#2 They weren't dealing drugs in that video, were they? And the Oakland vice squad does conduct raids, does it not? I personally know a detective who worked there for years.

#3: "how many slaves do you own?"

Obviously slavery violates self-ownership rights. Shooting a gun on your own property violates no one's rights.

#4: "They document it in hopes the police will do something."

Don't hold your breath.

#5: "Business won't move to these places UNLESS you give them incentive (like tax huge breaks "

Sure, like in Pittsburgh or Singapore.

> "they do not just go there and fix things unless we all pay to let them."

Tax breaks is not "paying them." In fact, you have no moral right to tax. Taxation is theft.

#6: You're too vague positing little more than a bunch of opinions and declarations. Nothing here which really warrants a response.

#7: "They don't allow crime on their (ever expanding) property, period."

That's what I said. Only "public" property allows that kind of violent crime. No legitimate business would. So, while Disney can raise the standard of living on and around its grounds, it's under no pretense to maintain the civility outside of its property.

> "They show clearly that private ownership/control leads to MORE regulation, not less, it's just not government regulation."

When I say "regulation," I mean state-imposed regulation. Of course, however someone wants to regulate within their own private property is within their rights to self-ownership and private property. It's fine since it is not aggression/coercion. I'm not against private regulation. In fact, I regulate who enters into my house or uses my car. Duh. Don't you?

#8: "Oakland HAS been high crime with little money"

This is often the case. The same underlying causes for crime and poverty.

> "Much if not most of the crime happens in parking lots and buildings, on private property, not in the street."

Certainly not while the owners are using the property or while they are liable for allowing a crime to occur there. But tell me: where specifically?

I was making reference to what is happening in that video. If you want to talk about other specific instances, then tell me which ones and we can look at each one specifically.

> "Your apparent assertion that police have unfairly and wrongly stopped mob justice that would assuredly solve all the crime (by committing crimes against criminals) is laughable."

I don't know where you get this "mob justice" from. You are reading into what I said or something.

#9: "nor can you for $35 a month."

Yes I can, and better than what the police offers.

> "People will gladly take your money, but what do they do for you?"

If you are talking about the police, then nothing really.

> "Your taxes are not used only for 'security' you know."

Technically, they are used mostly to pay for war and the national debt. But police is also paid from taxes.

#10: "Most honest people in Oakland are struggling, or they wouldn't live there."

I don't know if this is true, but apparently you do. Somehow, I doubt they are struggling so much that they cannot buy a gun.

> "they can't afford rent and food"

Most "hardworking people" in Oakland cannot buy food? Really?

> "especially when you and yours stop paying taxes and all services they depend on to survive dry up."

I guess they'll still have you to pay for them and the wars and the debt. Although I'm not against charity, in fact I am actively engaged in such activities. But if you need my money, then put the guns away and ask nicely.

> "it's insanely easy to buy an illegal gun there"

But most law abiding people don't want to break the law on this or many other things.

> "Yeah yeah, I just know nothing, so ignore me."

I kind of do.

> "I don't think Oakland is a libertarian dream"

No, that was @enoch who said it was.

> "it's what you get when you de/under fund police and have terrible governing."

You always have 'terrible governing' when it comes from the state, politicians and such. It's a logical fallacy to conclude otherwise.

> "I don't think the answer is to stop governing and policing, it's to do it better (which doesn't necessarily mean more)."

Sorry, but this will NEVER happen. (But, hey, good luck with that. I'm certainly not stopping you. Go ahead. "Do better.")

> "Where is this utopian free market that has "much less poverty" you reference as evidence, I can't find it."

Then you must not be paying attention. Virtually all progress comes from the free market.

And again, if you are not interested, then it doesn't matter if you find it or not, does it? It's your life. You decide what you want and go ahead and do it and live with the consequences.

> "Ahhh, so you admit, anarchy is preferable to you over a government that's not libertarian...hmmmm."

In my opinion, a government cannot be libertarian. The logical conclusion to libertarian non-aggression is anarchy, i.e., no ruler; no state. A "libertarian" state is not really "libertarian." It's a contradiction in terms.

> "I don't think the working people of Oakland, or most anywhere else would agree."

So what? Who cares if they agree or not? They obviously don't agree and, therefore, as you say, they live in Oakland and are "struggling." If most people in Oakland agreed, they could probably turn things around. But as you say, they don't. So they, like everyone else, must live with the consequences of their decisions, their beliefs, their behaviors.

See, the good thing about being libertarian is that you don't really need to convince anyone of anything. That futile endeavor is the lot of those who hope -- against all evidence -- that they will somehow get "good government" if they can only convince others to elect the "better politicians." I sincerely wish you the best of luck with that. I'm certainly not counting on it ever happening. You have your idea of what "good government" means and how to get there, and so do many millions of other people. And they obviously don't agree.

> "And back to 'praxeology', an infant 'science' with questionable if any results."

Questionable in what way(s)? What do you know about it?

> "BTW...I was a libertarian until the Tea party came along...then I had to re-think."

The Tea Party is not libertarian. They have some libertarian preferences, but that's it. They are certainly not anarchists.

Anyway, in sum of all of this, let me say that, if you think you have the answers, then I encourage you to put them into practice. See if you can and deal with the problem!

There's no such memo.

"He's talking about people with more money than they can possibly spend looking for more tax breaks so they can accumulate even more wealth that they're never going to spend."

This is just stupid. Sorry to say. People don't just hoard billions of dollars under the mattress.They spend it. They buy bonds, stocks, assets, goods, services, investments, start businesses or expand existing ones, advertise, do all sorts of things with it.

"unlike those billions sitting in off shore account."

In the case of money sitting in off shore accounts, first, it is being spent by the banks that are storing it. Second, it is also invested in overseas businesses, like Apple stores in Ireland and elsewhere in Europe or paying dividends. And third, it would not be there moving so slowly if not for government taxation which incentivizes a lack of flow. To the extent that it does not circulate (and I contend it flows much more than you allege), the stagnation is the result of yet more government-caused distortions.


What specific corporation or individual do you claim does not invest its surplus money? Name one.

For starters, corporations need to either invest their profits or pay dividends.
So, again, who are you referring to specifically?

Even if they have some money in the bank, the banks are investing that money, lending it out, etc. So again, who specifically are you referring to?

As I've said before, ignorance may be bliss, but thankfully, we don't all have to be as ignorant as the least informed among us.

I said "cronyism aside" to explain the pure theory. Of course cronyism throws a wrench into the system. And cronyism is a function of government-granted privileges. As long as you have the monopoly we call government, you will have cronyism. Plain and simple. The most potent way to "slant the playing field" is through the use of government: a powerful and widely accepted tool of legalized aggression and coercion.

In fact, that's one of the main 'uses' of government regulation: to ensure that others cannot "catch up." The minimum wage laws are an example (contrary to the rhetoric surrounding the issue). So is taxation. And currency inflation used to pay for the bailouts. The list goes on and on.

Sociopaths win when they can use government to prevent competition. And make no mistake, the government itself is rife with sociopaths. (One might say that it's a prerequisite!)

(BTW, what exactly do the sociopaths "win?" To my mind, any "wealth" they have was not "won" at all, but was stolen by force, using the government as a mechanism of income redistribution. Without this tool, they'd have no choice but to offer actual goods/services that others want to pay for, if they want any wealth.)

.....
(And just as I was about to post this, I found this!) You think it's harder for poor folks to climb the income ladder now than it was 20 or 40 years ago? You're wrong, say the folks at the Equality of Opportunity project. (Let me note that these are NOT "right wingers." Saez is the darling of many progressives because of some his earlier work on inequality.) "The authors of this study measured the ability of children born in different income strata from 1971 to 1993 to move into different income groups. For example, it found that a child born in 1971 in the bottom 20% of household earners had an 8.4% chance of eventually making it into the top 20% of earners by his or her 20s or 30s. The chances of a child born in 1986 making a similar ascent was 9.0%."

I figured out how skewed the tax laws are when I found out companies like Google and Haliburton start up paper companies in various places in the world to funnel funds so that they can avoid US taxation. There's more than a few 1 person, single room offices out there pulling down BILLIONS every year.

What gets me is if I did it exactly the same way, but not as a corporation, I'd go to jail.

When looking at how much things "cost," think about "whom does it cost?" Who pays for it? Money gets 'printed' by the Federal Reserve more or less willy-nilly to pay for much of it. Who pays for that? And if it didn't 'cost' so much, would the 'printing' stop? Would the taxation stop? Or would it just mean the money will be redistributed to a different set of cronies in other industries?

I would think that if you were really interested in learning anything (be it about private law enforcement or anything else), you'd know how to manage your own discomfort in order to read something fully without being so reactive and defensive, which only serves to confirm your biases.

You say that "most people don't think of taxation as theft," but such a notion is actually irrelevant to the point here. Did you sign a social contract? I certainly didn't. There's no such thing (and to believe in one is to be living in a fantasy world).

Look: No one is forcing you to read anything you don't want to read. It's your right to learn or not learn whatever you want. In fact, you shouldn't read it (as if I stood to gain anything by your reading it). The ignorance here (in my view) is your own and only you stand to benefit by addressing it. Whatever your life circumstances, they're your problem and you certainly don't need anyone else's (particularly my) input on the matter.

Your comments... well.. They speak for themselves. I wish you all the best and know that if you are happy with your situation then I have nothing to contribute to it and if you are not, then you have what you deserve.

People who cling to dogma or sarcasm aren't likely to change their views regardless of the 'evidence.' They have a different agenda. And that's their prerogative. And someone will always exploit it (if it hasn't been exploited already).

Many people read Murphy's work (along with Mises, Higgs, etc.) including Harvard professors and the heads of central banks, and the kings of various political persuasions. How many people read your views on economics, or care about what you think is "worth reading" or not?

I shouldn't give you this outlet here to feel important (as if this debate served any other purpose), but i don't want to be an enabler.

Really? It was a 1984 reference? Gee, thanks mister, I totally didn't get that, nosiree.

And while you can try to make an argument that taxation is theft, to state it outright like that is confusing opinion with fact. Most people do not view taxation as theft. It is part of a social contract.

So in the space of the first paragraph, you have engaged in a false premise and then brought up them evil commies and nazis. Yeah, this is a worthwhile argument....

I have zero interest in contacting Murphy, and I'm not surprised Krugman doesn't want to debate him either. As Dawkins says about debating creationists, "it looks good on your resume, not on mine".

He is making reference to Orwell's "Slavery is Freedom." The hawks do wage endless war to end war and taxation is theft, as Chodorov and others have demonstrated, and social democrats do advocate massive taxation. Your gripe is a bit like complaining of ad hominem when saying Communists and Nazis engage in theft and murder. Sometimes people do bad things and that needs to be pointed out. There are however plenty of non-ad hominem argument provided by Murphy, which I encourage you to read.
Furthermore, "argumentum ad hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."

These you cited above are not "fallacies" and hardly irrelevant, as they provide reasons why the current system is not desirable. In any case, I can put you in touch with the author to see if he'd like to respond to your response to his essay.

Robert is used to this kind of BS and has worked out some really good replies. This is the man who, after all, is challenging Krugman to a debate it seems Krugman will continue to avoid.

In any case, whether the rest of it is "worth your time" or not, only you can decide on that.

"From each according to their abilities, to each according to their need."

Yeah, just started reading that.

Only a few pages in and he's already engaging in ad homs.
"left-wing egalitarians believe that slavery is Freedom.
The hawks wage endless war to end war, while the social democrats engage
in massive theft—or “taxation” as they call it—to eliminate crime"

Not sure that the rest of it is worth my time.

You simply can't SEE a scenario without force, because you've drunk the Kool Aid, Stormsinger, we all have.

Anarcho-Capitalism sounds good in ether, eliminate the state's influence on yer shit. Hire private security firms to dole-out justice, and fuck the police. Sounds REAL good. Privatizing currency structures, anything goes. Sounds righteous and fair-Keeps out gangsters who will eventually become masters.

Eliminate compulsory taxation. Good thing. Ombudsman-like dispute resolution rather than laws and a punishment to follow. Sounds fucking SANE to me. Problem is , with all the robots programmed by the state for the past 100 years, it's kinna hard to convince idiots that something like this could work....to free them from the inevitability of the failure of the current paradigm. About the only problems I can see with a switch would be how to maintain environmental impact standards, but these problems' solutions would become evident when people become responsible for themselves, for another's well-being within the social structure, and their own destinies.

Democracy (the meaning, 'rule of the people') has been lost to the rule of a very few, and historically it never works for very long before assholes find a way around it.


You're in a pot of water being slowly heated, Stormsinger-Warm 'n cozy now, melting skin from your screaming carcass later.

Hi @Krupo, you raise interesting points, I'm not sure I can address all of them, even though I think a few issues are worth talking about. I'm sorry you felt I was unfair towards @dag, I can assure you that wasn't my intention, because even after reading your post, I'm not sure I see much difference between taxing individuals and mining companies (at least for the point I was trying to make, IIRC).

I wonder what is it about a natural resource that is underground (and that is mostly useless unless extracted), that makes it such a crime to extract and sell it without some additional taxation. It's not like removing oil or minerals is damaging anybody, and it wasn't actually available until someone extracted it. Sure, if there's pollution, or destruction of property, they should pay. However, just paying because it's a "natural resource", when they're the ones making the resource available to society, seems wrong to me, but I guess those who benefit from taking other people's money can always come up with rationalizations to collect a tax.

If we do charge more taxes for mining, though, won't the company just transfer the taxes to the final product, taxing consumers and other industries? More importantly, will raising taxes contribute in any way to better wealth distribution?

Remember, taxation doesn't mean giving money back to society as we often like to think, it just means giving money to government. That's a big difference. Government uses money not just for operation, but as a tool to further its own political agenda, one that sometimes involves corruption, and the added power that comes with it. Why is it best for society to give government more power? Why is society better off by giving government more fuel for waste or corruption?

The reason I mention corruption is because I believe it's an important contributing factor to wealth inequality. I also happen to think corruption plays a significant part in how a government operates, even in the fairest of democracies.

I'm 5 months too late for this conversation, but whatever. @renatojj the problem here is you're misquoting @dag. Let's go with the phrase he actually used, "big earners like mining companies. "

Your comment assumes that he's proposing taxing individuals. @dag did not say that. He referred to the mining companies themselves. By squirreling the argument into an issue of personal taxation (and the incentives/disincentives to work based on tax), that's an unfair twist to the topic.

Mining companies are the topic in this case. The companies are extracting a national resource. They are benefiting from the country's own assets, therefore the country has every moral and economic right to demand its fair share. If the company can still make a profit, and heavens know they do, then you can't in any seriousness find fault with that.

Unlike individuals, who one may argue have a disincentive to work past a certain marginal tax rate, companies will keep operating in a given industry if they're still achieving profits.

The idea that taxes on mining profits (i.e. resource royalties) are *holding back* Australia is just a head-shaker. Where's evidence of that? How exactly would Australia be in a stronger position if it had less royalty revenues, and instead the cash was sprinted out of the country to whatever offshore haven allowed the company to retain profits for its shareholders, who may or may not even be Australian? How would that help?

Oops! I posted to the wrong profile. Sorry about that! Glad we were able to continue our dialogue.

My comments/responses interspersed:

> "economics has never been my strong suit."

I know, my friend, I know. As soon as I hear some defense of "socialism," I know.

> "but i AM quite literate in history and government and of
> course politics."

Yes, my dear friend, but history is tied to economics, and these days, unfortunately, politics too.

> "while you are correct that a socialist state can become a
> fascist one,so too can a democracy."

Again, we agree! Yes, in fact, fascism is the offspring of democracy. And while not strictly a fascist, was not Hitler elected?
Is there here some assumption that I regard "Democracy" as some sort of "holy cow?" On the contrary, "democracy" is a type of "soft" socialism.
At least as practiced and typically defined.
Not market democracy, however, which is the same as the free market, and not problematic. But pandering political democracy is something else.

> "it is really the forces of ideology"

Yes, in fact the book I am now reading makes this point throughout. So did Mises. But I will say that Mises was not altogether correct in dismissing Marx' assertion that systems and structures influence ideology and not the other way around. Mises was mostly correct, ideology creates systems and structures and institutions, but Marx was a little bit correct, there is also some influence in the other direction.

> "i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i
> am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to
> economics"

Do not worry my friend, this is the case with most people who have strong political/economic opinions. It has been called afterall the "dismal science." If people knew about economics, we'd have a totally different system of government or no government at all.

> "your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was
> having during this conversation."

Glad to hear. Some of my other "debaters" get very little out of our debate so it is a refreshing situation.

> "i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
> and we are."

I think most people are actually in agreement about goals, they just disagree about means, mostly because of lack of economic education. But once that is cleared, the agreements become more evident.

> "the banks need to held accountable."

1. yes banks need to be held accountable for fraud, like any other business or person.

> "which by inference means the governments role should be
> as fraud detector and protector of the consumer."

2. if you still want a government, meaning you still want a monopolist to do this. But a monopoly is inefficient (this is one of those "economics" laws, but one I think is almost self-evident). So asking a monopoly run by kleptocrats to do this is like asking the wolves to look over the sheep.

> "you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate
> charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a
> person and therefore shall be removed from the political
> landscape."

3. Since I don't think government (monopolist) are necessary, I don't think it should be inventing legal entities and forcing those on everyone else. Corporations are the creation of the state. Without a state monopoly, they would look much different than they do at present. In actuality, regardless of legal definitions, a corporation is a group of persons, like a union or social club or a partnership.

> "this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is
> diseased at the moment)."

4. Corporations are a symptom, not the cause of all our social ills. Lack of economic calculation is much more problematic on all levels. In short, government is not a solution, but the major contributor to the problem. And we still have not gone into the whole issue of how the government is not "we" or "the people" in any meaningful way and how having coercive rulers is a problem.

> "which will return this country to a more level playing field and
> equate to=more liberty."

5. I don't know that we agree here. Corporations are not the cause of lack of liberties. Government is. Corporations won't throw you in jail for not obeying the rulers; government will. Corporations will not garnish your wages. Government will.

> "this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL
> fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices."

6. Things like getting rid of IP laws will do so. So will getting rid of most/all taxation and arbitrary regulation.

> "how am i doing so far?"

Doing great!

> "what is governments role"?

I heartily accept the motto,—“That government is best which governs least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which I also believe,—“That government is best which governs not at all;” and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."
I don't want government to do anything for me, and I don't want it to force me at gunpoint to do anything at all.
A monopoly cannot do anything good that a free competitive market cannot do better.

> "the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that
> government to build a new one."

If you want someone to rule over you by force, you are not an anarchist. What kind of government would you consider "anarchy?"

> "if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of
> it and try another."

What if I don't want you or anyone else imposing rulers on me? What if I believe I have a right to self-ownership and voluntary interactions and property?
What if I don't want your form of "government?' Then what? You still want to impose it on me?
I thought you were my friend.

> "well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of
> the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system
> driven by self interest and profit?"

Everything will improve. But government had to be totally out of the way. btw, where do you get that government is not driven itself by self-interest and profit?

> "and i am ok with that."

Well, the difference between what you want and what I want is that what I want is not to be imposed on you but what you want is to be forcefully imposed on me, violently too, if I don't comply.

> "illegal to have an employee owned business."

Like I said, government is a problem.

> "i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how
> employee owned companies would threaten a free market."

In a free market anyone can own any business they want or else it is not a free market.

> "but as you figured out.
> economics is not my strong suit."

Just because there is a law prohibiting co-op ownership of a bar, it does not mean that it is there for some reason that makes economic sense. It actually makes no economic sense so it must be there for some political reason or because someone somewhere profits from this restriction, as is always the case with regulations.

> "and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this
> conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your
> views and even some about free markets."

Remember, a free market means free, not "semi" free. Not privilege for some, like regulations tend to do.
Always a pleasure.

American Libertarians aren't traditional libertarians anyways. I mean some people are just Libertarians because they're fucked up Nihilists in this country. They don't like anyone, they don't want to be around anyone, they're just antisocial assholes.

It takes a lot to drive Humanity out of people but it's done a surprisingly good job because we have a lot of young people now who think all Taxation is theft and the Rich Corporations should have all the power in the country.

Not saying it's definitely going to bring about a Hitler but it probably most certainly will.

The Tree of Statism includes Education, Roads, and Health Care? Also way too much focus on the National Debt, which doesn't matter whatsoever. This looks like Libertarian bullshit Blank.

Frame of "Taxation is Theft" and then a picture of Greece, which was a taxed democracy that specifically targeted the rich to fund their navy. Good job.