US tax rate history - A return to the glory days

[mege]

In my opinion, worth is decided by the ability to bargain. Should a janitor have the ability to bargain for his or her best interest? From the perspective of a janitor, he or she observes that the company is a great deal more successful and higher positions in the company have seen continued wage increases while the janitor hasn't seen a raise in 30 years. On top of that, the Janitor has been working longer hours and has been assigned more duties. Would the janitor be wise to use every tool at his disposal to negotiate for a better raise? How about joining a union? Many seem to believe that unions are fundamentally evil. In some companies, one can get fired instantly for mentioning that blasphemous word.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/4/prweb8301902.htm

To turn your question on its head, do corporate executives perform more today than 30 years ago?

I think you are viewing inequality in one dimensional terms. For example, a http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2011/0630/Civil-rights-survey-3-000-US-high-schools-don-t-have-math-beyond-Algebra-I" claims that nearly 3,000 high schools only teach mathematics up to algebra 1. Do these students have the same options as students who are taught up to a calculus level?

Inequality to me is about how many options one has in life and how well one is represented at the government level; however, inequality is not about conditions resulting from bad decisions. In other words, are people born equal in the United States?

In the janitor's situation, in a large company, there would be room to move up to, say, head janitor or to a more skilled position such as maintainence. Aside from cost of living/inflation/market increases, why is he worth more after working at the company 10 years - if he contributes no more than he did on day 1 (training period not counted in this case)? Same goes for many other positions - other positions in the company are just a little more mutable.

Inequality is definitely about what options a person has. Even in the status quo, anyone can go to college. A 40 year old janitor can take out subsidized student loans and start at a community college from scratch and become an MD, if he has the capacity for it. Now, he may be limited by other factors of his decisions - kids, mortgage, etc - but the option is there. His outcome, though, is determined by his past decisions which may limit his options in the future. One thing I do conceed - parents do play a strong role in a childs life. Impoverished parents often fail to motivate their children properly, if a parent doesn't drive their child to 'escape' the poverty - they're probably not going to do it. If a parent is constantly down on themselves and their family, the child is going to have a hard time overcoming that. Handouts won't do anything to help with that mentality except reinforce it as a possible practice. It doesn't make anyone more 'equal' than another. If you really want a great equalizer - join the military. That's an opportunity that every young person has to escape their parent's predicament. My main point though - it's not government policy that's limiting choices, it's parental involvement for most children. While it sucks, yes, there's a lot of idiot parents out there making bad choices for their family - and their children have it a little harder because of it. The kids opportunities aren't gone, but their will to go for it may be.

 

[SixNein]

Well there are Nobel laureates in physics out there lending support to cold fusion, thus the reason for the peer review publication process to vet serious scholarship versus appeals to plaques on the wall or even NYT bylines. I don't see anyone here challenging arguments in one of Krugman's peer reviewed papers, which he doesn't publish anymore, but rather the unsourced http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/23/a-fit-of-peaks/" BTW, Krugman is noted for trade theory, not macro.

I don't recall anywhere in the article that Krugman claimed anything other than his opinion. And I simply stated it was a interesting read, and I did not use it as a source. Perhaps some need to learn the difference between an opinionated article and a research paper. There is a large difference in trying to pass something off as fact and stating an opinion. Krugman did not try to publish this in some journal; instead, he published it under the OPINON section of the NY Times.

Einstein was a very opinionated person, and sometimes his opinions were quite wrong. But should an opinion of Einstein be given consideration?

 

[mege]

Also, to cover the point about unions specifically.

Unions aren't intrinsically evil. Their a natural evolution in the marketplace - esspecially when formed into a guild they become their own company with a corner on the market for skilled labor. Unions presence helps to maintain proper wages for the low-skill workforce. That's a good thing, imo.

American unions, in practice, are horribly corrupt and instigate class wars over pennies. Working years as a contractor (vehicle programming) for GM, I saw the barriers that Unions put up for self-preservation at the cost of productivity. My favorite example: I couldn't take delivery of shipments of paper manuals. I had to let the union garage know to expect my delivery, and schedule a time for them to deliver it to my desk. Now, I could flag certain things as highly urgent and they'd do it immediately (Except at lunch), but if something came in at 9am to their dock - it wasn't uncommon for me to not get it until the next day. Even if I went down, pointed out my shipment in person, and asked to take it - I'd get an earful about how I was trying to take their jobs. This wasn't 20 years ago, this was 4 years ago. The barriers that organized labor put up to efficiency in a workplace, as self preservation, is amazing to me - and sickening. Also, I think that the thought of work stopage and strikes are horribly childish and are overused. Unions cause jobs to become to hyper-specialized that soon we'll have union workers doing our typing, I'll dictate, they'll type! Can't have one person doing too much, right?

Do I think that companies should spread the wealth if they do extremely well? Yes and, for the most part, companies do profit sharing and bonuses based on company performance. The reason Unions are points of contentions now is because companies (and the governments of the US) are going in the opposite way - having to tighten their belt. With all of the absolutely horrible (sarcasm) things that are done now to employees of the government and in the private sector in the name of austerity, I find it incredible that those same workers forget about the decades of amazing benefits and wage increases that they got. I feel that modern unions are antithetical to that solution as they are solely out for themselves, and not the overall situation. I do feel that the stranglehold on American labor has been a large contributor to the downfall of Detroit, the automakers became immobile to keep the workers happy. Luckilly, times were good enough for GM and Chrystler that they could afford to. Times got tough, and they got really tough. If unions weren't entrenched into the decision making process for the company, I strongly believe they would have been able to create higher quality autos since the 70s. Unions have become more corrupt than the companies that they represent, and that's the ultimate problem.

 

[mege]

I don't recall anywhere in the article that Krugman claimed anything other than his opinion. And I simply stated it was a interesting read, and I did not use it as a source. Perhaps some need to learn the difference between an opinionated article and a research paper. There is a large difference in trying to pass something off as fact and stating an opinion. Krugman did not try to publish this in some journal; instead, he published it under the OPINON section of the NY Times.

Einstein was a very opinionated person, and sometimes his opinions were quite wrong. But should an opinion of Einstein be given consideration?

Lots of 'qualitative analysis' has been done to counter Krugman's opinions already in this thread. While 'no numbers' has just been 1 indictment, lots of examples and rhetoric counter to his opinions have been given as well - to the point that Krugman's fundamental premises don't stand up to some basic reasoning.

 

[Al68]

I have a more direct, ethics-based argument that many may find simply offensive, but I think the logic is pretty strong if people are willing to set their emotions and sense of entitlement aside for a minute and fairly consider the logic in this thesis:

The rich are worth it, the poor are not...

The problem I have with your analysis is the (implicit) presumption that what someone's labor is "worth" is determinable in some way by you or I (or any third party), instead of determined by the parties to the agreement in a completely voluntary (force and fraud free) relationship.

And it is an ethical issue: voluntary agreements are ethical, force and fraud are not. And in the absence of force and fraud, what someone's labor is worth is exactly what the parties to the agreement agree it is worth. No more, no less.

 

[Al68]

Inequality to me is about how many options one has in life and how well one is represented at the government level; however, inequality is not about conditions resulting from bad decisions. In other words, are people born equal in the United States?

Of course not. In fact, no two people are ever born equal. We have varying abilities, intelligence, strength, etc. that greatly impact "how many options one has in life".

Of course we are all born with equal rights, but that's a different issue from being born equal in a general sense.

Einstein was a very opinionated person, and sometimes his opinions were quite wrong. But should an opinion of Einstein be given consideration?

Sure, as long as it isn't fashion advice.

 

[Char. Limit]

The problem I have with your analysis is the (implicit) presumption that what someone's labor is "worth" is determinable in some way by you or I (or any third party), instead of determined by the parties to the agreement in a completely voluntary (force and fraud free) relationship.

And it is an ethical issue: voluntary agreements are ethical, force and fraud are not. And in the absence of force and fraud, what someone's labor is worth is exactly what the parties to the agreement agree it is worth. No more, no less.

There are two problems with your argument here: One, to prove that force and fraud are being used in the markets today (if this is indeed what you're arguing). Two, to prove that force and fraud are unethical.

 

[Al68]

There are two problems with your argument here: One, to prove that force and fraud are being used in the markets today (if this is indeed what you're arguing).

Why is that a problem? I made no such claim in that argument. My claim was that a person's labor is worth exactly what the parties to the agreement agree it is worth in the absence of force and fraud.

(Of course force is used in some cases, like the minimum wage, but I never claimed that represented what anyone's labor is worth.)

Two, to prove that force and fraud are unethical.

Nothing can ever be proved to be unethical. So just label that one IMO.

 

[Char. Limit]

Why is that a problem? I made no such claim in that argument. My claim was that a person's labor is worth exactly what the parties to the agreement agree it is worth in the absence of force and fraud.

(Of course force is used in some cases, like the minimum wage, but I never claimed that represented what anyone's labor is worth.)Nothing can ever be proved to be unethical. So just label that one IMO.

All right then. Just checking.

 

[SixNein]

Inequality is definitely about what options a person has. Even in the status quo, anyone can go to college. A 40 year old janitor can take out subsidized student loans and start at a community college from scratch and become an MD, if he has the capacity for it. Now, he may be limited by other factors of his decisions - kids, mortgage, etc - but the option is there. His outcome, though, is determined by his past decisions which may limit his options in the future. One thing I do conceed - parents do play a strong role in a childs life. Impoverished parents often fail to motivate their children properly, if a parent doesn't drive their child to 'escape' the poverty - they're probably not going to do it. If a parent is constantly down on themselves and their family, the child is going to have a hard time overcoming that. Handouts won't do anything to help with that mentality except reinforce it as a possible practice. It doesn't make anyone more 'equal' than another. If you really want a great equalizer - join the military. That's an opportunity that every young person has to escape their parent's predicament. My main point though - it's not government policy that's limiting choices, it's parental involvement for most children. While it sucks, yes, there's a lot of idiot parents out there making bad choices for their family - and their children have it a little harder because of it. The kids opportunities aren't gone, but their will to go for it may be.

I agree that there are still opportunities there, but I believe those opportunities are growing thinner for a number of Americans. In many states, public universities are slowly being turned private. In order to obtain a college education, students are having to borrow hefty sums of money. Without outside support, this debt can be crushing to their long term future. I think the number of degrees worth the cost for students is shrinking more by year. Can you justify a 40k loan for a sociology degree?

 

[mege]

I agree that there are still opportunities there, but I believe those opportunities are growing thinner for a number of Americans. In many states, public universities are slowly being turned private. In order to obtain a college education, students are having to borrow hefty sums of money. Without outside support, this debt can be crushing to their long term future. I think the number of degrees worth the cost for students is shrinking more by year. Can you justify a 40k loan for a sociology degree?

Then maybe you shouldn't get a sociology degree if the cost-benefit isn't there. Just because someone can do something, doesn't mean they should. Lots of people get lots of 'worthless' degrees, and that compounds the perceived problems of higher education (and the supposed education-gap in the workforce) IMO.

 

[SixNein]

Of course not. In fact, no two people are ever born equal. We have varying abilities, intelligence, strength, etc. that greatly impact "how many options one has in life".

Of course we are all born with equal rights, but that's a different issue from being born equal in a general sense.Sure, as long as it isn't fashion advice.

Lets assume that two super smart people are born with similar talents. Should they have the same opportunities?

Or are you taking a nobleman's position?

 

[Al68]

Lets assume that two super smart people are born with similar talents. Should they have the same opportunities?

Opportunities provided by who? Assuming whoever is providing a particular opportunity is free, it's up to them. Your question only makes sense if you're asking someone who thinks that society should be controlled in that way. It's like asking someone which religion people should be forced to observe: the question only makes sense if you're asking someone who doesn't believe in religious freedom.

People are born with equal rights. Equal rights preclude equal outcomes, as a matter of simple logic.

Or are you taking a nobleman's position?

Nope. I'm taking a libertarian's position.

 

[mege]

Lets assume that two super smart people are born with similar talents. Should they have the same opportunities?

Or are you taking a nobleman's position?

You're equivocating opportunities to rights, which are different things. Same rights, yes - opportunities can be dependant on lots of other different things. To start, a middle-income family in Detroit will have different opportunities than a middle-income family in LA. They're in different places, and thus different opportunities. The same can be said of an individual living in a rural environment versus a suburban environment versus downtown-urban environment.

Even if we had raw and total income redistribution in the country - would that change either of those factors? No, and I would suggest that there is no need to change those factors. Individuals grow up differently and have different opportunities presented in different ways.

 

[daveb]

Alternet has an interseting, albeit one-sided view of the effects of lowering/raising taxes.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/151463/if_ayn_rand_and_the_free_market_fetishists_were_right%2C_we%27d_be_living_in_a_golden_age_--_does_this_look_like_a_golden_age_to_you/"

A healthy economy is one where the vast majority people can buy products, which can then be manufactured more cheaply, creating a positive cycle of profits and prosperity

While this is true, the real debate is how to create policy that encourages this. What worked for the post WWII era may not necessarily work in today's world of globalization, where, like it or not, countries vie in a sort of social Darwinistic fashion to be at the top.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Tax the red line...

We do. 40% of the income tax collected in 2007 (the last year for which data are available) came from that 1%.

Let's take this to it's logical conclusion. Why not raise taxes only on this 1%? That way, 99% of us can get the better government services that have been promised us, and we don't have to pay for it. The 1% do.

Assuming the 2007 fractions are constant, in 2010, the top 1% paid $360B of taxes on $1.6T of income. To balance the budget requires $1.96T in income taxes from these people (the $1.5T deficit plus the $360 already collected). Even if the government took every last dime of their income, it would not be enough.

This is not a statement about whether the Left or the Right's strategy is better. It is simply comparing two numbers.

 

[mheslep]

...

This is not a statement about whether the Left or the Right's strategy is better. It is simply comparing two numbers.

If the strategy referred to here is about the deficit, then only the Right has proposed a strategy that is mathematically capable of balancing the budget, that is, including cuts in spending and in particular reforming entitlements which must be done to zero the deficit. From what I can gather, Obama proposes only raising taxes; raising taxes on the top 1% of US earners to take all of that group's income, i.e. a 100% tax rate, would provide a theoretical http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html" they already paid, and thus still would not balance the current $4T budget/$1.6T deficit even if that income quantity stayed constant under such a rate, which of course it would not.

 

[OmCheeto]

In previous messages, I have pointed out who the "rich" are. If we want to tax our way to a balanced budget, the 91% bracket has to kick in at an income of about $70,000 a year. That's a perfectly valid choice, but we need to understand what that choice is.

I don't think aspiring to make $70,000 a year is "Santa Claus".

Actually, my "Santa Claus" delusion theorem was from another thread, where my bartender an his bar-back said they had no problem with someone getting 9 billion dollars, and not having to pay any taxes on it. Even though that person had done nothing to make that 9 billion dollars, except be born, to the right person.

The only thing I have every heard "double taxation" referred to is capital gains taxes. ...

"DOUBLE TAXATION!" was the first response from the two above.

I didn't have the heart to tell him that the value of a company was not taxed, and there never was a "first" taxation.

I get tired of dealing with delusional people sometimes, and just let them dream, about being billionaires.

Ha!

Next time, I'll just tell them next time to move to Zimbabwe. It only costs 27 bucks to be a http://compare.ebay.com/like/320563874874?var=lv&ltyp=AllFixedPriceItemTypes&var=sbar" !

 

[SixNein]

You're equivocating opportunities to rights, which are different things. Same rights, yes - opportunities can be dependant on lots of other different things. To start, a middle-income family in Detroit will have different opportunities than a middle-income family in LA. They're in different places, and thus different opportunities. The same can be said of an individual living in a rural environment versus a suburban environment versus downtown-urban environment.

Even if we had raw and total income redistribution in the country - would that change either of those factors? No, and I would suggest that there is no need to change those factors. Individuals grow up differently and have different opportunities presented in different ways.

Perhaps I'm speaking of the right to pursue happiness.

Opportunities are not the same thing as income. If two people apply for the same job, and one is more qualified for the job than the other, but the employer picks the other person because the employer doesn't like the race of the more qualified person. Is this what one wants in a nation?

Another example would be with government funding and legislation. Let's say there are two public schools in a town that are funded by the same government. One is in a poor area while the other is in a middle class area. The politicians do not think poor people are worth their time, so they better fund the middle class area school and neglect the poor area school. Is this what one wants in a nation?

 

[Al68]

Perhaps I'm speaking of the right to pursue happiness.

Opportunities are not the same thing as income. If two people apply for the same job, and one is more qualified for the job than the other, but the employer picks the other person because the employer doesn't like the race of the more qualified person. Is this what one wants in a nation?

Another example would be with government funding and legislation. Let's say there are two public schools in a town that are funded by the same government. One is in a poor area while the other is in a middle class area. The politicians do not think poor people are worth their time, so they better fund the middle class area school and neglect the poor area school. Is this what one wants in a nation?

Those are both strawman examples. Nobody around here is arguing for either of those, so it serves no purpose to introduce such examples to argue against them.

Except that by arguing against things nobody is arguing for you get to win the argument. Congrats!

 

[SixNein]

I'm taking a libertarian's position.

Libertarianism? How close to anarchy do you want?

 

[Al68]

Libertarianism? How close to anarchy do you want?

It seems you gave my answer right before the question. I'm a libertarian.

But libertarianism is a long way from anarchy. A libertarian government exists to protect liberty, not to control, shape, "better", or manage society.

Non-authoritarian government isn't necessarily anarchy. Anarchy means the absence of any government, not just the absence of government telling people who to pray to, how to live, who to work for, who to hire, what color clothes to wear, etc.

 

[turbo]

Anarchy means the absence of any government, not just the absence of government telling people who to pray to, how to live, who to work for, who to hire, what color clothes to wear, etc.

You have just set up a bunch of straw-men. Most people in the US have a more realistic view of governance (I hope!) and don't believe that government has any right to dictate what color clothes to wear, who can be hired, how you can conduct your personal life, or which deity (if any) you might prefer to worship if you are a religious person. Please back up these assertions, if you want to be taken seriously. I don't see how you can, but you can give it a shot.

 

[SixNein]

We do. 40% of the income tax collected in 2007 (the last year for which data are available) came from that 1%.

Let's take this to it's logical conclusion. Why not raise taxes only on this 1%? That way, 99% of us can get the better government services that have been promised us, and we don't have to pay for it. The 1% do.

Assuming the 2007 fractions are constant, in 2010, the top 1% paid $360B of taxes on $1.6T of income. To balance the budget requires $1.96T in income taxes from these people (the $1.5T deficit plus the $360 already collected). Even if the government took every last dime of their income, it would not be enough.

This is not a statement about whether the Left or the Right's strategy is better. It is simply comparing two numbers.

The current annual budget is very high right now because of the recession which has caused government revenue to decline rapidly. And this is occurring throughout the federal system. Although a lot of people seem to focus on the central government, state governments are in deep too. Unless one assumes that this recession is a permanent feature of the economy, government revenue will increase as the economy pulls out of recession.

On the topic of the central government, yes, taxes on the top %1 percent must increase. The bush tax must go. But you are correct in that both sides of the government's cash flow must be worked on. On top of that, there are many reforms needed in several areas that will be politically difficult.

 

[mege]

The current annual budget is very high right now because of the recession which has caused government revenue to decline rapidly. And this is occurring throughout the federal system. Although a lot of people seem to focus on the central government, state governments are in deep too. Unless one assumes that this recession is a permanent feature of the economy, government revenue will increase as the economy pulls out of recession.

On the topic of the central government, yes, taxes on the top %1 percent must increase. The bush tax must go. But you are correct in that both sides of the government's cash flow must be worked on. On top of that, there are many reforms needed in several areas that will be politically difficult.

Something to consider, there were a few articles which detailed this phenomena recently on WSJ (CNN and Fox parroted the article as well): states that are doing the worse, financially, had the most progressive taxes. Reasons for their failure are that they relied on the 'rich' whom have far more to lose in a down economy than the middle-class or poor. Many 'rich' stopped earning money and declared losses (and thus didn't owe taxes, at least not much compared to when their earnings are in full swing).

And I'm full in agreeance that tax cuts shouldn't be given... to anyone. The amount of deductions that are allowed is amazing (why does 1/2 the country not owe federal taxes? and even more gets back a significant refund from their witholdings?). If everyone paid taxes 'properly' (without possibility to game the system for cuts) then I think the average tax burden would be lower - rather than the disproportioned tax burden now.

 

[SixNein]

Those are both strawman examples. Nobody around here is arguing for either of those, so it serves no purpose to introduce such examples to argue against them.

Except that by arguing against things nobody is arguing for you get to win the argument. Congrats!

These examples where stated to aid in defining my position on inequality and what is meant by opportunity. I didn't define your position; therefore, no strawman was used. A strawman occurs when I change your position in order to win an argument. It would have went something like: "Your saying that black people shouldn't get the same kind of work as white people; therefore, you are wrong."

 

[Al68]

You have just set up a bunch of straw-men.

Yes, those are straw-men, but I did not pretend that sixnein, or anyone else here, had those positions. My straw-men were specifically set up to illustrate the difference between anarchy and libertarianism, not to argue against the straw-men. I purposely used straw-men instead of legitimate positions as examples so that the focus would be on the point I was making instead of the positions themselves.

There's a big difference between using a straw-man and using a fallacious "straw-man argument".

Most people in the US have a more realistic view of governance (I hope!) and don't believe that government has any right to dictate what color clothes to wear, who can be hired, how you can conduct your personal life, or which deity (if any) you might prefer to worship if you are a religious person. Please back up these assertions, if you want to be taken seriously. I don't see how you can, but you can give it a shot.

Why would I back up assertions I never made?

 

[Al68]

These examples where stated to aid in defining my position on inequality and what is meant by opportunity. I didn't define your position; therefore, no strawman was used. A strawman occurs when I change your position in order to win an argument. It would have went something like: "Your saying that black people shouldn't get the same kind of work as white people; therefore, you are wrong."

It's funny that you say that, since I was explaining the exact same thing to turbo1 above while you were writing that. :rofl: (except that a straw man was used, but not a fallacious "straw-man argument").

But in each of your examples, you asked "Is this what one wants in a nation?", which at least suggests that others here might have those positions.

 

[mege]

You have just set up a bunch of straw-men. Most people in the US have a more realistic view of governance (I hope!) and don't believe that government has any right to dictate what color clothes to wear, who can be hired, how you can conduct your personal life, or which deity (if any) you might prefer to worship if you are a religious person. Please back up these assertions, if you want to be taken seriously. I don't see how you can, but you can give it a shot.

Or what health insurance to buy...
*What substances I can/cannot own are two big ones that come to mind.
*The government does have a say in whom I can hire - I cannot discriminate based on a list of protected catergories.
*I have to wear clothes... the government doesn't tell me what color, but I am required to wear them!

(I know these seem like rediculous examples, but they are all laws which restrict our actions - weither or not we really want to exercise those rights (which are taken away) are another thing, but they are restrictions put on our life)

 

[mege]

Why would I back up assertions I never made?

Post #337

 

[Al68]

Why would I back up assertions I never made?

Post #337

My assertion in post 337 was very different from the assertion turbo1 was asking me to back up, that I didn't make. My assertion in post 337 was that those libertarian positions did not constitute anarchy, not that "most Americans" didn't share those positions, as turbo1 suggested.

 

[SixNein]

It seems you gave my answer right before the question. I'm a libertarian.

But libertarianism is a long way from anarchy. A libertarian government exists to protect liberty, not to control, shape, "better", or manage society.

Non-authoritarian government isn't necessarily anarchy. Anarchy means the absence of any government, not just the absence of government telling people who to pray to, how to live, who to work for, who to hire, what color clothes to wear, etc.

There are different groups of people who call themselves libertarians. Some groups want no government what so ever, and some groups what a very minimal government that is so small that it can be drowned in a bath tub.

Personally, I'm very critical of libertarianism. Here is a bit long winded view of my opinion on libertarianism and in particular the libertarian party.

Libertarianism exchanges government regulation for private market regulation where the owners of private property have absolute control. Because of absolute control, monopolies could and surely would emerge in the marketplace since libertarianism tolerates anti-competitive behavior. The super-rich would control all of the important land, infrastructure, resources, currency, and other items that are vital to the well-being of society, and they would have absolute control over those items. Libertarianism would replace a government of the people with a plutocracy.

In addition to plutocracy, the libertarian doctrine resembles the noble and peasant structure of the middle ages. Under libertarian system, the wealthy class would provide services such as police, fire departments, and other forms of protection since the government would no longer be providing these services. And the wealthy class could, in turn, demand anything for such services, and those demands could be quite high. While the wealthy class would enjoy the luxuries provided by concentrated wealth, the working class would live in utter poverty.

Outside of the wealthy, the working class would not have any rights to safe working conditions, fair wages, or equal opportunity. Libertarians believe that an agreement is made between the employer and employee, so the responsibility falls upon the employee to negotiate an agreeable contract; however, the argument is flawed because the working class would not have bargaining power in such negotiations. The wealthy class could flood the labor market with cheap foreign labor, use child labor, outsource the work, or price fix the labor market. The working class would most likely be forced to accept any kind of contract or face starvation, and certain racial groups could face starvation simply because of discrimination.

Besides rights for workers, certain groups could be alienated from society because of the http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/libertarians-on-pauls-civil-rights-stance-very-reasonable.php" . Businesses and people could deny services to individuals because of skin color, sex, or any other form of discrimination. The denied services could be anything from food, health-care, work, or anything else essential to an individual's livelihood. While libertarians oppose violence, they leave the door open for groups to be completely shut out of the society through denied services and work because of discrimination.

In addition to discrimination, libertarians call on the dismantling of public education. Such a move would not only guarantee a high degree of inequality, but it would also render a nation irrelevant on the world stage. Labor markets need people with strong science, mathematics, and interdisciplinary skills because of globalization, and people need a strong public education system to acquire these skills. Without a skilled labor force, businesses would have little choice but to outsource all work to foreign nations where a skilled labor force is maintained.

According to libertarians, the ultimate goal of libertarianism is freedom for the individual; however, the libertarian philosophy ties freedom with so called free-market principles. Because libertarians link freedom with a pure free-market, freedom is relative to the wealth of the individual. Since wealth could and surely would be concentrated at the top, libertarianism sacrifices the freedom of the majority for an ultimate freedom for a minority. The libertarian philosophy is incompatible with individual liberty because it puts economic gain ahead of freedom.

http://www.lp.org/platform

Perhaps you do not subscribe to that group. How close are your views to theirs?

 

[SixNein]

It's funny that you say that, since I was explaining the exact same thing to turbo1 above while you were writing that. :rofl: (except that a straw man was used, but not a fallacious "straw-man argument").

But in each of your examples, you asked "Is this what one wants in a nation?", which at least suggests that others here might have those positions.

There are many libertarians who have that position.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...pauls-civil-rights-stance-very-reasonable.php

 

[Al68]

Libertarianism exchanges government regulation for private market regulation where the owners of private property have absolute control.

Nonsense. The owners of private property have control only over their property. The word "ownership" means the right to control, after all.

Because of absolute control, monopolies could and surely would emerge in the marketplace since libertarianism tolerates anti-competitive behavior. The super-rich would control all of the important land, infrastructure, resources, currency, and other items that are vital to the well-being of society, and they would have absolute control over those items. Libertarianism would replace a government of the people with a plutocracy.

All nonsense. Monopolies cannot exist in a free market. This is far off topic, but has been discussed in other threads.

In addition to plutocracy, the libertarian doctrine resembles the noble and peasant structure of the middle ages. Under libertarian system, the wealthy class would provide services such as police, fire departments, and other forms of protection since the government would no longer be providing these services.

More nonsense.

...Because libertarians link freedom with a pure free-market, freedom is relative to the wealth of the individual. Since wealth could and surely would be concentrated at the top, libertarianism sacrifices the freedom of the majority for an ultimate freedom for a minority. The libertarian philosophy is incompatible with individual liberty because it puts economic gain ahead of freedom.

All simply false. And I'm truncating much of your post instead of responding to every point, but it's all simply false.

http://www.lp.org/platform

Perhaps you do not subscribe to that group. How close are your views to theirs?

Very close. But nothing resembling your representation of it. This subject has been discussed extensively in other threads, and I don't want to hijack this thread by rehashing the same exact points.

You'll find many posts by me in https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=443042&highlight=libertarianism". And you might try a forum search on "libertarianism".

 

[Al68]

There are many libertarians who have that position.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...pauls-civil-rights-stance-very-reasonable.php

Nope. At least not according to your link. Unless the libertarian position is grossly misrepresented. Failure to use force against someone to control their actions is not equivalent to "wanting" that person to do whatever choose to do.