History US tax rate history - A return to the glory days

[Zarqon]

I disagree. I'm all for letting the wealthy be wealthy.

I just don't get this mentality. The cost of letting the wealthy be wealthy is that the poor remain poor, and this creates a general state of inequality between people, which seems clearly sub-optimal. I'm pretty sure the poorest people are the ones most responsible to crimes/social problems, so fixing that/helping them, will benefit the whole country, including the rich.

 

[Al68]

I just don't get this mentality. The cost of letting the wealthy be wealthy is that the poor remain poor, and this creates a general state of inequality between people, which seems clearly sub-optimal.

No, it doesn't create the inequality, it merely allows it. Huge conceptual difference. As far as the "mentality" that allows such a thing, it's identical to the mentality of one who chooses not to steal a candy bar from a kid who has two in order to give it to the kid next door who has none: because theft is wrong. Yes, even theft for the purpose of reducing inequality is wrong. And no, theft doesn't become right instead of wrong just because government is used to do it.

Such a "mentality" is not as difficult to comprehend as you suggest, http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html" written by Fredric Bastiat in 1850 explains it quite clearly. And it's a short read and free online.

 

[mege]

I just don't get this mentality. The cost of letting the wealthy be wealthy is that the poor remain poor, and this creates a general state of inequality between people, which seems clearly sub-optimal. I'm pretty sure the poorest people are the ones most responsible to crimes/social problems, so fixing that/helping them, will benefit the whole country, including the rich.

To the contrary - how can one justify taxing the wealthy more than their share? This country already has a percentage based tax (not an absolute tax). That means that the wealthy are putting their share in the pot. Tax debates often forget that the government could just send everyone a $5,000 bill each year regardless of income. A percentage based tax is already slightly progressive in that manner where individuals are putting forth according to their earnings. In the skewed hyper-progressive marginal taxes high earners pay far more than their 'fair share'.

How does the poor remain poor? Also, how does the wealthy remain wealthy (or get wealthy in the first place)? There are dozens of opportunities available for 'poor' to become rich. Is every hard working person going to strike it rich? No, there is a bit of luck involved - but in the same manner, the rich don't neccessarilly stay rich. The 'richness' of the top15 richest Americans (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Forbes_400_(2010)" ) goes back at most 1 generation - if at all (basically - non-Walton and Koch are 'new money' in the top 15 list). So, again, how are the rich 'staying rich'? None of those individual's family's had money prior to 1900. Several of them only gained their fortune since 1980 (Gates, LarEl, google guys).

Why do the poor commit crimes? Or maybe they're poor because they have a tendency to commit crime? I can't really think of many crimes that are done out of 'neccessity' but instead, laziness. I don't think anyone here is arguing against temporary safety nets for individuals that fall victim to bad fortune. Again I go to the 'plenty of opportunity' - if someone didn't do well in school, bounces between jobs, drinks/drugs/etc, and the government is still carrying them? Why?

Lastly, who says there is a finite amount of 'wealthy' individuals and that their wealth is at the expense of the poor? To the contrary, I'd think that the wealthy are more apt to feed off of each other in a proper market environment. Why take a penny from everyone in the US when you can play big stakes games with other fat cats?

 

[Char. Limit]

I just don't get this mentality. The cost of letting the wealthy be wealthy is that the poor remain poor, and this creates a general state of inequality between people, which seems clearly sub-optimal. I'm pretty sure the poorest people are the ones most responsible to crimes/social problems, so fixing that/helping them, will benefit the whole country, including the rich.

I would defend my point, but Al68 and mege are actually doing a pretty good job themselves defending it, and I don't want to screw it up.

 

[SixNein]

Here is an interesting read on the topic from Kurgman posted in 2002:

http://spot.colorado.edu/~kaplan/econ3080/Krugman-middle.html

 

[mege]

Nearly all of Krugman's shallow arguements have been already addressed in the thread in one form or another. One thing he says in particular hasn't:

Over the past 30 years most people have seen only modest salary increases: the average annual salary in America, expressed in 1998 dollars (that is, adjusted for inflation), rose from $32,522 in 1970 to $35,864 in 1999. That's about a 10 percent increase over 29 years -- progress, but not much. Over the same period, however, according to Fortune magazine, the average real annual compensation of the top 100 C.E.O.'s went from $1.3 million -- 39 times the pay of an average worker -- to $37.5 million, more than 1,000 times the pay of ordinary workers.

He doesn't take into account the size of businseses between that period. Far more companies are now global instead of just national companies. I would be interested to see CEO salaries compared to the total employment of those companies compared? I'd wager that the ratio there is the same, esspecially since far more americans are employed by large corporations than in the past (which indicates corporations are larger as well).

This type of reasoning is the flaw in much of Krugman's arguements in that piece and others he's written. He seems to forget that the US has taken on the leadership (economically, in this case) of much of the world. We have some of the richest individuals because of their global mindset. If our economic policies change to punish the wealthy, they will just go elsewhere - where it's a more friendly atmosphere. Sure, some may stay - but if 'hoarding money' is all the rich are good for (in the eyes of a collectivist), then why wouldn't they make the smart choice (for themselves) and move elsewhere in the face of their wealth being stolen?

Nothing in Krugman's articles even come close to answering the question: how are the wealthy 'keeping down' the poor? His only analysis in the article SixNein linked is the 'superstar analogy' - rather than 1000 'ok' comedians running around making average wages, there's 10 superstar comedians taking all the gigs and 990 trying to be like the top 10. That just doesn't work with the non-entertainment industry, and he never proves a link to apply it to economics as a whole. It's a nice story, and probably true of thesbians/athletes, but I fail to see it's application in individual wages as a whole. There may be some argument made in terms of small business not being able to compete with large businesses, but is that a wealth distribution problem? No. That's just called 'efficiency' of the market. A good business idea that cannot be done efficiently at large scale will succeed as a small business. Someone trying to make and sell custom home-made cell phones out of their garage will not succeed, and nor should they.

 

[russ_watters]

1. He fails to provide statistical evidence to support his starting premises:

The vast income and wealth inequalities of the Gilded Age had disappeared.

2. He argues that income inequality was high, then dropped during the great depression, then started rising again. Isn't that an argument against his point? The time of "best" income inequality was the worst economic period we've ever had! That implies to me that rising income inequality is a positive sign, not a negative one! Perhaps if we hadn't eaten the rich in the 1930s, there would have been rich people available to create jobs...?

3. He points out that we are not at the top of the development heap, but fails to account for the effect of immigration. Unlike Europe, which has a pretty stagnant population, the US is continuously fed, and largely from the bottom. The fact that our poverty rate has historically been falling despite the fact that we are continuously adding poor people to our population is pretty impressive to me.

4. He, like many of his political persuasion assumes even if just implicitly that wealth is a zero sum game. The implication here is that if the rich had less money, the middle class would have more [of that money]. The premise is wrong and the logic connected to would be faulty even if it wasn't! He hasn't established a causal relationship. A graph of incomes by bracket since just after WWII shows relatively linear rises in income (though the lines did flatten a bit after 1970): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg
If there is a group above the 5%tile that is rising in a rate that is not linear, so what? Smells like jealousy to me.

5. I also don't like his argument style. It's easy to find people who have misconceptions about economic facts and citing them doesn't imply that everyone who believes the opposite of what you believe falls under the same misconceptions. It's a weak style: if you can't argue against the best the other side has to offer, your argument is probably pretty weak itself.

 

[daveb]

In the skewed hyper-progressive marginal taxes high earners pay far more than their 'fair share'.

I'm glad you put "fair share" in quotes. This, to me, is the crux of the whole debate over redistribution of wealth/taxing the wealthy. What is fair? Those on one side would proabbly say fair is the same rate as everyone else. Others would say the same amount as everyone else. Others would say a proportion based upon how much they enjoy the services/benefits of the government. Others would still have a different criteria about what is "fair". But it all boils down to opinions, and it's rare that a person goes from one side to the other (though it does happen).

 

[SixNein]

Nearly all of Krugman's shallow arguements have been already addressed in the thread in one form or another. One thing he says in particular hasn't:



He doesn't take into account the size of businseses between that period. Far more companies are now global instead of just national companies. I would be interested to see CEO salaries compared to the total employment of those companies compared? I'd wager that the ratio there is the same, esspecially since far more americans are employed by large corporations than in the past (which indicates corporations are larger as well).

This type of reasoning is the flaw in much of Krugman's arguements in that piece and others he's written. He seems to forget that the US has taken on the leadership (economically, in this case) of much of the world. We have some of the richest individuals because of their global mindset. If our economic policies change to punish the wealthy, they will just go elsewhere - where it's a more friendly atmosphere. Sure, some may stay - but if 'hoarding money' is all the rich are good for (in the eyes of a collectivist), then why wouldn't they make the smart choice (for themselves) and move elsewhere in the face of their wealth being stolen?

Nothing in Krugman's articles even come close to answering the question: how are the wealthy 'keeping down' the poor? His only analysis in the article SixNein linked is the 'superstar analogy' - rather than 1000 'ok' comedians running around making average wages, there's 10 superstar comedians taking all the gigs and 990 trying to be like the top 10. That just doesn't work with the non-entertainment industry, and he never proves a link to apply it to economics as a whole. It's a nice story, and probably true of thesbians/athletes, but I fail to see it's application in individual wages as a whole. There may be some argument made in terms of small business not being able to compete with large businesses, but is that a wealth distribution problem? No. That's just called 'efficiency' of the market. A good business idea that cannot be done efficiently at large scale will succeed as a small business. Someone trying to make and sell custom home-made cell phones out of their garage will not succeed, and nor should they.

Speaking of small business...

According to SBA.gov, small businesses account for:

*

Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
*

Employ just over half of all private sector employees.
*

Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
*

Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.
*

Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP).
*

Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers).
*

Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.
*

Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007.
*

Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.


http://www.sba.gov/advocacy/7495/8420

Does small businesses enjoy the same treatment by the government as large business? How can legislation and policy effect small businesses ability compete with large businesses?

Can the super rich use legislation as a tool to gain unfair advantages?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Much of what I see in the people that surround me, is sort of what I would call a "Santa Claus" syndrome; "I'm really poor, but I want to be rich, and I know I will be rich some day.

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".

So screw this tax stuff. It's double taxation!"

The only thing I have every heard "double taxation" referred to is capital gains taxes. You seem like a reasonable guy, so let me explain the logic behind a low capital gains tax rate. I don't buy the "double taxation" argument - the government can tax the same dollar as many times as it likes. This explains it with the Law Of One Price, which is found on page 2 of most Econ 101 textbooks.

The present rate on 10-year Treasuries is 3.1%. If I want to buy a $100 10-year Treasury, how much should I pay for it? If you work it out, the answer is $74.41. If I am in the 31% bracket when I redeem it, I will pay $7.93 in taxes.

OK, now I believe I can sell a share of stock in XYZ Corp. in 10 years for $100. If the capital gains tax rate is 15%, how much should I be willing to pay for it today? The answer is $79.22. When I sell it, I will only pay $3.12 in taxes, so I am willing to pay more for a share of stock than the Treasury.

Now if the capital gains tax goes up to 31%, the stock is only worth $74.41. So raising the capital gains rate from 15% to 31% causes the stock price to fall 6%.

In 2009, the IRS collected $60B in capital gains tax. Assuming that it increases proportionally to rate (something any economist and even the budget forecasters at OMB will dispute - this is a strict upper limit), the IRS will collect at most an extra $64B for it. However, 6% of the market's wealth, or about $2.4T, would be wiped out in order to do this. To put this in perspective, this is 30 Hurricane Katrinas.

 

[SixNein]

1. He fails to provide statistical evidence to support his starting premises:

Perhaps he was offering a qualitative analysis. His audience was the NY Times.

2. He argues that income inequality was high, then dropped during the great depression, then started rising again. Isn't that an argument against his point? The time of "best" income inequality was the worst economic period we've ever had! That implies to me that rising income inequality is a positive sign, not a negative one! Perhaps if we hadn't eaten the rich in the 1930s, there would have been rich people available to create jobs...?

"Incomes then stayed fairly equally distributed until the 1970's"

3. He points out that we are not at the top of the development heap, but fails to account for the effect of immigration. Unlike Europe, which has a pretty stagnant population, the US is continuously fed, and largely from the bottom. The fact that our poverty rate has historically been falling despite the fact that we are continuously adding poor people to our population is pretty impressive to me.

I think the European nations might disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_Europe

4. He, like many of his political persuasion assumes even if just implicitly that wealth is a zero sum game. The implication here is that if the rich had less money, the middle class would have more [of that money]. The premise is wrong and the logic connected to would be faulty even if it wasn't! He hasn't established a causal relationship. A graph of incomes by bracket since just after WWII shows relatively linear rises in income (though the lines did flatten a bit after 1970): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg
If there is a group above the 5%tile that is rising in a rate that is not linear, so what? Smells like jealousy to me.

I personally thought he was making a social argument as much or more than an economic argument.

5. I also don't like his argument style. It's easy to find people who have misconceptions about economic facts and citing them doesn't imply that everyone who believes the opposite of what you believe falls under the same misconceptions. It's a weak style: if you can't argue against the best the other side has to offer, your argument is probably pretty weak itself.

I don't know I would accuse Krugman of having misconceptions about economic facts. He's won the noble piece prize in economics, and he's one of the highest cited economists in the world.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

Now that's not universally true, but by and large, I think that's the principle driver of economic inequality in the US. People get paid what they are worth. Of course in a capitalist system, it is true by definition that absent manipulation of market forces, the market determines what jobs and products are worth, but I think there is a real logic/ethics to it (which is why I'm a capitalist):

It is taken as a given by an arguer against income inequality that incomes for everyone should be increasing by a similar rate. But why? Why assume everyone is worth equally more? Are they doing the same amount more work? The same amount harder work? Have the qualifications increased by equal fractions? Aside from the secondary supply and demand driver, it is illogical to think that people should get more money for the same job just because other people are getting richer. The fundamental problem behind it is this: Jobs at the bottom are not getting more demanding, therefore they aren't worth more money than they used to be. Examples:

Does a janitor today do more work than a janitor 30 years ago? So why does he deserve to get paid more? (both rhetorical: he doesn't).

I highly respect police officers. It is a thankless, difficult and dangerous job, but has the job of a beat cop changed much in the past 30 years? In some cases, use of technology may increase the breadth of the skillset, but beyond that, I doubt much has changed. So there shouldn't be much of a difference in pay.

A carpenter today is vastly more productive than a carpenter 30 years ago, so he should get vastly paid more, right? Wrong: the carpenter outputs more work, but inputs less effort than was required 30 years ago. If anything, he should be paid less, not more. The people who should be rewarded for the output of the carpenter are the ones who invented, produced, and bought the power tools that enable the carpenter to be more productive. The rich people.

A machinist. Depends on the type, but the industry has been revolutionized over the past 30 years or so with computers controlling them. A machinist with modern skills? Should probably get paid a lot more than a machinist 30 years ago.

Random office drone. Like the carpenter, they output a lot more than 30 years ago, but they do it because technology has made their job easier. Wow, you can use MS word?! So can my 12-year old (caveat: I don't have kids). So they aren't worth any more than 30 years ago. An awful lot of middle class, college educated people have such jobs, but they require no special skills or growth. They don't deserve more money. Short anecdote: I worked as a temp doing that kind of job while in high school and college - one company even fired their resident stoner and tried to hire me full time. Hell. No.

Engineers (me). The job has gotten more demanding as the demands on the industry and demand for the services have increased. The easiest way to demonstrate this is via the gradually (but continually) increasing requirements for aquiring a PE license. In addition, the job changes - perhaps not the complexity, but there is always innovation and therefore always more to learn. This job is worth more to society than 30 years ago. Not vastly more, but more.

Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, whatever Walton was in charge, and a thousand others like them: These are some of the super-rich that people hate. They are fabulously wealthy, but seeing as how they revolutionized most of what we do in our daily lives over the past 30 years, I think they've earned it.

Oil tycoons. The original and reincarnated "robber barons". Except that the Sherman Act prevents the type of monopolistic abuses that made the original robber barons robber barons. So why do we hate the oil tycoons today? Because they're rich. Because we pay them a lot of money for their product. That's it. Waa. It is unfair and illogical that we fantasize and nostalgize the 49ers, but hate the guys who actually found the gold. Wait, maybe that's it: few of the 49ers actually got rich, so there's nothing to be jealous about! Waa. It's childish. These guys are lottery winners. Yeah, some luck goes into that, but sometimes getting rich takes some luck. It doesn't make sense to hate someone because they are lucky.

Money managers. These are the guys I have a problem with. And it isn't really even about being super-rich: many of the "just rich" got that way via the same business model. They've found a way to get paid based on taking a percentage of the medium that is the raw material/product that flows through their industry. That medium happens to be money. That would be like me getting paid in therms of gas or kWh of electricity that the systems I design use. It doesn't make sense to me. A mutual fund gets "loaded" at a percentage of the money in it, but that's not their product. The product is the investment strategy. The amount of money in a fund has no bearing whatsoever on the difficulty of an investment manager's job. That's a business model I'd like to see changed, but it is hard for me to hate people who for the most part just joined a flawed industry and didn't create it (this is why physicists are joining the industry). That said, the same attitude of entitlement that brought up this issue also motivates some to think they deserve what they get paid. Short anecdote: my sister is a financial analyst and had to listen to the traders whine over their lower bonuses in '08 and '09. They felt they deserved bonuses even though their funds lost money. I disagree.

Lawers. See: Money managers - the same logic applies. If you look, though, you can probably find a lawyer willing to work by the hour instead of on contingency.

I think I've rambled a bit here, but I'd like to see someone address the basic point: why should people who haven't substantially increased the skills or effort of a job be paid much more than their predicessors? Better yet, besides a little bit just for loyalty, why should someone who does exactly the same job they did 30 years ago (a 50 year old carpenter, for example) get paid more than they did 30 years ago? Their productivity (input) probably peaked 20 years ago!

 

[mheslep]

I don't know I would accuse Krugman of having misconceptions about economic facts. He's won the noble piece prize in economics, and he's one of the highest cited economists in the world.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

SixNein, fyi you misread #5. I didnt say he had misconceptions I said he argued against them. I'll respond in more detail later.

 

[SixNein]

I think I've rambled a bit here, but I'd like to see someone address the basic point: why should people who haven't substantially increased the skills or effort of a job be paid much more than their predicessors? Better yet, besides a little bit just for loyalty, why should someone who does exactly the same job they did 30 years ago (a 50 year old carpenter, for example) get paid more than they did 30 years ago? Their productivity (input) probably peaked 20 years ago!

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?

 

[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. (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. (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.