>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

@snoozedoctor One flaw I find with the logic is governments don't provide service typically. Only in the military does the government provide this service to a client.
I would like add as an aside that when you raise taxes higher and higher to capture income that people avoid, the people that don't avoid it, the load becomes so burdensome that they can't afford to compete on the same playing field. It forces a feedback loop of insidious tax evasion to the point of not only avoiding paying a fair share, but any share at all. It also drives money over seas to avoid taxation. A simpler, and easier to follow tax code would be a benefit to everyone, including those who want it to be progressive. I found a couple of tax systems interesting, even though I don't support progressive taxes, mainly, "the fair tax". It is a flat tax but rebates all citizens the basic poverty level of good and services worth of tax back. It ends up having a similar effect as Milton Friedman's negative income tax where by people who don't make enough to meet the minimum standard of living don't pay any tax, and actually get some extra in their pocket. Some are critical that we are rewarding people for being poor in that instance, but no one wants to be poor, so I don't see it as a feedback loop like higher taxes causing money to go overseas is.
Fairly speaking though, the current system is completely broken, so people who want flat rates OR progressive rates are both not getting what they want. The entire tax structure needs an overhaul because this isn't working anymore. It is the same in the coding world. When your code beast becomes to difficult to manage, you start your new revision with all the knowledge you learned from the last revision. Tax 3.0 is needed, and soon.


Wonderful, but no country in the world has tried this, and none seem willing to. It ends up just being a right wing scape goat argument. "I want flat taxes, but...we'll take care of the poor, we promise."

I'LL BELIEVE IT WHEN I SEE IT.

@snoozedoctor One flaw I find with the logic is governments don't provide service typically. Only in the military does the government provide this service to a client.

I would like add as an aside that when you raise taxes higher and higher to capture income that people avoid, the people that don't avoid it, the load becomes so burdensome that they can't afford to compete on the same playing field. It forces a feedback loop of insidious tax evasion to the point of not only avoiding paying a fair share, but any share at all. It also drives money over seas to avoid taxation. A simpler, and easier to follow tax code would be a benefit to everyone, including those who want it to be progressive. I found a couple of tax systems interesting, even though I don't support progressive taxes, mainly, "the fair tax". It is a flat tax but rebates all citizens the basic poverty level of good and services worth of tax back. It ends up having a similar effect as Milton Friedman's negative income tax where by people who don't make enough to meet the minimum standard of living don't pay any tax, and actually get some extra in their pocket. Some are critical that we are rewarding people for being poor in that instance, but no one wants to be poor, so I don't see it as a feedback loop like higher taxes causing money to go overseas is.

Fairly speaking though, the current system is completely broken, so people who want flat rates OR progressive rates are both not getting what they want. The entire tax structure needs an overhaul because this isn't working anymore. It is the same in the coding world. When your code beast becomes to difficult to manage, you start your new revision with all the knowledge you learned from the last revision. Tax 3.0 is needed, and soon.

This is what Milton Friedman listens to.

Fact.

>> ^NetRunner:

"I do believe that every individual should be free to own, buy, and sell gold. If under those circumstances a private gold standard emerged, fine—although I make a scientific prediction that it’s very unlikely. But I think those people who say they believe in a gold standard are fundamentally being very anti-libertarian because what they mean by a gold standard is a governmentally fixed price for gold."
-Milton Friedman
Also:
http://delong.typepad.c
om/sdj/2009/03/the-earlier-you-abandon-the-gold-standard-and-start-your-new-deal-the-better.html


And he's right about the "governmentally fixed price for gold", and if it was legal in this country to offer competing currencies I don't think many people would care whether the USD was backed by gold or not. But because we're forced to use one central currency, it should at the very least be value backed.

But, but, but....Milton Friedman is an... liberty... bitcoins.... statism.... bitcoins... Ron Paul... minarchy..... classical liberal.... statist.... tyranny..... statist...... statist... Milton Friedman es muy.... liberterrier... statiststatiststatistatis..... you are an bitcoin...DOES NOT COMPUTE... you are an tyranny..... 00011101010001.... Daissssyyy... Daissseyyy, givve mee yourrrr answ..... Self Destruct in T minus 5... 4... 4... 4..

-END OF LINE-

And Scene.>> ^NetRunner:

"I do believe that every individual should be free to own, buy, and sell gold. If under those circumstances a private gold standard emerged, fine—although I make a scientific prediction that it’s very unlikely. But I think those people who say they believe in a gold standard are fundamentally being very anti-libertarian because what they mean by a gold standard is a governmentally fixed price for gold."
-Milton Friedman
Also:
http://delong.typepad.c
om/sdj/2009/03/the-earlier-you-abandon-the-gold-standard-and-start-your-new-deal-the-better.html

"I do believe that every individual should be free to own, buy, and sell gold. If under those circumstances a private gold standard emerged, fine—although I make a scientific prediction that it’s very unlikely. But I think those people who say they believe in a gold standard are fundamentally being very anti-libertarian because what they mean by a gold standard is a governmentally fixed price for gold."

-Milton Friedman

Also:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/03/the-earlier-you-abandon-the-gold-standard-and-start-your-new-deal-the-better.html

>> ^lampishthing:

He's a little bit obsessed with gold. He sounds like an intelligent crackpot though, has points but they sound silly because he's predicting Armageddon.


When I was a young lad, gold was trading at 300. It is now well over 1600, dabbling into 1700s. Pretty crazy. I have been re-investigating bit-coins again. Seems mostly immune to the kinds of political hijinx that go on with paper money. And unlike Gold, isn't as susceptible to deflationary spiral due to economic growth. It has a built in 4% inflation based on Milton Friedman's own formula for monetary growth. That was his main gripe with gold, is it is prone to tampering, and (rapid) deflation in times of (rapid) growth. I might start bit coin mining here in the future, a small investment of time and energy is a good opportunity cost for a money that doesn't rely on petty people making all the calls.

Koch funds many right wing think tanks in addition to the Reason Foundation. It's not a secret. You can find this information on a number of websites. I just picked sourcewatch because it was the first link in my search return. If you have some evidence to suggest that this is incorrect, I'd be more than happy to hear you out. >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
ReasonTV isn't a news outlet, it's a corporate conservative front group. It's subscription and ad revenue are miniscule, sustaining itself almost entirely by donations from corporate benefactors - most notably war profiteer and Tea Party funder, David Koch.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation>> ^Enzoblue:
Top YT comment: Dear "reason.tv" - Stop hiring reporters based on whether you'd fuck them, and start hiring them based on whether they can perform a coherent interview.


Is sourcewatch.org a fair source? I think so with the news stories that pop up on their homepage. Top stories like "Milton Friedman's Little Shop of Horrors" and "The Koch Connection" I could almost wonder if you could be webmaster.
And let's compare the sourcewatch "wikipages" of Center for American Progress (your Democratic org) vs. Reason Foundation. Read the top summary first: CAP and Reason.
CAP's summary hits all the beats. It's rich with info, points out the things that kind of organization would like as publicity, and even going so far as to pimp their email subscription. Wow. Reason's summary is written like a rap sheet. They're a "self described" think tank instead of "Washington, DC-based" think tank like CAP. They point out some affiliation with a donor like Koch - incrimination by association. And then it finishes by showing their reported income losses for some reason. No mention anywhere of CAP's funding.
No, total credible source you got there. Looks legit. Let's go with your link.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

ReasonTV isn't a news outlet, it's a corporate conservative front group. It's subscription and ad revenue are miniscule, sustaining itself almost entirely by donations from corporate benefactors - most notably war profiteer and Tea Party funder, David Koch.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation>> ^Enzoblue:
Top YT comment: Dear "reason.tv" - Stop hiring reporters based on whether you'd fuck them, and start hiring them based on whether they can perform a coherent interview.



Is sourcewatch.org a fair source? I think so with the news stories that pop up on their homepage. Top stories like "Milton Friedman's Little Shop of Horrors" and "The Koch Connection" I could almost wonder if you could be webmaster.

And let's compare the sourcewatch "wikipages" of Center for American Progress (your Democratic org) vs. Reason Foundation. Read the top summary first: CAP and Reason.

CAP's summary hits all the beats. It's rich with info, points out the things that kind of organization would like as publicity, and even going so far as to pimp their email newsletter. Wow. Reason's summary is written like a rap sheet. They're a "self described" think tank instead of "Washington, DC-based" think tank like CAP. They point out some affiliation with a donor like Koch - incrimination by association. And then it finishes by showing their reported income losses for some reason. No mention anywhere of CAP's funding.

No, total credible source you got there. Looks legit. Let's go with your link.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

That was Colin Quinn opening the video.


And Phil Hartman sitting with Bud Friedman at the closing.

@blankfist, I think my libertarian answers were actually better defenses of libertarianism.

And some of my answers were humorously echoed.

The Great Depression:

>> ^NetRunner:

The Great Depression was caused by government interference in the market, an no amount of historical or economic facts will ever convince me otherwise.
>> ^blankfist:

The great depression was prolonged by government. In fact, our recession has lasted longer already than the great depression. Thanks Bush and Obama.

Incidentally, you're citing Friedman the inflationist there, who said that the Great Depression was prolonged by government refusing to restore confidence to the markets by bailing out failing banks, and by trying in vain to hold to the gold standard when what it needed to do was print shitloads of money to counteract the drop in the money supply caused by people stuffing cash into their mattresses. Seriously, go look it up.

On Monopolies:

>> ^NetRunner:

Natural monopolies, where the cost of entering a sector of the market outweighs the expected return, are just part of market economics, and should be tolerated. Market leaders that become a de facto monopoly, but do not actually enjoy 100% market share (such as Microsoft Windows), are not monopolies, and also a natural result of the free market, so government must not interfere.

Government sponsored monopolies, like the USPS, are evil in ways the others are not because their existence is based on violent coercion, not natural market choice.
>> ^blankfist:
And monopolies? How about government monopolies on the postal system? Public utilities and railroads used to be public, but recent years have been privatized. Government runs monopolies on alcoholic and controlled substance distribution in a lot of states. And don't get me started on government granted monopolies.

On deregulation's benefits:
>> ^NetRunner:
Deregulation in Chile is a huge success story.
>> ^blankfist:

[A]ccording to wikipedia, today "Chile is ranked 3rd out of 29 countries in the Americas and has been a regional leader for over a decade. Chile's annual GDP growth was 3.2% in 2008 and has averaged 4.8% from 2004 to 2008." Not too shabby, though people like Neomi Klein may disagree.

Though technically that last was offered as a defense of violently implementing deregulation, even though you cited growth numbers from an era after they'd shifted from the Randian wet dream of Pinochet's rule to a more regulated and democratic system.

Oh, and on the aforementioned violent implementation of libertarianism:

>> ^NetRunner:

Only governments do those things! Wealthy businessmen would never go along with that, because they're all paragons of moral virtue. They'd never let a thing like considerable personal gain motivate them to call for these things in the first place...
>> ^blankfist:
The only group that tends to use violence to coerce people into doing what they want is government. Only a statist can conflate freedom with violence.

Lulz.

You asked a lot of questions, @dystopianfuturetoday. Let's jump in.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Underregulated markets in early America resulted in slavery, child labor, monopolies, labor abuse and the great depression. Why should we want to return to those dark days?

Patently false. Slavery was held over from early British rule. And a lot of industrialized nations followed the same trend of slavery and child labor, but that's more endemic of the path of civilization than free markets. To think child labor or slavery would come back to the US if we deregulated the markets is ridiculous.

The great depression was prolonged by government. In fact, our recession has lasted longer already than the great depression. Thanks Bush and Obama.

And monopolies? How about government monopolies on the postal system? Public utilities and railroads used to be public, but recent years have been privatized. Government runs monopolies on alcoholic and controlled substance distribution in a lot of states. And don't get me started on government granted monopolies.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Deregulation and privatization always seem to result in massive unemployment, economic inequity, inflation and corruption. Is this the desired effect?

I had to reread that a couple times. Always results in massive unemployment? Where has that happened once in history? Regulations have lead to less employment, because less people can create jobs. If you want to open a florist in some states, you must pay several grand to take a test and get a license. Or be a barber. And so on. Regulations kill employment opportunity.

And inflation is caused mainly by growing the money supply. And you have the central bank system and the government to thank for that.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

There is no evidence to suggest a libertarian society would function at all. Why should I join you on blind faith?

There was no evidence to suggest an individualist society would work prior to the US. Good thing they took a chance.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why do corporations fund your movement? What do they have to gain out of supporting your cause?

What movement is that exactly? Not too many corporations are really for a free market. A free market would add unwanted competition that would decrease their profits. But I take it you meant the Koch brothers supporting CATO? That's hardly my movement.

But for every one corporation you find in favor of Libertarianism, I can find you twenty against it.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why does this American version of libertarianism require absolute fealty to market capitalism? Doesn't that kind of totalitarianism go against the concept of liberty?

If you mean the Libertarian Party, then they're acting in accord with capitalism just as Democrats and Republicans are. Because that's the current economic system. You want a better system? Then offer one up... oh, oops, you can't because we're not allowed those kinds of freedoms in this society, are we? It's the US Dollar or else.

For those of us who are libertarian in name (not party), it doesn't have to be capitalism. It doesn't have to be money. It just has to be voluntary.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why is it that violence, blackmail and intimidation seem to be the primary ways of bringing these kinds of free market changes to other countries around the world? Liberty at the butt of a gun?

Interesting choice of words. The only group that tends to use violence to coerce people into doing what they want is government. Only a statist can conflate freedom with violence.

I doubt adoption of free markets is primarily done at the butt of the gun. I think you're alluding to Friedman and Chile. I doubt Friedman lead an army of Libertarians through Chile, but I know he was consulted regarding their economy. And according to wikipedia, today "Chile is ranked 3rd out of 29 countries in the Americas and has been a regional leader for over a decade. Chile's annual GDP growth was 3.2% in 2008 and has averaged 4.8% from 2004 to 2008." Not too shabby, though people like Neomi Klein may disagree.

But, to get back to your question, I don't know of any Libertarians that want to "bring" free markets to other countries; they just want to be able to freely provide for themselves and their families without other people telling them how to do it. Again, why not use your power of perception to look at the countless acts of violence perpetrated on the people by their government. And Chile is no different.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

So you are going to let petty politics come between us, eh? We had a good thing going, you and me, but it all goes down the drain because I don't like Milton Friedman.
Fine....whatever.... I can't stop you from taking that away from me....
....but what you can never take away from me are my fond memories of our hot weekend in Barbados; particularly the number of mangoes you were able to put up your.... er... fist-hole.... like a fleshen clown car you are.
Goodnight, sweet prince.

So you are going to let petty politics come between us, eh? We had a good thing going, you and me, but it all goes down the drain because I don't like Milton Friedman.

Fine....whatever.... I can't stop you from taking that away from me....

....but what you can never take away from me are my fond memories of our hot weekend in Barbados; particularly the number of mangoes you were able to put up your.... er... fist-hole.... like a fleshen clown car you are.

Goodnight, sweet prince.

I'm not sure how you see yourself as any less dogmatic than I am..and Im sorry for making you sad. I hope that you haven't wasted too many kleenexs on me, but save them for yourself..you'll need them when you figure out evolution is wrong.

Here is the key portion of your wiki article:

"Ideally, this list would only recursively include 'true' transitionals, fossils representing ancestral specie from which later groups evolved, but most, if not all, of the fossils shown here represent extinct side branches, more or less closely related to the true ancestor"

What we see in the fossil record is that when something new shows up its all at once and is fully formed and then never changes. Ie, no true transitionals have ever been discovered. What has never been witnessed in the fossil record is steady progressive change of one kind of thing into something completely different.

You think this is a gap? It's a super massive black hole, and the vacuum may be in your head if you believe it. Here's some info:

John Bonner, a biologist at Princeton, writes that traditional textbook discussions of ancestral descent are "a festering mass of unsupported assertions." In recent years, paleontologists have retreated from simple connect-the-dot scenarios linking earlier and later species. Instead of ladders, they now talk of bushes. What we see in the fossils, according to this view, are only the twigs, the final end-products of evolution, while the key transitional forms which would give a clue about the origin of major animal groups remain completely hidden.

The blank spots on evolutionary "tree" charts occur at just the points where, according to Darwin's theory, the crucial changes had to take place. The direct ancestors of all the major orders: primates, carnivores, and so forth are completely missing. There is no fossil evidence for a "grandparent" of the monkey, for example. "Modern gorillas, orangutans, and chimpanzees spring out of nowhere," writes paleontologist Donald Johansen. "They are here today; they have no yesterday." The same is true of giraffes, elephants, wolves, and all species; they all simply burst upon the scene de novo [anew], as it were.

I think you're the one who needs to re-evaluate your beliefs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6EiN-3uWak




>> ^Skeeve:
>> ^shinyblurry:
the bar is still incredibly low..one of the best transitional forms out there is based on a whales nostril..i would find that embarassing if i believed in evolution. show me something convincing. also, give me an example of mutation that increases information in a genome while you're at it.
You've said that you aren't ignorant of science, yet you ignore the science that proves these things. You, and people like you, are not really interested in the facts, you are interested in finding all the gaps so you can point and say "aha, there is a god!" I am truly saddened by people like you - it breaks my heart that you can be so smart and so blind at the same time.
But you asked for yet more proof so I am at your service.
A (comparatively) short list of transitional forms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
As for the claim that mutations not increasing information in a genome:
"We have observed the evolution of
increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place."
You can look up those scholarly articles if you actually don't want to remain ignorant. They are listed here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html