Political Crossfire Forums

[Nathyn]

LeopardPM wrote: Nathyn wrote: I'm sorta undecided on this. Excise taxes seem arbitrary and I think the idea that the government is obligated to make me less fat is ludicrous, or that I should have to pay the government to stop other people from getting fat. "Corporate Average Nutritious Standards," sounds Socialist.
how is it socialist? why is that a bad thing?
Aside from being one of the main sources for political tyranny in history, what's wrong with Socialism?

You can't give government absolute power, even if it's democratic, because politicians will pass legislation for their own benefit. All Fascist regimes involved merging of government and business. It does not matter whether this happens through bribery or socialism.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: But on the other hand, I'm rather pragmatic about taxation, finding the statement "Taxation is theft!" to be laughable and downright Anarchist.
The statement 'taxation is theft' is just the application of normal societal and cultural rules of conduct to the affairs of government - if it is considered theft for the 10 people in my neighborhood to get together and vote to decide to 'tax' me - then this must also apply to larger groups. Theft is defined as the taking of property without consent... doesn't taxation fit that definition? If you were not threatened with jail and fines from the government, how much would you pay if 'taxes' were voluntary - the difference between this amount, and the amount that the government actually demands from you, is theft.
It isn't theft, because there is no sound philosophical foundation for traditional conceptions of property rights. Ignorance of the details of certain historical theft makes it so that, with regards to property rights, we are like blind men whose items were taken from us and trying to give them back to the right person. In reality, what ends up happening is that every man who has much claims whatever is in his hands is his. Those with very little claim that there is exploitation. Philosophically, with such ignorance over who stole from another thousands of years ago and how it affected our property today, all we can do is reconstruct such property rights. The most rational means of reconstructing property rights is limit them through equality of opportunity, something which could already be argued for on the basis that one owns what one labors for. If a society does not have perfect mobility, then it is not a meritocracy. If a capitalist country does not have perfect social mobility, it is dominated by elites just as much as any socialist country with poor social mobility.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: I can see how it's beneficial and if it's necessary for revenue, what the hell, who cares?
who cares? so the ends justify the means? its ok to steal from your neighbor as long as you spend the money in some approved way?
No, because it isn't theft. Every person is obligated to provide for the "general defense" and "common defense." Many Founding Fathers and Liberal political philosophers also used the term, "common good," recognizing the government's authority to employ people in carrying out that common good. Equal opportunity is precisely why even a minarchist government would be established. We enter into governments because they create an atmosphere where we can live and trade freely and prosperously, that is, all liberty is founded upon positive liberty.

You may not use police for your entire life, yet you still pay. Is this wrong? No, because taxes aren't purely goods and services. If the government were merely providing goods and services, then it would be unnecessary, because such could be provided through Anarchy. But rather, governments give us safety, stability, and the bare minimum for attaining happiness which, in quite a few cases, warrants taxation. Such taxation is justified, first, because we have great ignorance about property rights. Second, because liberty is founded upon security and stability, and without it, is baseless (our survival must come before our freedom, or else such freedom does not exist). And third, any rational person would agree to such a contract.

And so, taxation is not "theft."

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: As he said, if it's used for something important, like some form of social welfare program or for something that we actually need, it might be better to pay the extra 20 cents for my burger if it goes to, say, building homeless shelters. It's a fair trade if it's actually used beneficially.
and who determines what is 'important' enough to justify taxation? Is fighting a 'war' in Iraq important enough? Do you agree with the spending of every dollar that you are taxed - corporate subsidy, oil subsidy, environmental destruction subsidy (the leasing of forests for logging purposes, the leasing of government land for cattle grazing, etc)?
Who determines truth?

Who are you to say what is right and wrong? The government is so often correct and yet, you seem to believe that you and those politicians you support are infallible.

To reply, though, I agree with the pragmatic theory of truth. And so, I don't believe that there is any such thing as indisputable truth. Being that, any given moment, for any given person, they have access to only a portion of all evidence throughout the universe. Hence, they can never be totally certain of anything.

But I would say that it is likely our scientists that are the ones most capable of making rational statements. Take Economics, for instance. I am a person that is somewhat ignorant of Economics. Now, being so, who should I believe? The definition of truth is both an object and a means -- through defining that object, you must define the means (and vice-versa). On Economics, though, who should I trust is most correct? It would take some time to research and, I admit, that would be the best way, but if I don't, what can I know?

There average people who will make statements on Economics, there are fringe scientists, and then there is the mainstream scientific consensus. Throughout history, which of those three has been most often correct?

It is the last group. There are cases where the fringe scientists will be right, but the mainstream consensus always comes around, eventually. Truth lies in the hands of knowledgeable people engaging in rational debate. And so, asking me, "Who can know X...?" nobody can know with certainty, but the mainstream scientific opinion in most correct. And the mainstream opinion among economists is that Austrian economics and Supply-Side economics are nonsense.

Finally, when you asked "who," should decide, I don't find it necessary to specify a ruler. Because authority rests with principles, not people. You cannot specify a certain person or group (either the government or the private industry) as being worthy of absolute power. If the government violates liberty, it should be overthrown. If businesses violate liberty, they should sued, regulated, and shut down. It does not matter "who." Any person can look and decide for themselves if liberty is being infringed upon to that extent. Any person can have their own opinion, that opinion always has the chance to be correct, and they have the choice of whether to act.

[RueTheDay]

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: But on the other hand, I'm rather pragmatic about taxation, finding the statement "Taxation is theft!" to be laughable and downright Anarchist.
The statement 'taxation is theft' is just the application of normal societal and cultural rules of conduct to the affairs of government - if it is considered theft for the 10 people in my neighborhood to get together and vote to decide to 'tax' me - then this must also apply to larger groups. Theft is defined as the taking of property without consent... doesn't taxation fit that definition? If you were not threatened with jail and fines from the government, how much would you pay if 'taxes' were voluntary - the difference between this amount, and the amount that the government actually demands from you, is theft.

That is complete idiocy. The law is prior to property, for the simple reason that property is a creation of the law. Likewise, the state is prior to the law, since the state creates the law and provides the force required to enforce it. Thus, the claim that "taxation is theft" is shown to be nonsense.

[Nathyn]

RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Quote: But on the other hand, I'm rather pragmatic about taxation, finding the statement "Taxation is theft!" to be laughable and downright Anarchist.
The statement 'taxation is theft' is just the application of normal societal and cultural rules of conduct to the affairs of government - if it is considered theft for the 10 people in my neighborhood to get together and vote to decide to 'tax' me - then this must also apply to larger groups. Theft is defined as the taking of property without consent... doesn't taxation fit that definition? If you were not threatened with jail and fines from the government, how much would you pay if 'taxes' were voluntary - the difference between this amount, and the amount that the government actually demands from you, is theft.

That is complete idiocy. The law is prior to property, for the simple reason that property is a creation of the law. Likewise, the state is prior to the law, since the state creates the law and provides the force required to enforce it. Thus, the claim that "taxation is theft" is shown to be nonsense.
I disagree. Property is a human right, which should be held regardless of government. However, opportunity is right that is equal to, if not greater than property, because one only advocates property rights for the opportunity on achieves through it. The right to opportunity (which includes the right to achieve financial independence and the right to security) is at odds with the right to property -- governments, even in a philosophical bubble would be forced to choose one or the other. But historical ambiguity, that is, the fact that almost all property today is founded upon theft in ways we cannot image, washes away any justification for traditional property rights, instead necessitating that equal opportunity be established at the expense of the right to property. And this is further substantiated by the fact that, one can argue, if we begin in this world with unequal opportunities and we can gain property through that inequality, then those who are poor have entitlement to that which was unjustly stolen by the wealthy. But that still doesn't change the fact that property, philosophically-speaking, begins as a natural right which precludes the government. I agree, in general, with how you describe the relationship between and nature of government and property. But I think that there needs to be a rational justification for it. I disagree with your description when you say that the government creates property rights and thus should have limitless control over what you assert they essentially just fashioned out of thin air. While the Libertarian free market is undoubtedly tyrannical, leading to the same Socialism they claim to oppose, the government's power over what is perceived as property can also be unjust.

[RueTheDay]

Nathyn wrote: RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Quote: But on the other hand, I'm rather pragmatic about taxation, finding the statement "Taxation is theft!" to be laughable and downright Anarchist.
The statement 'taxation is theft' is just the application of normal societal and cultural rules of conduct to the affairs of government - if it is considered theft for the 10 people in my neighborhood to get together and vote to decide to 'tax' me - then this must also apply to larger groups. Theft is defined as the taking of property without consent... doesn't taxation fit that definition? If you were not threatened with jail and fines from the government, how much would you pay if 'taxes' were voluntary - the difference between this amount, and the amount that the government actually demands from you, is theft.

That is complete idiocy. The law is prior to property, for the simple reason that property is a creation of the law. Likewise, the state is prior to the law, since the state creates the law and provides the force required to enforce it. Thus, the claim that "taxation is theft" is shown to be nonsense.
I disagree. Property is a human right, which should be held regardless of government.

You are confusing possession with property. They are not the same thing.

[Nathyn]

RueTheDay wrote: Nathyn wrote: RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Quote: But on the other hand, I'm rather pragmatic about taxation, finding the statement "Taxation is theft!" to be laughable and downright Anarchist.
The statement 'taxation is theft' is just the application of normal societal and cultural rules of conduct to the affairs of government - if it is considered theft for the 10 people in my neighborhood to get together and vote to decide to 'tax' me - then this must also apply to larger groups. Theft is defined as the taking of property without consent... doesn't taxation fit that definition? If you were not threatened with jail and fines from the government, how much would you pay if 'taxes' were voluntary - the difference between this amount, and the amount that the government actually demands from you, is theft.

That is complete idiocy. The law is prior to property, for the simple reason that property is a creation of the law. Likewise, the state is prior to the law, since the state creates the law and provides the force required to enforce it. Thus, the claim that "taxation is theft" is shown to be nonsense.
I disagree. Property is a human right, which should be held regardless of government.

You are confusing possession with property. They are not the same thing.
No, I'm not. Possession simply means you have something. Property means you have it justifiably.

[RueTheDay]

Nathyn wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Nathyn wrote: RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Quote: But on the other hand, I'm rather pragmatic about taxation, finding the statement "Taxation is theft!" to be laughable and downright Anarchist.
The statement 'taxation is theft' is just the application of normal societal and cultural rules of conduct to the affairs of government - if it is considered theft for the 10 people in my neighborhood to get together and vote to decide to 'tax' me - then this must also apply to larger groups. Theft is defined as the taking of property without consent... doesn't taxation fit that definition? If you were not threatened with jail and fines from the government, how much would you pay if 'taxes' were voluntary - the difference between this amount, and the amount that the government actually demands from you, is theft.

That is complete idiocy. The law is prior to property, for the simple reason that property is a creation of the law. Likewise, the state is prior to the law, since the state creates the law and provides the force required to enforce it. Thus, the claim that "taxation is theft" is shown to be nonsense.
I disagree. Property is a human right, which should be held regardless of government.

You are confusing possession with property. They are not the same thing.
No, I'm not. Possession simply means you have something. Property means you have it justifiably.

No, that is incorrect. Possession is a relationship between a person and a thing; it is based on occupation and use and is defended by force by the person who possesses the thing. Property is a relationship between a person and the rest of society REGARDING a thing; it is based on title, which means someone else (typically the government) will enforce it.

[Nathyn]

RueTheDay wrote: Nathyn wrote: RueTheDay wrote: Nathyn wrote: RueTheDay wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Quote: But on the other hand, I'm rather pragmatic about taxation, finding the statement "Taxation is theft!" to be laughable and downright Anarchist.
The statement 'taxation is theft' is just the application of normal societal and cultural rules of conduct to the affairs of government - if it is considered theft for the 10 people in my neighborhood to get together and vote to decide to 'tax' me - then this must also apply to larger groups. Theft is defined as the taking of property without consent... doesn't taxation fit that definition? If you were not threatened with jail and fines from the government, how much would you pay if 'taxes' were voluntary - the difference between this amount, and the amount that the government actually demands from you, is theft.

That is complete idiocy. The law is prior to property, for the simple reason that property is a creation of the law. Likewise, the state is prior to the law, since the state creates the law and provides the force required to enforce it. Thus, the claim that "taxation is theft" is shown to be nonsense.
I disagree. Property is a human right, which should be held regardless of government.

You are confusing possession with property. They are not the same thing.
No, I'm not. Possession simply means you have something. Property means you have it justifiably.

No, that is incorrect. Possession is a relationship between a person and a thing; it is based on occupation and use and is defended by force by the person who possesses the thing. Property is a relationship between a person and the rest of society REGARDING a thing; it is based on title, which means someone else (typically the government) will enforce it.
Those are both qualities of possession and property, but not the entire definition. Possession is a relationship between a person and an object, where the person controls that object. The definition of property, however, differs from person-to-person. Your definition is narrow and does not take into account the various definitions of property. The most general and accurate definition of property is "legitimate possession."

[LeopardPM]

Nathyn wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Quote: But on the other hand, I'm rather pragmatic about taxation, finding the statement "Taxation is theft!" to be laughable and downright Anarchist.
The statement 'taxation is theft' is just the application of normal societal and cultural rules of conduct to the affairs of government - if it is considered theft for the 10 people in my neighborhood to get together and vote to decide to 'tax' me - then this must also apply to larger groups. Theft is defined as the taking of property without consent... doesn't taxation fit that definition? If you were not threatened with jail and fines from the government, how much would you pay if 'taxes' were voluntary - the difference between this amount, and the amount that the government actually demands from you, is theft.
It isn't theft, because there is no sound philosophical foundation for traditional conceptions of property rights. Ignorance of the details of certain historical theft makes it so that, with regards to property rights, we are like blind men whose items were taken from us and trying to give them back to the right person. In reality, what ends up happening is that every man who has much claims whatever is in his hands is his. Those with very little claim that there is exploitation. Philosophically, with such ignorance over who stole from another thousands of years ago and how it affected our property today, all we can do is reconstruct such property rights.
Just because our history is full of holes and we have no way to completely recreate the entire chain of property rights transfers on each piece of property currently in existence to its original appropriation from nature, this does not invalidate humans having rights to property nor does it invalidate current property titles - the best we can do, as humans, is trace back as far as we can and go from there. If there is some sort of problem from this method, then alternative ways of recording property titles will be brought about in the market until the market is satisfied.


Quote: The most rational means of reconstructing property rights is limit them through equality of opportunity, something which could already be argued for on the basis that one owns what one labors for.
Why is this the 'most rational'? I say that such limitation must come from illegitimate 'outside' entity (like coercive government) and thus the entire foundation is based on the immoral use of force against other humans. Property rights, in the natural rights sense, are along the lines of 'what one owns, one labors for' in the pure free market.

Quote: If a society does not have perfect mobility, then it is not a meritocracy. If a capitalist country does not have perfect social mobility, it is dominated by elites just as much as any socialist country with poor social mobility.
who or what determines 'merit'? And why is a meritocracy even desirable, especially to the extent of using force against those who would rather not be so ruled. We choose our leaders, we choose our experts as best we can - since we actually are human, our choices and actions will never be 'perfect', be it in 'mobility' or meritocracy, or any human endeavor.

Quote: LeopardPM wrote: Quote: I can see how it's beneficial and if it's necessary for revenue, what the hell, who cares?
who cares? so the ends justify the means? its ok to steal from your neighbor as long as you spend the money in some approved way?
No, because it isn't theft.
I thought you just advocated for a 'what one labors for, one owns' system? If I labor for a sum of money, and it is partially taken from me through threat of force, how can you not recognize this as theft and counter to your proposed basis for property rights?

Quote: Every person is obligated to provide for the "general defense" and "common defense."
Who says? 'Defense' is a good and/or service, and it is like every other good or service - it is not guaranteed, it comes in various flavors according to the desires of the market, and there is no justifiable 'obligation' to purchase such service, especially from a monopoly institution which coerces everyone within a geographic area to subscribe to it's so-called 'protection' scheme.

Quote: Many Founding Fathers and Liberal political philosophers also used the term, "common good," recognizing the government's authority to employ people in carrying out that common good.
It is vastly unfortunately that the phrase 'common good' was inserted into our founding documents, it is an example of how one single fallacious statement can unravel the entire project. I think that the use of this term is single-handedly responsible for the long road we have already traveled towards total socialism. One of the main and corrupted endeavors along this path which natered about 'common good' was public education, and further with the New Deal - both having disasterous effects for generations to come.

Quote: Equal opportunity is precisely why even a minarchist government would be established.
Equal opportunity ignores the unpleasant facts of life: we are not equal in physical manifestations: strength, skills, talent, circumstance, genetics, etc. Any attempt to equalize these things will result in an overall lessening of the total human production and happiness. The only place where we can be 'equal' is in our rights: to be free from the abuses of others, especially government.

Quote: We enter into governments because they create an atmosphere where we can live and trade freely and prosperously, that is, all liberty is founded upon positive liberty.
Who enters into governments? Not one government in the history of mankind has been 'entered' into freely by the citizens whom it rules. Even our own government was created and forced upon the people by a very small and radical minority. Saying that we 'entered' into government is akin to stating that an army conscript 'entered' into service.
While it is true that the market is most efficient in the absence of theft, fraud, and force, the market also provides these protections and naturally discourages such unjust methods of interaction - government is not needed nor invited to the party.

Quote: You may not use police for your entire life, yet you still pay. Is this wrong? No, because taxes aren't purely goods and services.
Whether or not one actually makes physical use of a service does not determine if such a service is 'wrong' - One may voluntarily seek and pay for insurance without ever making a claim - he bought the 'protection', not the action itself.

I do not understand your statement about taxes not being goods or services - taxes are usually paid in currency, and are always theft.


Quote: If the government were merely providing goods and services, then it would be unnecessary, because such could be provided through Anarchy.
ah ha! You understand then! Now its just a matter of expanding your view of goods and services - read any Hans-Hermann Hoppe?

Quote: But rather, governments give us safety, stability, and the bare minimum for attaining happiness which, in quite a few cases, warrants taxation.
government gives us safety? hardly! governments are responsible for the most deaths throughout history! Most importantly, who gives me safety from government itself? It is no accident that there is a definite mirror image of government when being compared to a street gang extracting 'protection' money. Nothing warrants theft, and the fact that taxes ARE forcibly extracted is enough to show that the entire foundation of government is illegitimate according to the standards and morals of any given society.


Quote: Such taxation is justified, first, because we have great ignorance about property rights.
Even if we were ignorant about property rights, how does this justify taxation?

Quote: Second, because liberty is founded upon security and stability, and without it, is baseless (our survival must come before our freedom, or else such freedom does not exist).
no, liberty is founded on... liberty! Freedom from force, freedom to do with one's body and property what one wills, freedom from theft and threat... that is what liberty is. A prisoner in solitary confinement is rather 'secure' and 'stable' but I think you would agree that they do not, in any stretch of the imagination, have 'liberty'!

Quote: And third, any rational person would agree to such a contract.
any person may agree with such a contract, but any rational person would not be restricted from making a very rational decision to not sign such an odious thing.

Quote: And so, taxation is not "theft."
lets try that again. So forcibly taking the property of another human being is not theft? What definition of theft are you using?

Quote: LeopardPM wrote: and who determines what is 'important' enough to justify taxation? Is fighting a 'war' in Iraq important enough? Do you agree with the spending of every dollar that you are taxed - corporate subsidy, oil subsidy, environmental destruction subsidy (the leasing of forests for logging purposes, the leasing of government land for cattle grazing, etc)?
Who determines truth?
truth? as in 'absolute' truth? this knowledge is restricted from humans by our very design.

Quote: Who are you to say what is right and wrong? The government is so often correct and yet, you seem to believe that you and those politicians you support are infallible.
Concepts of right and wrong are not relative, nor are they necessarily universal - there is a fuzzy border between the two in areas and at different times. Just as there is no clear cut divding line between love and like, but, such a situation does not impede comparing actions which are well within the spheres of each area: murder, theft, coercion, and general assualt are virtually unanimously understood to be 'wrong', and the opposite, or negative, of these things are considered to be 'right': refraining from violence, theft, coercion, etc. So lets just keep with those as 'absolutes' and let groups of folks figure the 'fuzzy' areas out between themselves as long as they abstain from infringing on these morals.


Quote: To reply, though, I agree with the pragmatic theory of truth. And so, I don't believe that there is any such thing as indisputable truth. Being that, any given moment, for any given person, they have access to only a portion of all evidence throughout the universe. Hence, they can never be totally certain of anything.
...and so neither can government - it's not a justification of the monopolistic use of force by any institution.


Quote: But I would say that it is likely our scientists that are the ones most capable of making rational statements.
rational does not mean 'correct' - any person making a decision is being 'rational' in their belief that a certain action undertaken will get them closer to an end. Even a child who burns themselves on a stove is acting 'rational' in their action - their own trial and error and new information will tend to make their future actions more 'correct' - but, being as we are fallible humans, we will never be perfectly correct.

Quote: Take Economics, for instance. I am a person that is somewhat ignorant of Economics. Now, being so, who should I believe? The definition of truth is both an object and a means -- through defining that object, you must define the means (and vice-versa). On Economics, though, who should I trust is most correct? It would take some time to research and, I admit, that would be the best way, but if I don't, what can I know?
are you asking for advice? I, like you and most other humans, will pick and choose between experts and elites to guide us in areas where we are intensely ignorant OR where we would rather refrain from putting our own efforts towards discovering/accomplishing. It is the economic 'divison of labor' which we rely upon daily to make our lives easier and more managable - if the results from our reliance upon a particular leader are not inline with our expectations, then we will probably make different and better choices in the future.

Quote: There average people who will make statements on Economics, there are fringe scientists, and then there is the mainstream scientific consensus. Throughout history, which of those three has been most often correct?
ahhh, here is the rub - your comparison regarding economics assumes that it is an empirical science, one that can be discovered and proved through history and experimentation. It is not like mathematics (though some get sidetracked down this easy road), nor is it like physics - it is impossible to control for all the variables in an 'economic' experiment simply because human action is involved. This action is unlike the action of an inanimate rock rolling down a hill, or the course which water may take to get to the sea, simply because humans may CHOOSE to go back up the hill, or desire something different based upon whims or other impossible variables which cannot be accounted for. The most fundamental variable which cannot ever be controlled for is that of time itself: in a certain time and situation, a person may choose to act a certain way, but may not choose to do so the very next day.

This may seem obvious to you and seemingly not related to your statements. The point is that although we cannot be certain of what particular action may be choosen, we can be rather certain that the action will be, according to the person undertaking the action, in their best interest. As humans, we do not like to labor without a purpose, a goal, something which we desire. People do not dump garbage or clean sewers simply because such things exist: they do these things because they expect some sort of benefit, some sort of improvement over their current situation, to be realized immediately afterwards or in the future. This benefit may be as simple as goods or services (by extension, money), or as sublime as an internal emotional improvement (alturism - feeling good about oneself, etc). With this simple observation, that humans choose to act and they do so with the rational expectation of benefit (either psychic or material), we can logically deduce the entire macro of economics.

On the otherhand, taking a snapshot into history, and comparing conditions present at that time to current, then extrapolating economic laws, leads one to make continual errors.

Quote: It is the last group. There are cases where the fringe scientists will be right, but the mainstream consensus always comes around, eventually.
not necessarily - was VHS better than beta? a PC better then a Mac? McDonalds better than Joe's Hamburger joint? The problem is in assuming that there is some sort of 'absolute' truth to be discovered, and its discovery should be best left up to the experts - the experts are people too...

Quote: Truth lies in the hands of knowledgeable people engaging in rational debate.
it is one way of discovering correct action, but by no means is it perfect or infallible - this is why it should not be forced, rather voluntary, so that alternative methods may be discovered more easily.

Quote: And so, asking me, "Who can know X...?" nobody can know with certainty, but the mainstream scientific opinion in most correct.
really? I would love to see what the scientific community would dictate what type of clothing I am to wear, car to drive, or person to marry - the reason they cannot in these obvious choices is the same as why they cannot in ANY choices regarding my personal life: they do not know my values, things that are important to me - should I buy a $10k car or a $40k car? There is alot more than just money involved in the matter - we are not machines.

Quote: And the mainstream opinion among economists is that Austrian economics and Supply-Side economics are nonsense.
quite untrue - Austrian economics has been credited by 'mainstream' with more than their share of 'discoveries'. And, btw, there is a distinct difference between austrian and 'supply-side'

Quote: Finally, when you asked "who," should decide, I don't find it necessary to specify a ruler. Because authority rests with principles, not people. You cannot specify a certain person or group (either the government or the private industry) as being worthy of absolute power.
I agree in regards to power over a persons decisions in dealing with how they will act in regards to their body and property - that absolute power shall be retained by each one of us.

Quote: If the government violates liberty, it should be overthrown.
While I would agree with you in opinion, just by looking around us we see that it is not often desirable. Our government violates liberty, often. Yet, many folks approve of its actions and would trade their liberty for the psychic comfort (however incorrect) which comes from having a supposed architect to their universe - pass the buck, so to speak.

Quote: If businesses violate liberty, they should sued, regulated, and shut down.
business, or anyone.

Quote: It does not matter "who." Any person can look and decide for themselves if liberty is being infringed upon to that extent. Any person can have their own opinion, that opinion always has the chance to be correct, and they have the choice of whether to act.
exactly.

Merely the fact that no one can say exactly what our purpose is here on earth, and therefor what course of actions we should embark upon towards our ends, that lends creedence to the idea that each person should be free to pursue, unhindered, whatever dreams and goals they wish. To prevent them from doing so may prevent or delay ultimate knowledge from being discovered as to our place in the universe.

Sorry for the rantiness - I was in a mood.

[Free Thinkr]

LeopardPM wrote: Sorry for the rantiness - I was in a mood.
Never mind the rantiness; you should be apologizing for the verbosity! :P :lol:

[LeopardPM]

Free Thinkr wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Sorry for the rantiness - I was in a mood.
Never mind the rantiness; you should be apologizing for the verbosity! :P :lol:

LOL! just re-read it, yeah, I was quite verbose - I hope Nathyn is not overwhelmed, feel free to not address each and every point - pick and choose, censor, and pull out of context as you wish!

Good thing I wrote it to satisfy my own urges and not those of another - I must have desired to feel important at the time...

[ubikk]

Free Thinkr wrote: Let's put to vote whether we should round up and kill all homosexuals. If the majority says "yes," it's not tyranny, right?

What do you think the actual odds are that a majority would vote "yes" to that? I think you're being silly now.

Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: There is no take-out tax in Ohio. There is no food tax in Ohio either.
There apparently was in Cleveland in '98. I seriously doubt my friend made it up for no reason.

There is no tax on take-out food nor groceries. There is a tax on soda pop. If Cleveland has a tax then it's local, not a state regulation.
[/quote]

[ubikk]

Free Thinkr wrote: Is it my right to not eat healthy? How about not living healthy? How far should we take this?

It is certainly your right to not to eat healthy, but answer this:

* Is it your right to unfairly burden tax payers with the additional medicare and medicaid costs you incur from your bad diet? Or should maybe you pay an extra nickel each time you eat a double whopper and contribute toward your own healthcare?

[LeopardPM]

ubikk wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Is it my right to not eat healthy? How about not living healthy? How far should we take this?

It is certainly your right to not to eat healthy, but answer this:

* Is it your right to unfairly burden tax payers with the additional medicare and medicaid costs you incur from your bad diet? Or should maybe you pay an extra nickel each time you eat a double whopper and contribute toward your own healthcare?

you are pointing out a flaw of socialized healthcare, which does NOT justify any sort of lessening of rights regarding the citizen and their own responsibility towards maintaining their own health. It is not the unwise or unhealthy citizen who unfairly burdens other taxpayers with increased medicare expenses - it is the State who does! Whether or not a person eats unhealthly is not the issue - a forced taxation is not the same as voluntary insurance, which would take into account any measurable risks in its purchase price.

[ubikk]

LeopardPM wrote: It is not the unwise or unhealthy citizen who unfairly burdens other taxpayers with increased medicare expenses - it is the State who does! Whether or not a person eats unhealthly is not the issue ...

I'm afraid that I don't quite understand your argument. At some point in their lives, the majority of Americans are going to be collecting some medicare benefit. The person who voluntarily lives an unhealthy lifestyle is going to demand more benefits than someone who did not.

Therefore, if you tax the thing that makes them unhealthly and use the revnue to fund the service, than over their lifetime the uhealthy person has paid more toward the extra care.

LeopardPM wrote: ... a forced taxation is not the same as voluntary insurance, which would take into account any measurable risks in its purchase price.

This is not a forced tax. You only pay the tax if you voluntarily choose the unhealthy food. As noted earlier, one way around this is to give tax reductions to fast food businesses who make the food healthier, which they could then pass on to consumers in the form of lower prices.

Not only that, but you've created economies of scale in healthy food making it now more competitive against unhealthy food in terms of price.

[Free Thinkr]

ubikk wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Let's put to vote whether we should round up and kill all homosexuals. If the majority says "yes," it's not tyranny, right?

What do you think the actual odds are that a majority would vote "yes" to that? I think you're being silly now.
I could have said the same about food not 50 years ago.

Perhaps in 50 years we'll be asking the same thing about whether the state should have to certify anyone for parenthood; I've seen the idea posed on this very board. Is it okay so long as the majority says so or isn't it?

Quote: Free Thinkr wrote: Quote: There is no take-out tax in Ohio. There is no food tax in Ohio either.
There apparently was in Cleveland in '98. I seriously doubt my friend made it up for no reason.

There is no tax on take-out food nor groceries. There is a tax on soda pop. If Cleveland has a tax then it's local, not a state regulation. [/quote]
Okay. I didn't mean to imply it was a state regulation; it was simply an example of such a tax that I knew of from experience.

[Free Thinkr]

ubikk wrote: Free Thinkr wrote: Is it my right to not eat healthy? How about not living healthy? How far should we take this?

It is certainly your right to not to eat healthy, but answer this:

* Is it your right to unfairly burden tax payers with the additional medicare and medicaid costs you incur from your bad diet? Or should maybe you pay an extra nickel each time you eat a double whopper and contribute toward your own healthcare?
How about driving safer cars? If my car is less safe, shouldn't I have to pay society for that "burden?" If I play sports, thus risking injury, shouldn't I have to pay society for that "burden?" How far are you willing to take this?

No, I'm afraid that the so-called "burden" I put on society by not eating in a way so-called "experts" deem "healthy" in no way justifies the sacrifice of my personal liberty. That anyone would suggest it does simply demonstrates just how slippery a slope this sort of thinking is.

I should tax you for your crazy ideas, which will no doubt burden society greatly.

ETA: and your view of "healthy" and "unhealthy" is far too simplistic. Eating Whoppers daily is indeed unhealthy; eating Whoppers occasionally is not at all unhealthy.

[LeopardPM]

ubikk wrote: LeopardPM wrote: It is not the unwise or unhealthy citizen who unfairly burdens other taxpayers with increased medicare expenses - it is the State who does! Whether or not a person eats unhealthly is not the issue ...

I'm afraid that I don't quite understand your argument. At some point in their lives, the majority of Americans are going to be collecting some medicare benefit. The person who voluntarily lives an unhealthy lifestyle is going to demand more benefits than someone who did not.
Exactly! I am not debating that there are choices made by people that make them tend to be unhealthier or face increased medical costs later in life, I am saying that the problem lies in the fact there is Medicare/medicaid at all! It is NOT insurance, it is one-size-fits-all and so because of this stupid FORCED program the state all the sudden has the gall to even think about telling the citizens what they can and cannot do, eat, drive, etc.

Quote: Therefore, if you tax the thing that makes them unhealthly and use the revnue to fund the service, than over their lifetime the uhealthy person has paid more toward the extra care.
Why not let each person live their lives as they see fit? Eating what they will and suffering the consequences (or the benefits...) and being responsible for their own medical care. This accomplishes exactly what you are saying that the increased taxation 'should' do, and does it without people telling each other what to do (backed up by force through taxation). Plus, there is no overhead of having some governmental commission trying to discern the various 'unhealthiness' levels of foods and perhaps trying to generate different tax levels based on these healthiness ratings.

Quote: This is not a forced tax. You only pay the tax if you voluntarily choose the unhealthy food. As noted earlier, one way around this is to give tax reductions to fast food businesses who make the food healthier, which they could then pass on to consumers in the form of lower prices.
taxes, by definition, are forced. As far as 'voluntarily' not paying the tax by not eating the food is along the same lines of argument as when a mugger says to a victim, "Don't move or you will make me shoot you" - sure, the victim has a choice to move or not and pay the consequences, but it is 'force' and it is a violation of rights. Do you not think that people have a right to ingest whatever they want into their own bodies? If someone wants to drink koolaid all their lives, don't they have this right? Should it be 'illegal' to eat raw cookie dough? What in the world is wrong with letting folks live and die by their own sword - where does this apparent need to attempt massive and expensive social engineering projects through governmental force come from? Why does it matter to you if your neighbor eats 'unhealthy' (note: YOUR opinion of unhealthy)? I agree that we shouldn't be held responsible for the inane actions of others (like being forced to pay for the medical care of a person who choose to eat unhealthy) and so we should abolish any such medicare/medicaid taxation and benefits.

Quote: Not only that, but you've created economies of scale in healthy food making it now more competitive against unhealthy food in terms of price.
you make as if unhealthy food is demanded because it is 'cheaper' to produce - costs do not determine the price of goods and services. So called 'unhealthy' food is desired because of a variety of factors: price, taste, convienence, etc. The State could create vast farms and industry to produce Tofu stuff and then give it all away for free, but that is not gonna make me eat the stuff - yet, I would still be paying for the entire scheme through taxation, right? It doesn't matter if there is any economy of scale benefit to be gained - it is not desired in the first place!

[perdidochas]

Nathyn wrote: I went to McDonald's a couple days ago and saw on my receipt, "TAKEOUT TAX." I think it's new or at least, I never looked at the receipt. But my state of Maryland apparently has a fat tax.

Our sales tax is 5%. But the takeout tax was 10%.

What's your opinion on taxing fastfood chains and junk food to decrease obesity while increasing revenue?

is the tax the same on a grilled chicken salad with low-fat dressing as it is with a comparably priced greasy double cheese burger? If so, it's a convenience tax, not a fat tax.

[Gatz Nieblas]

Nathyn wrote: I went to McDonald's a couple days ago and saw on my receipt, "TAKEOUT TAX." I think it's new or at least, I never looked at the receipt. But my state of Maryland apparently has a fat tax.

Our sales tax is 5%. But the takeout tax was 10%.

What's your opinion on taxing fastfood chains and junk food to decrease obesity while increasing revenue?

It is simply a form of coercion the government utilizes to force individuals to make a certain choice. People consume McDonalds based upon choice and I say if you would like to get obese, get obese, but dont tax my Big Mac because of it.

[Nathyn]

LeopardPM wrote: Nathyn wrote: LeopardPM wrote: Quote: But on the other hand, I'm rather pragmatic about taxation, finding the statement "Taxation is theft!" to be laughable and downright Anarchist.
The statement 'taxation is theft' is just the application of normal societal and cultural rules of conduct to the affairs of government - if it is considered theft for the 10 people in my neighborhood to get together and vote to decide to 'tax' me - then this must also apply to larger groups. Theft is defined as the taking of property without consent... doesn't taxation fit that definition? If you were not threatened with jail and fines from the government, how much would you pay if 'taxes' were voluntary - the difference between this amount, and the amount that the government actually demands from you, is theft.
It isn't theft, because there is no sound philosophical foundation for traditional conceptions of property rights. Ignorance of the details of certain historical theft makes it so that, with regards to property rights, we are like blind men whose items were taken from us and trying to give them back to the right person. In reality, what ends up happening is that every man who has much claims whatever is in his hands is his. Those with very little claim that there is exploitation. Philosophically, with such ignorance over who stole from another thousands of years ago and how it affected our property today, all we can do is reconstruct such property rights.
Just because our history is full of holes and we have no way to completely recreate the entire chain of property rights transfers on each piece of property currently in existence to its original appropriation from nature, this does not invalidate humans having rights to property nor does it invalidate current property titles - the best we can do, as humans, is trace back as far as we can and go from there. If there is some sort of problem from this method, then alternative ways of recording property titles will be brought about in the market until the market is satisfied.
No, you're right. It doesn't eliminate the necessity, but without the ability to manipulate history, it still makes it impossible for us to determine who has legitimate right to what property.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: The most rational means of reconstructing property rights is limit them through equality of opportunity, something which could already be argued for on the basis that one owns what one labors for.
Why is this the 'most rational'? I say that such limitation must come from illegitimate 'outside' entity (like coercive government) and thus the entire foundation is based on the immoral use of force against other humans. Property rights, in the natural rights sense, are along the lines of 'what one owns, one labors for' in the pure free market.
Because it returns us to a state of initial equality. Those who gained property in the past did so based upon their own labor. Because we cannot be certain who owns what property we have today, all we can do is allow each person the opportunity to gain property by labor, and that which they labor for, they own. But we cannot deny any person the opportunity for even a base existence, because of the simple fact that, had there not been historical theft, based upon the accumulation of wealth by their forefathers, they could be incredibly wealthy today instead of poor. Those who are poor today, because of historical theft, may not have been poor. This is demonstrated by the demographics of, for instance, African-Americans and Aboriginals in Australia. And while I concede, this is not something anyone can rectify anymore than we could go back in time to find which prehistoric human first labored upon which plot of land, thus gaining legitimate ownership -- the solution, therefore, is to allow each person relatively equal opportunities.

In ignorance, it is better to not act than to act (the precautionary principle). We are ignorant of the ultimate legitimacy of property rights today, thus we cannot enforce them. Being that they are, however, a necessity, we are forced to reconstruct them. Equal opportunity and moderate property right is the most rational because it is what's best for each individual: No one knows whether his property right is legitimate or not. In the absence of historical theft, you could be a millionaire today or a street urchin. And the benefit from helping those who would be rich but are now poor by giving them opportunity to be rich again far outweighs the disadvantage from hurting those who are legitimately rich yet lose their property out of ignorance of its legitimacy. In other words, it is better that we create a society where each person has the choice of being either rich or poor based upon their labor rather than imposing poverty upon some and enabling wealth for others, when we haven't the foggiest idea as to whether it's legitimate.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: If a society does not have perfect mobility, then it is not a meritocracy. If a capitalist country does not have perfect social mobility, it is dominated by elites just as much as any socialist country with poor social mobility.
who or what determines 'merit'? And why is a meritocracy even desirable, especially to the extent of using force against those who would rather not be so ruled. We choose our leaders, we choose our experts as best we can - since we actually are human, our choices and actions will never be 'perfect', be it in 'mobility' or meritocracy, or any human endeavor.
The Libertarian and Anarcho-Capitalist tactic of repeatedly falling back upon demanding definitions of terms which don't need to be defined is annoying.

How do you define "define"? Who defines "define"? What is "force"? What is "ruled"?

Merit, as defined by the dictionary means "A quality deserving praise or approval; virtue."

It does not need a "definer." To quote the Scopes Trial, there is never a duel with the truth. Something has merit because it does. It does not require a definer.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: LeopardPM wrote: Quote: I can see how it's beneficial and if it's necessary for revenue, what the hell, who cares?
who cares? so the ends justify the means? its ok to steal from your neighbor as long as you spend the money in some approved way?
No, because it isn't theft.
I thought you just advocated for a 'what one labors for, one owns' system? If I labor for a sum of money, and it is partially taken from me through threat of force, how can you not recognize this as theft and counter to your proposed basis for property rights?
Because, under some circumstances, it benefits us all and it would be irrational to oppose it.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: Every person is obligated to provide for the "general defense" and "common defense."
Who says? 'Defense' is a good and/or service, and it is like every other good or service - it is not guaranteed, it comes in various flavors according to the desires of the market, and there is no justifiable 'obligation' to purchase such service, especially from a monopoly institution which coerces everyone within a geographic area to subscribe to it's so-called 'protection' scheme.
Principles do not need an authority to be right. A statement does not need to have a loaded gun behind it for it to be true and so, this repeated question is irrelevant.

Libertarians' debate tactics are thus:

#1. Quote Mises.org.
#2. Ask for trivial definitions and demand to know who should be the one to define them (I.E. "Liberty," "property," "freedom," "truth," "rationality," "merit," "labor", etc.)
#3. If the person mentions that any particular institution or society, in general, determines the above trivial definition, the Libertarian responds by claiming that they're a Statist, a Collectivist, and that they're wrong (I.E. "The government defines liberty, property, truth, rationality, and labor?! But the government is tyrannical!!!")
#4. Just as Ralph Nader tosses the word "the corporations," in his speeches every few seconds (I.E. "The corporations are ruining America -- the corporations run -- the corporations -- they run everything -- they're -- the corporations, they're evil!!"), Libertarians throw the word "the State" in, every few sentences. Make sure to use a Capital S to emphasize its Sadistic, Sinister Structure.
#5. "Divide and conquer." Quote small portions of what the person said and misconstrue it, so as to interpret it as fallacy, when the rest of its unquoted premises support it and clarify it. It's far easier for a Libertarian to fight 100 unconnected premises than a coherent argument.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: Many Founding Fathers and Liberal political philosophers also used the term, "common good," recognizing the government's authority to employ people in carrying out that common good.
It is vastly unfortunately that the phrase 'common good' was inserted into our founding documents, it is an example of how one single fallacious statement can unravel the entire project. I think that the use of this term is single-handedly responsible for the long road we have already traveled towards total socialism. One of the main and corrupted endeavors along this path which natered about 'common good' was public education, and further with the New Deal - both having disasterous effects for generations to come.
"Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction."

-Adolf Hitler

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: Equal opportunity is precisely why even a minarchist government would be established.
Equal opportunity ignores the unpleasant facts of life: we are not equal in physical manifestations: strength, skills, talent, circumstance, genetics, etc. Any attempt to equalize these things will result in an overall lessening of the total human production and happiness. The only place where we can be 'equal' is in our rights: to be free from the abuses of others, especially government.
Equal opportunity wouldn't mean totally equal opportunity, but only moderately so. Obviously, if one gained wealth but gained no greater opportunities with that wealth, then that would be Communism. I am not arguing for Communism.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: We enter into governments because they create an atmosphere where we can live and trade freely and prosperously, that is, all liberty is founded upon positive liberty.
Who enters into governments? Not one government in the history of mankind has been 'entered' into freely by the citizens whom it rules. Even our own government was created and forced upon the people by a very small and radical minority. Saying that we 'entered' into government is akin to stating that an army conscript 'entered' into service.
While it is true that the market is most efficient in the absence of theft, fraud, and force, the market also provides these protections and naturally discourages such unjust methods of interaction - government is not needed nor invited to the party.
We enter into governments because it is the most rational thing to do. The social contract is distinct in that it is upheld, not because it's voluntary between all members, but because it is the foundation for all liberty, critical for any existence, and any rational person would adhere to it. In this respect, the social contract precludes contract theory as a whole. Without a social contract (a government), legitimate contracts cannot exist because their enforcement is not ensured.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: You may not use police for your entire life, yet you still pay. Is this wrong? No, because taxes aren't purely goods and services.
Whether or not one actually makes physical use of a service does not determine if such a service is 'wrong' - One may voluntarily seek and pay for insurance without ever making a claim - he bought the 'protection', not the action itself.

I do not understand your statement about taxes not being goods or services - taxes are usually paid in currency, and are always theft.
And so, in this manner, isn't welfare protection from poverty?

What I said regarding taxes not being goods and services you already seem to understand. Based upon what you've said, you argue that taxation is theft purely because you see the social contract as illegitimate, not because you think it's unfair for some to benefit more or less from the use of certain services, such as the police, etc.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: If the government were merely providing goods and services, then it would be unnecessary, because such could be provided through Anarchy.
ah ha! You understand then! Now its just a matter of expanding your view of goods and services - read any Hans-Hermann Hoppe?
But, in Anarchy, it cannot be provided to all. In fact, hardly anyone is protected under Anarchy.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: But rather, governments give us safety, stability, and the bare minimum for attaining happiness which, in quite a few cases, warrants taxation.
government gives us safety? hardly! governments are responsible for the most deaths throughout history! Most importantly, who gives me safety from government itself? It is no accident that there is a definite mirror image of government when being compared to a street gang extracting 'protection' money. Nothing warrants theft, and the fact that taxes ARE forcibly extracted is enough to show that the entire foundation of government is illegitimate according to the standards and morals of any given society.
That's a fallacy of division. Governments have been responsible for the most deaths throughout history, but that doesn't mean each government is murderous or even inherently murderous. Similarly, human beings have been responsible for the most deaths throughout history, yet you and I aren't necessarily murderers, are we?

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: Such taxation is justified, first, because we have great ignorance about property rights.
Even if we were ignorant about property rights, how does this justify taxation?

Quote: Second, because liberty is founded upon security and stability, and without it, is baseless (our survival must come before our freedom, or else such freedom does not exist).
no, liberty is founded on... liberty! Freedom from force, freedom to do with one's body and property what one wills, freedom from theft and threat... that is what liberty is. A prisoner in solitary confinement is rather 'secure' and 'stable' but I think you would agree that they do not, in any stretch of the imagination, have 'liberty'!
That's a circular argument.

"Liberty is founded on liberty."

No, what creates liberty? What allows liberty to even exist? Security and stability. Without security and stability, you cannot have freedom. If you are under the constant threat of harm or coercision, you cannot be free. And so, security and stability preclude liberty.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: And third, any rational person would agree to such a contract.
any person may agree with such a contract, but any rational person would not be restricted from making a very rational decision to not sign such an odious thing.
And so, in some cases, revolt is justified. But often, it isn't.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: And so, taxation is not "theft."
lets try that again. So forcibly taking the property of another human being is not theft? What definition of theft are you using?
You haven't addressed how such property is even legitimate when it is founded upon theft itself.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: LeopardPM wrote: and who determines what is 'important' enough to justify taxation? Is fighting a 'war' in Iraq important enough? Do you agree with the spending of every dollar that you are taxed - corporate subsidy, oil subsidy, environmental destruction subsidy (the leasing of forests for logging purposes, the leasing of government land for cattle grazing, etc)?
Who determines truth?
truth? as in 'absolute' truth? this knowledge is restricted from humans by our very design.
So then how can you make any claim regarding anything?

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: Who are you to say what is right and wrong? The government is so often correct and yet, you seem to believe that you and those politicians you support are infallible.
Concepts of right and wrong are not relative, nor are they necessarily universal - there is a fuzzy border between the two in areas and at different times. Just as there is no clear cut divding line between love and like, but, such a situation does not impede comparing actions which are well within the spheres of each area: murder, theft, coercion, and general assualt are virtually unanimously understood to be 'wrong', and the opposite, or negative, of these things are considered to be 'right': refraining from violence, theft, coercion, etc. So lets just keep with those as 'absolutes' and let groups of folks figure the 'fuzzy' areas out between themselves as long as they abstain from infringing on these morals.
Those things are hardly seen as unanimous or else murder, theft, coecision, and assault wouldn't be so rampant. There are also many cultures, both past and present, which advocate forms of such as perfectly normal. There is almost nothing which is regarded as "unanimously true," when there are those who are insane who disagree. And how can something be somewhat relative yet somewhat universal? The two are completely incompatible.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: To reply, though, I agree with the pragmatic theory of truth. And so, I don't believe that there is any such thing as indisputable truth. Being that, any given moment, for any given person, they have access to only a portion of all evidence throughout the universe. Hence, they can never be totally certain of anything.
...and so neither can government - it's not a justification of the monopolistic use of force by any institution.
And neither can you or anyone else. The government has the authority to act if they are correct, just as you or any institution has the authority to act if you are correct. The government does not, however, have any implicit non-authority.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: But I would say that it is likely our scientists that are the ones most capable of making rational statements.
rational does not mean 'correct' - any person making a decision is being 'rational' in their belief that a certain action undertaken will get them closer to an end. Even a child who burns themselves on a stove is acting 'rational' in their action - their own trial and error and new information will tend to make their future actions more 'correct' - but, being as we are fallible humans, we will never be perfectly correct.
Rational arguments are those which are most likely of being correct and there is no other means other than science of determining truth. Even if what it determines turns out to be false, voodoo, prayer, and other superstitious nonsense is still an invalid means of gaining knowledge, just as axiomatic assumption is as well. If science determines something to be true, we can only rational assume that it must be true, even if it may be wrong. Assuming it is wrong, however, or assuming that it isn't right without evidence is irrational.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: Take Economics, for instance. I am a person that is somewhat ignorant of Economics. Now, being so, who should I believe? The definition of truth is both an object and a means -- through defining that object, you must define the means (and vice-versa). On Economics, though, who should I trust is most correct? It would take some time to research and, I admit, that would be the best way, but if I don't, what can I know?
are you asking for advice? I, like you and most other humans, will pick and choose between experts and elites to guide us in areas where we are intensely ignorant OR where we would rather refrain from putting our own efforts towards discovering/accomplishing. It is the economic 'divison of labor' which we rely upon daily to make our lives easier and more managable - if the results from our reliance upon a particular leader are not inline with our expectations, then we will probably make different and better choices in the future.
You sound like you pick-and-choose experts that agree with your opinions.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: There average people who will make statements on Economics, there are fringe scientists, and then there is the mainstream scientific consensus. Throughout history, which of those three has been most often correct?
ahhh, here is the rub - your comparison regarding economics assumes that it is an empirical science, one that can be discovered and proved through history and experimentation. It is not like mathematics (though some get sidetracked down this easy road), nor is it like physics - it is impossible to control for all the variables in an 'economic' experiment simply because human action is involved. This action is unlike the action of an inanimate rock rolling down a hill, or the course which water may take to get to the sea, simply because humans may CHOOSE to go back up the hill, or desire something different based upon whims or other impossible variables which cannot be accounted for. The most fundamental variable which cannot ever be controlled for is that of time itself: in a certain time and situation, a person may choose to act a certain way, but may not choose to do so the very next day.

This may seem obvious to you and seemingly not related to your statements. The point is that although we cannot be certain of what particular action may be choosen, we can be rather certain that the action will be, according to the person undertaking the action, in their best interest. As humans, we do not like to labor without a purpose, a goal, something which we desire. People do not dump garbage or clean sewers simply because such things exist: they do these things because they expect some sort of benefit, some sort of improvement over their current situation, to be realized immediately afterwards or in the future. This benefit may be as simple as goods or services (by extension, money), or as sublime as an internal emotional improvement (alturism - feeling good about oneself, etc). With this simple observation, that humans choose to act and they do so with the rational expectation of benefit (either psychic or material), we can logically deduce the entire macro of economics.

On the otherhand, taking a snapshot into history, and comparing conditions present at that time to current, then extrapolating economic laws, leads one to make continual errors.
I don't assume Economics is an empirical science, just that it is a science. Even in the case of rationalist social sciences, the mainstream opinion has still usually been more correct than the fringe opinion. In the case of social sciences, the "evidence" is knowledge of the arguments. Science itself is also a philosophy (natural philosophy), that is, science relies upon a philosophical argument for what constitutes truth and how to attain it. Furthermore, being how economics extensively uses statistics and (in rare cases) experiments to verify their claims, it is a more "hard" science than it used to be.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: It is the last group. There are cases where the fringe scientists will be right, but the mainstream consensus always comes around, eventually.
not necessarily - was VHS better than beta? a PC better then a Mac? McDonalds better than Joe's Hamburger joint? The problem is in assuming that there is some sort of 'absolute' truth to be discovered, and its discovery should be best left up to the experts - the experts are people too...
I'm talking about rational, knowledgeable consensus. A person can buy a product irrationally and ignorantly. Marketing techniques attempt to goad people into doing so. So, that's a poor analogy.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: Truth lies in the hands of knowledgeable people engaging in rational debate.
it is one way of discovering correct action, but by no means is it perfect or infallible - this is why it should not be forced, rather voluntary, so that alternative methods may be discovered more easily.
...And what other means is there?

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: And so, asking me, "Who can know X...?" nobody can know with certainty, but the mainstream scientific opinion in most correct.
really? I would love to see what the scientific community would dictate what type of clothing I am to wear, car to drive, or person to marry - the reason they cannot in these obvious choices is the same as why they cannot in ANY choices regarding my personal life: they do not know my values, things that are important to me - should I buy a $10k car or a $40k car? There is alot more than just money involved in the matter - we are not machines.
They could analyze you, psychologically, and study you and what they would tell you would probably be most correct. The fact that totalitarian technocracy would be tyrannical does not change the fact that the mainstream scientific consensus is the accurate representation of the truth.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: And the mainstream opinion among economists is that Austrian economics and Supply-Side economics are nonsense.
quite untrue - Austrian economics has been credited by 'mainstream' with more than their share of 'discoveries'. And, btw, there is a distinct difference between austrian and 'supply-side'
Credited with some contributions, yes, but the school is small, not widely regarded, and many say it isn't even worthy of an entire "school" at all.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: Finally, when you asked "who," should decide, I don't find it necessary to specify a ruler. Because authority rests with principles, not people. You cannot specify a certain person or group (either the government or the private industry) as being worthy of absolute power.
I agree in regards to power over a persons decisions in dealing with how they will act in regards to their body and property - that absolute power shall be retained by each one of us.

Quote: If the government violates liberty, it should be overthrown.
While I would agree with you in opinion, just by looking around us we see that it is not often desirable. Our government violates liberty, often. Yet, many folks approve of its actions and would trade their liberty for the psychic comfort (however incorrect) which comes from having a supposed architect to their universe - pass the buck, so to speak.
So, one makes a rational judgement of utility: Does the risk from trying to overthrow the government outweigh the benefits? In most cases, no. You can call taxes "tyrannical," rhetorically, but in reality, it wouldn't be worth it to engage in physical violence over something as arbitrary as a tax, unless it were ridiculously high, such as 60% and so on, in which case we'd likely have bigger problems to worry about.

LeopardPM wrote: Quote: If businesses violate liberty, they should sued, regulated, and shut down.
business, or anyone.

Quote: It does not matter "who." Any person can look and decide for themselves if liberty is being infringed upon to that extent. Any person can have their own opinion, that opinion always has the chance to be correct, and they have the choice of whether to act.
exactly.

Merely the fact that no one can say exactly what our purpose is here on earth, and therefor what course of actions we should embark upon towards our ends, that lends creedence to the idea that each person should be free to pursue, unhindered, whatever dreams and goals they wish. To prevent them from doing so may prevent or delay ultimate knowledge from being discovered as to our place in the universe.

Sorry for the rantiness - I was in a mood.
OK, yeah. Sorry for the ranting reply.