon?

The economy is essentially an exercise in crowd funding in different scales, and the concept of "inherent value" is only true up until a point. If it had any real truth to it, then a guy like David Beckham would have had to keep a day job and should never have been able to dream of earning as much as say a surgeon.

But a libertarian system would never have an issue with that, because ultimately it's happen to leave earnings to the market, and if the market says a guy running in a park playing with a ball is worth more than a woman who can save you from dying, then that's just what it says, and who is the state to argue?



Well, it varies from country to country, but that's much worse in the U.S. where guns are plentiful and barely a problem at all comparitively speaking in Australia. Sure, we have crime, but nothing to the level the U.S. experiences with its lax gun laws.

As for the Texas example, this is what's known as a "zombie argument"; it's one put forward by people at the NRA constantly because they assume their members have no idea how many times its been shot down.

The problem with it is that small midwestern towns having lax gun laws isn't proof that lax gun laws make people safer, they're evidence that smaller populations and tighter nit communities are statistically less likely to produce such violence through both vastly smaller sample sizes from which such people can arise and the fact that anti-social behaviour in places where everyone knows eachother is less likely to occur.

Not that they don't mind you - Sandy Hook occurred in precisely such a place after all. But the fact is cities like New York or L.A. necessarily provide more crime because they simply have more people and those people are more disconnected form eachother. Again, this is an issue of psychology and the law of large numbers that libertarianism can't seem to comprehend.

As for the Mafia not being in Texas, well google the "Dallas Crime Family" and get back to me on that ;-) . As a rule, organised crime tends to stick to larger metropolitan areas though, because there's more money to be made. If you think a few cowboys in the mid west would scare them off, then you are in for a very rude shock.

Indeed, the Russian Mafia these days are the bigger problem in the U.S., and I can guarantee you a couple cowboys in Texas would stand a chance against them if they decided to set up shop in a place like Austin and Dallas.

Why you ask? Because such organisations are made up of people who are not like you and I; they are almost universally ruled by sociopaths who are often also highly intelligent. Just having a gun doesn't make you safe from them.

I have to say your posts are impressive and informative.

 

[Tony Manx]

"Before taxes and benefits, the richest fifth of households had an average income of £78,300 in 2011/12, 14 times greater than the poorest fifth, who had an average income of £5,400.

Overall, taxes and benefits lead to income being shared more equally between households. After all taxes and benefits are taken into account, the ratio between the average incomes of the top and the bottom fifth of households (£57,300 per year and £15,800 respectively) is reduced to four-to-one."

(http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/house...ome/2011-2012/etb-stats-bulletin-2011-12.html)

Clearly, the poorest benefit from having a state.

That said, on the topic of taxation, the idea that anyone pays 50% of their income in tax is really off the mark.

Let's start with income tax. For example, say someone is earning £200,000. In the UK, they would get £10,600 tax free. They would pay 20% on £10,601 to £31,785. They would then pay 40% on £31,786 to £150,000 and then 45% on anything over £150,000.

So 20% of (31,785 - 10,600) = 4,237
40% of (150,000 - 31,786) = 47,285.6
45% of (200,000 - 150,000) = 22,500

Total tax = 74,022.6 (37% of income, despite a top tax rate of 45%)

Second, consider earnings from investments. The amount of tax people pay on income from investments is tiny compared to what they would through PAYE. See: http://www.thesimpledollar.com/how-do-the-rich-pay-lower-taxes-and-how-can-you-do-it/

Third, the affects of indirect taxation. The poorest pay heaps more on indirect taxation (such as VAT and Council Tax) than the richest. This really balances out the amount of taxation that the poorest pay compared to the richest. See: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...aying-more-than-the-rich-in-tax-10353982.html

Taxation is a mess in the Western world, because the state is held hostage by the richest. They use their political and media clout the peddle the lie that they pay too much in tax in order to reduce their own tax burden. Income tax comes down, whilst truly regressive taxes such as Council Tax and VAT remain the same.

Yawn

 

[Horacito]

This thread has lost its original, racist scent. Or at least, that's what it seems.

Funny thing: some of you ask what are the sirians afraid in France: two weeks ago somebody was beheaded in France, and it was another terrorist attack. Some months ago, people got shot at work in another terrorist attack. A couple of years ago some guy beheaded a british military in britain, and it was another islamic crazy person. In Germany, people get on the streets to ask stop for immigration (sure, let them stay in their own countries where we can make them produce our products for half the cost and take qualified work hand for a quarter of what they value), in France Mari le Pen is basically going to build another adrian wall to get stop immigration, in Italy people drown in the sea and nobody gives half a damn, same in Spain.

Europe has a racist issue. Some leftist arses point at USA so happily, and yet here people get beheaded, shot, and 2k miles away from here the brilliant actions of the commander in chief last decade (with the stellar appearance of England and co.) have lead to the result of crucifixion and the ISIS. And the best solution is: close the borders, chase the immigrants, give jobs to Johnny and let's pretend this is XIX century and global migration does not exist.

Good Lord, to think the future of the biggest economy in the world depends on Nigel being afraid Jonny Foreigner might get his job. If we close our eyes, though, everything could go away.

 

[YoungScud]

I would agree fully with the highlighted part and agree with a lot more of what you wrote. Thats why libertarianism appeals to me. The wealthy cannot corrupt it.
Instead of looking

That part made me giggle uncontrollably. Try Googling "Rand Paul hypocrisy".

 

[YoungScud]

This report from BBC's Education correspondent 18 months ago is just one many reports re the dumbing down of education in the UK, so don't tell me I'm wrong or ill informed -:

Young adults in England have scored among the lowest results in the industrialised world in international literacy and numeracy tests.
A major study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shows how England's 16 to 24-year-olds are falling behind their Asian and European counterparts.
England is 22nd for literacy and 21st for numeracy out of 24 countries.
The OECD's Andreas Schleicher warned of a shrinking pool of skilled workers.
Unlike other developed countries, the study also showed that young people in England are no better at these tests than older people, in the 55 to 65 age range.
When this is weighted with other factors, such as the socio-economic background of people taking the test, it shows that England is the only country in the survey where results are going backwards - with the older cohort better than the younger.
'Shocking'
The study shows that there are 8.5 million adults in England and Northern Ireland with the numeracy levels of a 10-year-old.
"This shocking report shows England has some of the least literate and numerate young adults in the developed world," said Skills Minister Matthew Hancock.
"These are Labour's children, educated under a Labour government and force-fed a diet of dumbing down and low expectations."

Oh I'm still claiming you're ill-informed, because the alternative is that you're stupid and I'm not suggesting that. Reading a BBC article written in 2013, full of political claim and counter-claim doesn't exactly put you up there with the top political researchers. You took one report which doesn't really go any distance in supporting your argument of dumbing down, ignoring the bits you don't like and used that to back up your idiotic posts about degrees in knitting. You're all over the place, man. Usually that would suggest that, intellectually, you like to bob and weave, not staying in one place too long for fear of getting shot down. You already posted a couple of howlers, including me of being a young, university educated whipper-snapper (I was flattered, by the way) and now we're moving on to the fount of all knowledge, Sean Coughlan. Be careful here. Sean went to university, so we can't believe all he says.

 

[valley commando]

Oh I'm still claiming you're ill-informed, because the alternative is that you're stupid and I'm not suggesting that. Reading a BBC article written in 2013, full of political claim and counter-claim doesn't exactly put you up there with the top political researchers. You took one report which doesn't really go any distance in supporting your argument of dumbing down, ignoring the bits you don't like and used that to back up your idiotic posts about degrees in knitting. You're all over the place, man. Usually that would suggest that, intellectually, you like to bob and weave, not staying in one place too long for fear of getting shot down. You already posted a couple of howlers, including me of being a young, university educated whipper-snapper (I was flattered, by the way) and now we're moving on to the fount of all knowledge, Sean Coughlan. Be careful here. Sean went to university, so we can't believe all he says.

Ok fair enough, but my opinions were formed during a 6 year period from 2006 to 2012, when running a sales office we had roughly a 50/50 split of new starters half straight from uni, most of the rest straight off benefits or manual jobs (shelf stacking, labourers etc)
Most of the ex uni grads were useless, lacking common sense, poor time keeping high absenteeism lacking any real work ethic, with less than 10% able to progress. Those from a benefits or manual background were of much more value to the company with 40% progressing on to better positions.
This is my experience and forms the basis for my opinions.
Would you agree that most 3 or 4 year uni courses could easily be completed in a year to 18 months if the students courses were more concentrated (9 to 5 in the classroom)
Having left school and then moved on to uni, they are ill prepared for the work place with the stupidly relaxed regime of a couple of hours on Monday, Tuesday off, half a day Wednesday etc etc.

 

[ncurd]

Ok fair enough, but my opinions were formed during a 6 year period from 2006 to 2012, when running a sales office we had roughly a 50/50 split of new starters half straight from uni, most of the rest straight off benefits or manual jobs (shelf stacking, labourers etc)
Most of the ex uni grads were useless, lacking common sense, poor time keeping high absenteeism lacking any real work ethic, with less than 10% able to progress. Those from a benefits or manual background were of much more value to the company with 40% progressing on to better positions.
This is my experience and forms the basis for my opinions.
Would you agree that most 3 or 4 year uni courses could easily be completed in a year to 18 months if the students courses were more concentrated (9 to 5 in the classroom)
Having left school and then moved on to uni, they are ill prepared for the work place with the stupidly relaxed regime of a couple of hours on Monday, Tuesday off, half a day Wednesday etc etc.

Why does it take so many posts to get a reasonable response from you? Seriously it's not the first time...

First up yes most uni courses could be done in 18 month (30 for a 4 year course which usually includes a years industrial experience which you can't decrease). I'd possibly suggest longer my experience was the Final Year Project was incredibly work intensive and required 9-5 work over a period of 3-6 months for a decent passing grade at the end. However this is certainly no different from the late 70's/early 80's the type of degree you do can greatly effect the amount of self-learning you do as well. An English Lit student for example won't spend forever in classroom as they have to do a ton of reading.

I'd be interested in knowing how well those with the years industrial experience do compared to those who don't however in an area such as sales you're unlikely to see as many as most go into other kinds of jobs.

Sales is odd job in itself as (and I'm sorry if this offends this is just my experience) it requires little technical knowledge and more selling of the big picture. I'd happily argue that it's very ill suited to those from an academic background and they are way more suited towards a more behind the scenes role (engineers are expcially ill-suited to sales). I wouldn't really trust anyone except a business student in a sales role anyone else just frankly doesn't know what they are doing in trying to apply their degree. They'll be people who prove me wrong however my godfather is a man who moved form engineering to sales but does that in a slight consultancy role using his engineering knowledge to sell solutions to problems through his partners.

I do agree however a life of pure academia does not prepare students for the workplace (it's why I did a years placement....that had it's own pitfalls of not wanting the put in the work effort when returned to Uni as I knew I could earn money already...) however companies probably need to be aware of that when hiring them. What's someone like in their first real job? I imagine it isn't too different to shelf-stackers labourers in their absenteeism/time-keeping when compared to starting there (my experience tells me most young people in their first jobs are **** poor at this regardless of background). Don't get me wrong they should be getting a swift kick up the ass if they do but that should of been part of factors to think about when hiring them.



My biggest issue though is I work in a industry (software engineering) which while does have non-university grads heavily relies on a university background of some kind as just sheer proof you can understand the conceptually what they are doing. Not saying they can't but quite a few kids come out of school/college being able to write a fair few lines of code and don't understand there's more to it than that. Sure some make it but the majority don't.

- - - Updated - - -

Another question the manual labourers/benefits guys you were hiring were they from within your company? If yes is it really surprising those with background knowledge at least in passing of your products were more likely to succeed than those who didn't?

 

[YoungScud]

Ok fair enough, but my opinions were formed during a 6 year period from 2006 to 2012, when running a sales office we had roughly a 50/50 split of new starters half straight from uni, most of the rest straight off benefits or manual jobs (shelf stacking, labourers etc)
Most of the ex uni grads were useless, lacking common sense, poor time keeping high absenteeism lacking any real work ethic, with less than 10% able to progress. Those from a benefits or manual background were of much more value to the company with 40% progressing on to better positions.
This is my experience and forms the basis for my opinions.
Would you agree that most 3 or 4 year uni courses could easily be completed in a year to 18 months if the students courses were more concentrated (9 to 5 in the classroom)
Having left school and then moved on to uni, they are ill prepared for the work place with the stupidly relaxed regime of a couple of hours on Monday, Tuesday off, half a day Wednesday etc etc.

Now that's more like it. I think it's entirely possible to complete some, I repeat some, courses more quickly. However, there are other factors at work here, not the least of which is a student's need to eat. Both my sons worked their way through university, in part-time, poorly-paid work. I'd argue that employers know this and exploit it. So, while most of us attend work and then go home to do whatever please us in our spare time. Most students don't have that option. They're either at lectures, studying or working (as well as consuming beer, as is traditional). I am a technical trainer with a power company and train a wide variety of students, including apprentices, Adult Craft Trainees and graduate engineers, in such subjects as metering and basic wiring. On the whole, I find the graduates have a fine work ethic, although a few question why they're doing this kind of training, since they'll never use it. Their hand skills are not usually as good as the ACTs or apprentices, but this is hardly surprising since they usually don't do that much in working with tools at university. However, beingb bright, they pick things up quickly and often suggest refinements, and that's why we employ engineers after all.

 

[valley commando]

Why does it take so many posts to get a reasonable response from you? Seriously it's not the first time...

First up yes most uni courses could be done in 18 month (30 for a 4 year course which usually includes a years industrial experience which you can't decrease). I'd possibly suggest longer my experience was the Final Year Project was incredibly work intensive and required 9-5 work over a period of 3-6 months for a decent passing grade at the end. However this is certainly no different from the late 70's/early 80's the type of degree you do can greatly effect the amount of self-learning you do as well. An English Lit student for example won't spend forever in classroom as they have to do a ton of reading.

I'd be interested in knowing how well those with the years industrial experience do compared to those who don't however in an area such as sales you're unlikely to see as many as most go into other kinds of jobs.

Sales is odd job in itself as (and I'm sorry if this offends this is just my experience) it requires little technical knowledge and more selling of the big picture. I'd happily argue that it's very ill suited to those from an academic background and they are way more suited towards a more behind the scenes role (engineers are expcially ill-suited to sales). I wouldn't really trust anyone except a business student in a sales role anyone else just frankly doesn't know what they are doing in trying to apply their degree. They'll be people who prove me wrong however my godfather is a man who moved form engineering to sales but does that in a slight consultancy role using his engineering knowledge to sell solutions to problems through his partners.

I do agree however a life of pure academia does not prepare students for the workplace (it's why I did a years placement....that had it's own pitfalls of not wanting the put in the work effort when returned to Uni as I knew I could earn money already...) however companies probably need to be aware of that when hiring them. What's someone like in their first real job? I imagine it isn't too different to shelf-stackers labourers in their absenteeism/time-keeping when compared to starting there (my experience tells me most young people in their first jobs are **** poor at this regardless of background). Don't get me wrong they should be getting a swift kick up the ass if they do but that should of been part of factors to think about when hiring them.



My biggest issue though is I work in a industry (software engineering) which while does have non-university grads heavily relies on a university background of some kind as just sheer proof you can understand the conceptually what they are doing. Not saying they can't but quite a few kids come out of school/college being able to write a fair few lines of code and don't understand there's more to it than that. Sure some make it but the majority don't.

- - - Updated - - -

Another question the manual labourers/benefits guys you were hiring were they from within your company? If yes is it really surprising those with background knowledge at least in passing of your products were more likely to succeed than those who didn't?

All the staff mentioned were all new to the company.

 

[profitius]

Profitius, I sincerely suggest you read more about political theory if you think that a libertarian system would actually mitigate against this situation. In point of fact, a libertarian approach to governing would drastically exacerbate it. Indeed, when you look at how we've come to have such an increasingly unequal world, the finger is often correctly pointed at globalisation. Which is to say the capacity of corporations to effectively avoid the requirements of their home state and engage in most of their profit generating activities in off-shore jurisdictions with significantly more lax approaches to human rights.

Ironically, such a lack of intrusion on the part of the state in these countries in areas like workers rights are precisely what a libertarian would advocate for, so effectively your "solution" to inequality would be to bring developed western democracies down to the level of developing states with little to no oversight on labour that would consitute a "race to the bottom."

There's a sort of social darwanism to libertarianism that argues that this is in some way desirable, and whether you believe that to be a good thing I don't you, but one thing it doesn't do is bring people equality and to suggest it ever could says to me that perhaps you're not that well acquainted with libertarianism's central tennets.

I never said there shouldn't be any countries/borders. Thats an area I have not looked into much but in a libertarian system corporations wouldn't have to pay tax so I'd imagine thats a bonus straight away. I'm not sure about cheap labour either. I know that in a libertarian system everyone would be much better off so how that would effect corporations going abroad, I don't know.


Isn't it interesting though that in the current system corporations move abroad to benefit from tax avoidance AND go abroad for cheap labour. They're in all countries looking to exploit the local law for things like tax avoidance. Ireland is a known tax haven for companies.

Please don't take this the wrong way profitus, but this comment makes you sound more like a communist than a libertarian. If you don't mind humouring me for a moment, can you explain just how it is you think wall street traders make money? Because I have a feeling you don't quite understand...

The banking system is complex, but fundamental rules regarding how people make their money through it are actually not, and if you think a libertarian system of government would some how bring bankers and traders onto a level pegging with carpenters, then you need to do a lot more reading. Libertarians would have to completely eliminate the stock exchange and the notion of public companies for that to ever happen, and since they don't like messing with the rules set about by private corporations, that isn't going to happen.

A communist system could certainly achieve what you seek, but what about a libertarian system would tell banks they couldn't "sell" poor people mortgages, who could never afford them and then package those mortgages along with shares in things like tech companies and other seemingly safer investments as some sort of mid tier investment product with a safe return rate? There's nothing in any of that which should be of any concern to a libertarian.

No, what a libertarian would likely say that if that happened to go to hell like it did in the GFC there'd just be no bail outs. The problem with that of course is that it ironically risks concentrating power even more, because banking is in essence a complex form of gambling and the banks who bet against those investments would have made a tidy profit from the downfall of its competitors.

I know how wall street works. You're the one that cannot grasp what I'm saying and you prove that by saying I sound communist. Its very simple. Wealth is taken from the middle/working classes through taxes, inflation etc. Where is it going? Have a guess! You work all your life, save money in a bank and what happens? Your money has lost about half its value because of inflation. Therefore half of your wealth has been STOLEN. Therefore what I'm saying is in a libertarian system there A, wouldn't be as much money in wall street and B, there would be no insiders in wall street. The insiders are the people who like psychics, know whats coming around the corner. Not because they're super intelligent but because they know certain people.


[video]https://youtu.be/lXNOxnn7_uA?t=6m28s[/video]

Another question, if you want a society where "people who make things of value to society" get the most rewarded, then how are you going to ensure people like footballers and actors get paid less than say engineers who work on new forms of transport that actually does benefit everyone, or a surgeon?

The economy is essentially an exercise in crowd funding in different scales, and the concept of "inherent value" is only true up until a point. If it had any real truth to it, then a guy like David Beckham would have had to keep a day job and should never have been able to dream of earning as much as say a surgeon.

But a libertarian system would never have an issue with that, because ultimately it's happen to leave earnings to the market, and if the market says a guy running in a park playing with a ball is worth more than a woman who can save you from dying, then that's just what it says, and who is the state to argue?

Isn't that the way things are currently. Messi gets minimum €500k per week while the normal man is paid less than 10% of that a year, on average. But look, people pay their money to see Messi. In a libertarian society, where people will most likely be wealthier, they'll have more money to spend on subscription sports packages hence the likes of Messi could be even wealthier! Now people might not like that but instead of looking at how much Messi is getting, look at the first part of the sentence which says that the people would be wealthier. Having said that, a libertarian world would be very different.

Well, it varies from country to country, but that's much worse in the U.S. where guns are plentiful and barely a problem at all comparitively speaking in Australia. Sure, we have crime, but nothing to the level the U.S. experiences with its lax gun laws.

As for the Texas example, this is what's known as a "zombie argument"; it's one put forward by people at the NRA constantly because they assume their members have no idea how many times its been shot down.

The problem with it is that small midwestern towns having lax gun laws isn't proof that lax gun laws make people safer, they're evidence that smaller populations and tighter nit communities are statistically less likely to produce such violence through both vastly smaller sample sizes from which such people can arise and the fact that anti-social behaviour in places where everyone knows eachother is less likely to occur.

Not that they don't mind you - Sandy Hook occurred in precisely such a place after all. But the fact is cities like New York or L.A. necessarily provide more crime because they simply have more people and those people are more disconnected form eachother. Again, this is an issue of psychology and the law of large numbers that libertarianism can't seem to comprehend.

As for the Mafia not being in Texas, well google the "Dallas Crime Family" and get back to me on that ;-) . As a rule, organised crime tends to stick to larger metropolitan areas though, because there's more money to be made. If you think a few cowboys in the mid west would scare them off, then you are in for a very rude shock.

Indeed, the Russian Mafia these days are the bigger problem in the U.S., and I can guarantee you a couple cowboys in Texas would stand a chance against them if they decided to set up shop in a place like Austin and Dallas.

Why you ask? Because such organisations are made up of people who are not like you and I; they are almost universally ruled by sociopaths who are often also highly intelligent. Just having a gun doesn't make you safe from them.

Theres more crime in those big cities because criminals know the people have no guns to protect themselves. Look at all the mass shootings in the USA in the past. All places where there were no guns allowed. Theres also a town (I forget the name but can look it up) in the US who made it mandatory for people to carry guns and guess what, crime evaporated. Also in rural areas criminals are more likely to get away with gun crime compared to cities which evens things up a little.


As for the mafia in Texas, there are different types of crime. I don't think they're as likely to threaten violence as the mafia in NY.

- - - Updated - - -

That part made me giggle uncontrollably. Try Googling "Rand Paul hypocrisy".

I don't want to interrupt your giggling but you're not making much sense. Only thing I can imagine you find funny is that a libertarian politician was a bit hypocritical... which has nothing to do with a libertarian system.


And maybe you could tell me why Rand Paul is a hypocrite? Not that I think he or anyone is perfect but I'm curious all the same.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok fair enough, but my opinions were formed during a 6 year period from 2006 to 2012, when running a sales office we had roughly a 50/50 split of new starters half straight from uni, most of the rest straight off benefits or manual jobs (shelf stacking, labourers etc)
Most of the ex uni grads were useless, lacking common sense, poor time keeping high absenteeism lacking any real work ethic, with less than 10% able to progress. Those from a benefits or manual background were of much more value to the company with 40% progressing on to better positions.
This is my experience and forms the basis for my opinions.
Would you agree that most 3 or 4 year uni courses could easily be completed in a year to 18 months if the students courses were more concentrated (9 to 5 in the classroom)
Having left school and then moved on to uni, they are ill prepared for the work place with the stupidly relaxed regime of a couple of hours on Monday, Tuesday off, half a day Wednesday etc etc.

The education system summed up.

 

[RoosTah]

I never said there shouldn't be any countries/borders. Thats an area I have not looked into much but in a libertarian system corporations wouldn't have to pay tax so I'd imagine thats a bonus straight away. I'm not sure about cheap labour either. I know that in a libertarian system everyone would be much better off so how that would effect corporations going abroad, I don't know.

Isn't it interesting though that in the current system corporations move abroad to benefit from tax avoidance AND go abroad for cheap labour. They're in all countries looking to exploit the local law for things like tax avoidance. Ireland is a known tax haven for companies.

First up – I never said anything about borders either; I just said the mechanisms that draw corporations off shore are decidedly the conditions a libertarian society might generate.

Moving on - there's a bit to unpack here Profitus, but I want to start by focussing on one area in particular that you've raised: that of the value of states and corporations.

You say that corporations wouldn't pay tax. Sounds great in theory, but then what's to stop everyone simply forming corporations and therefore paying no tax?

I'm employed full time by a company, but I also have my own consulting firm that I and an old uni friend run on the side, so under your vision of a libertarian system I could quite easily just go to my employer and tell them to simply pay my corporate entity instead of me.

They'd jump at the opportunity, as it would mean they'd not have to expend any resources' calculating my taxes or things like Superannuation – I'd do it all myself.

But because this would be so obvious, what's to stop pretty well everyone from forming minor "corporations" to operate in this way? And with no companies paying tax, how exactly are you going to fund the state to provide even basic services like hospitals and law enforcement – let alone provide infrastructure and a robust national defence.
There's another issue with the "give corporations more freedom notion" you put forward, which is the fact that corporations are legal entities whose rights are formed and sanctioned by the state.

Like a lot of libertarians, you seem not to have any issues with corporations, but hate the state. Famous libertarian thinker Ayn Rand famously explained this rather odd contradiction by arguing that "freedom" simply means

"Freedom from government coercion. It does not mean freedom from the landlord, or freedom from the employer, or freedom from the laws of nature which do not provide men with automatic prosperity."

But back to the point: why do libertarians hate the state? If we go by Rand's comment, then ostensibly because it's a hierarchical power structure which has the capacity to impose its will on the individuals that it "governs," something which libertarians see this as a form of tyranny.

But then what is a corporation? As I stated above, a corporation is state sanctioned and defined organisation of individuals that is treated as a single person with limited liability. But it's more than that, from a structural standpoint, large corporations in particular are essentially mini states: there's one person or a few people at the top, layers of hierarchy beneath them, and orders flow downward which and you have to obey those orders or face the potential of losing your livelihood. So on a fundamental level, why is the "tyranny" of the will of the corporation being imposed upon you superior to the "tyranny" imposed by the state?
You might argue that you can just go and find a corporation that better suits your values; I can quit my job if I hate my boss and just find another one. But then that's also true of the state. If you don't like the values of your government, you are in fact free to renounce your citizenship and go to a country that better mirrors your values. It's certainly harder to shift countries, but depending on the strength and location of the economy you're in, it may not be all that different from having to change jobs.

What I'm getting at here is that states are basically all meta-power structures that have formed quite naturally to manage and ensure the security of nations and provide them with coherence and direction.

There's also a game theory element to this that libertarians don't appreciate: if you take away the state, or even strip it down, its capacity to defend itself necessarily becomes weaker. In your world of no corporate taxes, how are you going to pay a standing army, let alone buy its incredibly expensive equipment or engage in the critical R&D into defence tech to help you stay ahead of the game? Other countries aren't going to all suddenly start holding hands and embrace limited government, so you may quickly end up with a foreign regime running you.

As a species we are highly predisposed toward hierarchy and social groupings, which is precisely why corporations and states arise. To so heavily differentiate one from the other and throw around words like "freedom" is nice and emotionally satisfying, but it's not rationally consistent and ultimately that's why libertarianism is generally grouped along with socialism in the "it's a nice theory until you think it through" category.

I know how wall street works. You're the one that cannot grasp what I'm saying and you prove that by saying I sound communist.

No need to get angry - I just said some of your commentary sounded more like that of a communist than your average libertarian. I didn't actually mean it as an attack on you – communism is after all just the opposite end of the spectrum to libertarianism and I actually think both theories are about as good/bad as each other. So in a sense me saying you sound like a communist is no more and insult than me saying you sound like an actual libertarian.

That said, it is worth pointing out that the first time the term "libertarian" was used in a political sense, it was by Joseph Déjacque, a French anarcho-communist, who ran a publication in called Le Libertaire. This theory of libertarianism was against both state and corporations, rather than just the state and in some senses at least it actually sounds closer to what you advocate.

Regarding your Wall Street comment, you state that:

Its very simple. Wealth is taken from the middle/working classes through taxes, inflation etc. Where is it going? Have a guess! You work all your life, save money in a bank and what happens? Your money has lost about half its value because of inflation. Therefore half of your wealth has been STOLEN. Therefore what I'm saying is in a libertarian system there A, wouldn't be as much money in wall street and B, there would be no insiders in wall street. The insiders are the people who like psychics, know whats coming around the corner. Not because they're super intelligent but because they know certain people.

You haven't explained a single thing with this statement – the entire quote is nothing more than you venting populist banker hate. I asked you HOW Wall Street traders make their money – not for an emotional cry to arms on behalf of all the poor saps who lost out during the GFC when their mutual funds fell through the floor. I get the visceral hate and resentment toward bankers – I honestly do – but a visceral and angry rant on something is not the same as having an argument for how or why to change it.

For the record, America's banking system was heavily DE-regulated by the Clinton administration, so there was less government "interference" in the activities of traders and bankers in the decade up to the GFC. Read about the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, a cornerstone of Depression-era banking regulation, if you want to learn more about it.

In a deregulated banking system incredible gains that CAN be made by engaging in questionable practices (like the sub-prime mortgage strategy). The short term gains of such activities can push its competitors to engage in similar measures and ultimately degrade the entire system.

Now, by contrast, Australia's banking system remains more heavily regulated, with the 'four pillars' policy of the Hawke-Keating government of the early 1990s enshrining into it mechanisms which prevent mergers between Australia's four largest banks. Additionally, commercial banking and investment banking are kept at arms length, something which insulates your average worker who "saves all his life" from shocks in the market unless they play it directly.

What this means is that the market is sustained with a sort of medium level competition (which has since been referred to as "Goldilocks competition" because it ensures competitive behaviour without the dangerous brinkmanship of the US) and a strong regulatory system governing how the industry operates, this sort of thing is harder to do, whilst there also being less incentive to do so.

I'm simplifying here, but the problem in the U.S. was a LACK of rules governing banking; there was little in place preventing banks from handing out massive loans to people who couldn't afford them, and there was every incentive for the banks to do it because the commission structure the bankers were working off with the loans meant the short term gains for dishing out these "low doc loans" were worth it.

A libertarian system would tend toward the U.S. approach rather than the Australian approach, essentially arguing that you let people make their bets and the chips will fall where they may.

Isn't that the way things are currently. Messi gets minimum €500k per week while the normal man is paid less than 10% of that a year, on average. But look, people pay their money to see Messi. In a libertarian society, where people will most likely be wealthier, they'll have more money to spend on subscription sports packages hence the likes of Messi could be even wealthier! Now people might not like that but instead of looking at how much Messi is getting, look at the first part of the sentence which says that the people would be wealthier. Having said that, a libertarian world would be very different.

It is how it currently works indeed. That's because the system of most western democracies is a capitalist one with socialist elements in areas like welfare, education etc. In essence our societies are a mix of libertarian and socialist values with capitalist economics.

I don't personally have a problem with that, but to be clear, in your view it's fine for Messi to get €500k per week while, but bankers are thieves? I hate to break it to you, but people "pay their money" to bankers just as much as they do to Messi. You don't have to keep your money with a bank that engages in risky behaviour, but then in a libertarian system you wouldn't necessarily know either, as there'd be no rules demanding disclosure for that sort of thing.

Here's a fun though experiment: if a rich banker decided to buy some struggling soccer club and then lure the best talent in the world to it with his private stash, would that be ok?

Sure, if a country allows its bankers to gamble excessively with the currency, they can damage the wider economy, but then in New Zealand when the All Blacks get knocked out of the world cup the crime rate and domestic violence stats all go up, so sport isn't without its knock on effects either.

In any case a libertarian system would have little say over the actions and risks of bankers, because libertarians don't like to get involved in the private issues of corporations – and contrary to popular belief banks are actually corporations (and thus wouldn't pay tax in your world).

Theres more crime in those big cities because criminals know the people have no guns to protect themselves. Look at all the mass shootings in the USA in the past. All places where there were no guns allowed. Theres also a town (I forget the name but can look it up) in the US who made it mandatory for people to carry guns and guess what, crime evaporated. Also in rural areas criminals are more likely to get away with gun crime compared to cities which evens things up a little.
As for the mafia in Texas, there are different types of crime. I don't think they're as likely to threaten violence as the mafia in NY.

Ok, so here's the thing – I get that it intuitively might make sense that places with more guns = more risk aversion = less murders. But it's a fallacy – yes it sounds logical and reasonable, but real world statistics on violent crimes just don't back it up…

You seem to like focussing on the U.S. But even if you to go on the U.S. alone, your "big cities" argument doesn't hold up. What's the most densely populated metropolitan area in America?

New York City, and by a fair margin. Now, check out the violent crime statistics by city released by the FBI summarised on this wiki page for the most recent stats in 2012: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate_(2012)
Now you've done that, explain to me why New York City, with 8 million people, has HALF the murder rate of Houston Texas and less than half the rate of Dallas – home of the Dallas crime family and the place you "don't think are as likely to threaten violence as the mafia in NY"

It's also worth pointing out that rape and robbery rates also happen to be quite a lot lower in New York City than both Dallas and Houston.

Moreover, looking back at Australia we've had ZERO mass killings since the enactment of tougher gun laws by the Howard government in the 90s. Sure, criminals still manage to smuggle them illegally in certain places, but the NRA argument of "laws against guns just means outlaws have all the guns" is a little like arguing we should also make all illicit drugs legal, along with murder, rape and child pornography, because f##k it, people break the law anyway, so why bother, right?

To go even further, take a look at Japan – a country with heavily populated cities across its tiny landmass that dwarf many of America's biggest cities. Gun laws in Japan are EVEN STRICTER than Australia, and guess what? The have a lower rate of violent crime and murder than Australia – in fact it's one of the lowest in the world.

Again, how does the gun availability theory explain that?

To round off on this little essay, can I just note that a lot your posts are filled with comments like "I haven't looked into it yet," "I imagine [x] would work [x] way," or "I'm not sure about that, but…" and yet in the first line you claim that you "know that in a libertarian system everyone would be much better off."

With such limited data to work off and only a loose idea of what libertarianism actually is how could you possibly be sure people would be better off?

I get that you're coming from this with good intentions, but like a lot of things political theory is something in which the Dunning-Kruger effect is very much at play; the less people know the more confident they are in what little they do. But the deeper you get and the more you learn, the less sure you become.

I'd suggest reading some of Stiglitz and Krugman to compliment the Friedman and Rand you've been exposed to via Youtube – that will help you test the mettle of your current convictions and like Michael Shermer's decision to challenge his creationism with a biology course, you may be pleasantly surprised at where it takes you.

 

[YoungScud]

Look at the treatment Ron Paul got in the last US elections for an example. If you're not mainstream they'll turn against you.

Stop it, you're killing me. Alongside the entry for 'hypocrisy' in the dictionary, there ought to be a picture of Ron Paul. He's a Republican then he isn't, then he is again. He worships Reagan, the he doesn't, isntead blaming Reagan for everything. He publishes highly inflammatory, racist newsletters, but actually he didn't, because one of his staff did it, although he doesn't know which one. He doesn't believe in the federal legislature's right to legalise abortion (or otherwise) but he's deliriously happy to let the states stamp all over women's rights. He's a parody of a politician. If you wanted to select a representative for your views, you're picked a LuLu.