So who would you say has more respect for LEO and the justice system, conservatives or liberals?
Aren’t LEO government officials?
Very well, straight from wikipedia:
Redistribution of wealth is the transfer of income, wealth or property from some individuals to others caused by a social mechanism such as taxation, monetary policies, welfare, nationalization, charity, divorce or tort law.
In a progressive income tax system, a high income earner will pay a higher tax rate than a low income earner.
There it is. When you take the wealth from some people and give it to others. Curiously nothing is mentioned about the benefits we all get from taxing all and doing something from which we all benefit, like say, fire stations.
If we consider any possible side benefit that could possibly exist as RoW, then the phrase has no meaning, no raison d’etre as it were. It would be simple taxation as normal.
And we finally come to the most misguided statement I have see yet. You suggest that if I want to trade 100 lbs of X to you for 1 goat, first we have to create a government? Uhhh, history would disagree with you. The free market exists DESPITE the government. Regardless of how much red tape, bureaucracy, regulations, and so on, ad infinitum, it still exists.
So, I’d say Sam’s lack of answer means I won the thread.
So there can never be disputes over trades? Nobody needs to protect the markets from invaders or thieves?
I don’t understand the answer. I’ll repeat the question.
You suggest that if I want to trade 100 lbs of X to you for 1 goat, first we have to create a government?
That means that I have something and someone else has something and we want to trade with each other.
Left Hand states: The free market is a government construct.
So, to illustrate how this is just plain silly, I asked do we have to first create a government, so that it can create a free market, so we can trade with one another?
Being audited has nothing to do with it. How are you going to avoid paying property taxes on the house, even if you obtained it via barter?
Regards,
Shodan
Let’s you and me trade. I’ve got 100 lbs of grain, I’d like to purchase your goat. Give me the goat now, and I’ll give you the grain when it comes in. Deal?
Hey, thanks for the goat. I changed my mind about the grain, though, and I’m going to keep the goat. Don’t like the new terms? Take it up with my armed guards.
What’s your recourse?
The “free market” is a construct of the government, in that it ensures that I don’t take my ‘100 lbs’ of hammers, beat you to death with them, and just take your goat. A condition wherein warlords or others who already control some important resources can impose their will upon the trading ability of others contains some elements of “free will” but is hardly a “free market”.
You guys really like this whole theft thing. And coming up with a whole slew of assumptions. Like…theft and fraud don’t exist in todays market place??? Because we have government…Introducing these into the example is false logic. The fact that they exist with government makes all of this a wash.
The question that has been deftly avoided multiple times now is still can we or can we not make our trade before the government creates a market?
And of course governments can’t go invading other countries and take their stuff. This just escalates the scale of the theft.
You didn’t answer the question, you merely tried to sidestep it. It’s not theft; it’s a contract which wasn’t honored. How do you enforce the contract?
No, false logic is saying that because government doesn’t solve all our problems, it is a total failure.
Clearly we would have much more fraud and theft, etc. without government.
The point being made here is that government protects markets. I don’t know about creating them.
Other governments will invade you whether you have your own government or not. You’re better off with one in that case.
Hey, let’s make this trade. You’ve got a car and I’ve got a 45. I’ll trade you your life for the car…and the wallet. Your tank is a little low. Thanks for the car. This does not mean there is no free market. This theft, as well as your example, is occurring outside the market.
I actually asked the question which hasn’t been answered…Can we or can we not trade things before we create a government to create the free market. I’m sorry, but I can’t go on until this question is answered because it strikes right at the heart of your misunderstanding.
@ Lance
You see up there in post 94 where Left Hand said, “The free market is a government construct” and in 100 “We ARE the government. WE are the ones who created the “free market” that you use.” This is what prompted the question in post 103 “You suggest that if I want to trade 100 lbs of X to you for 1 goat, first we have to create a government?”
I do not say that the government doesn’t protect markets or that from your post 112 “No, false logic is saying that because government doesn’t solve all our problems, it is a total failure.” I didn’t say or imply anything like that. I said that trade CAN exist independently of goverment, therefore Left Hand is incorrect to assert that the free market is a government construct or that the government created it. You are off on your own tangent.
Dammit, is it so difficult to actually answer the question I asked?
Of course you can trade things without a government, duh. This is patently obvious, and I’m surprised you’re making such a big deal over a minor point. However, how do you make sure both parties uphold their side of the trade without a disinterested third party?
Okay, thanks.
I think he simply means the government creates the freedom part, by protecting markets.
Understood.
Simple: don’t pay them. Are you suggesting that someone has taken this route, and been penalized for it?
Others have answered this, but let me make it clear: when I say the government constructs the tent under which the free market is held, I mean that the government enforces contracts and discourages theft. The fact that theft occurs even with a government is immaterial, and as others have said, it’s bizarre that you’re staking your claim on this hill. Without a government, or with an ineffective government, theft is more common, and violence to prevent theft is more common, and violence to complete theft is more common, and violence in a mistaken event to prevent theft is more common. I invite you to visit Somalia for some lessons in what it looks like when you don’t have the government tent to hold the free market in.
A free market is not, in the end, two people making a trade. A free market is when two people can make a trade with a reasonable level of trust that the other party will honor the trade, and with a reasonable level of trust that nobody will just take their goods. Part of having that reasonable level of trust is the forfeiture of part of your goods to the government in order to help the gummint enable that level of trust. If you don’t forfeit part of your goods for that purpose, you won’t have an environment in which that level of trust can exist.
2 people wouldn’t make much of a market, I agree. BUT, when we speak of a free market, we mean laissez-faire capitalism, a market free of government interference (who do you think the “leave it be” is directed to?). So, the government can be used to create the environment, with laws and courts and jails, and so on, and not be involved in the “free market” itself. Excepting of course it’s own property for it’s buildings and that sort of stuff. I’m talking about blatant interference in the free operation of the market, like say wealth redistribution, favorable tax laws for this business at the cost of that business, for example.
Which can be tied back to the OP, in that this is how class warfare is conducted, using the government inappropriately to steal from one group and give to another group. No matter if some are assisting the rich steal from the poor to give to the rich, or from the rich to give to the poor. Theft is still wrong no matter under whose banner you fight.
Definitions are flexible, and you can stretch them to whatever lengths you want. So it is with “using the government inappropriately to steal” and with “wealth redistribution”.
You seem to agree that government taxing to employ firemen isn’t inappropriate, right? Neither is paying a contractor to build the firehouse, or another to build the roads the fire trucks use, or the manufacturers (and sales people, bookkeepers, secretaries, advertising staff, etc.) of the fire equipment itself, correct? And I expect it is kosher to even pay for some system to assure adequate supplies of water for the firefighters to use, and further assure that the water itself isn’t flammable or poisonous, yes? So we’re paying not just plumbers, but water testers too. And those tests need some kind of standard so we know exactly what poisonous or flammable water means, right? So we need to pay for somebody to conduct tests, and somebody to keep track of and publish them. And probably most of those somebodys could use assurance that they are receiving something useful in return for their services, not goat cheese, so we need currency. And we need someplace to keep our extra goat cheese, err, currency. And how can we trust those keepers of other people’s currency, amiright, so we need to hire some trusted overseers. And… and… and… So far, we’ve pretty well agreed about that “tent” of LHOD’s under which our “free market” operates.
But when we suggest that people dying in the streets from starvation, malnutrition, accident or disease, or so badly educated that they cannot function in today’s society, will actually detract from the happiness and contentment of our big tent, and will have unfortunate consequences extending far beyond those who are directly suffering, so someone should be paid to provide services to alleviate that problem – why then we start condemning “wealth redistribution” and “stealing” and hollering about removing government interference from our sacred business lives. Suddenly it’s become class warfare, and a blatant interference. I’m calling shenanigans on that.