Resources Super Profit Tax Thread (2 Viewers)

[FutureSight01]

Anyone listening to Q&A atm? It's pretty good.

 

[SylviaB]

^ What? Is being anti-capitalist so crazy a notion? Fuck them all.

Anti-capitalist: 'Everyone should have a decent standard of life and be treated like a human being.'

Capitalist: 'Lol!11!!!'

Yeah so tell me, how were the standards of living of people in the soviet union?
Of somalia?
Of cambodia?
Of current day china?

Of the people in all the DOZENS of failed socialist states whose intentions were to "help the poor"?


Capitalism has risen more people out of poverty than any other economic/political system in history.

 

[SylviaB]

Honestly I'm just glad John Locke isn't alive today, because I can't bear the thought of such a noble man bearing witness to such potent stupidity and ignorance of his genius.

 

[Rothbard]

Honestly I'm just glad John Locke isn't alive today, because I can't bear the thought of such a noble man bearing witness to such potent stupidity and ignorance to his genius.

I can't even rep you enough.

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Yeah so tell me, how were the standards of living of people in the soviet union?
Of somalia?
Of cambodia?
Of current day china?

Of the people in all the DOZENS of failed socialist states whose intentions were to "help the poor"?


Capitalism has risen more people out of poverty than any other economic/political system in history.

The key distinction I think we can both agree on is the state, which is restrictive economically, regardless of the particular system. I'm not going to defend a Socialist state, just as I won't defend a Capitalist state. What all those states have in common is exploitation by an authoritarian and hierarchical government.

 

[SylviaB]

okay then do you mind explaining how socialism would be brought about in the absence of the state?

honestly I don't see how people are magically going to start sharing everything and forming non-hierarchical firms as soon as the state goes away

 

[Rothbard]

The primary argument where we disagree is that we all agree that the state leads to people making wealth off the backs of others.

People having a right to owning their property in a stateless society, I don't see how that tends towards exploitation.

Nor do I see how property as a concept tends towards exploitation.

 

[Rothbard]

okay then do you mind explaining how socialism would be brought about in the absence of the state?

honestly I don't see how people are magically going to start sharing everything and forming non-hierarchical firms as soon as the state goes away

He's on our side, mostly. Relax.

 

[Optimus Prime]

okay then do you mind explaining how socialism would be brought about in the absence of the state?

honestly I don't see how people are magically going to start sharing everything and forming non-hierarchical firms as soon as the state goes away

Kibbutz - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[katie tully]

Given that I can't stand what the mining (and related industries) do to the environment I hope it drives them out of business and would prefer it to be higher and on all profits. Given our habit of building economies on non renewables we literally do need to have a recession before we can move toward sustainable growth.

What's the going price of mung beans?

 

[TacoTerrorist]

okay then do you mind explaining how socialism would be brought about in the absence of the state?

honestly I don't see how people are magically going to start sharing everything and forming non-hierarchical firms as soon as the state goes away

Yes, this is the fundamental problem. For the state to be eliminated, the majority of the populace would have to be anti-statist, and thus support the same values as most Anarchists. Hypothetically, we end up with a whole lot of people who support liberty, equality and the absence of hierarchy and illegitimate authority. These values would manifest in collectivised workplaces. You would be surprised at the power of grassroots struggle.

The primary argument where we disagree is that we all agree that the state leads to people making wealth off the backs of others.

People having a right to owning their property in a stateless society, I don't see how that tends towards exploitation.

Nor do I see how property as a concept tends towards exploitation.

There's a difference between owning property and owning the means of production. A good analogy is this: ' You own your watch, but the people that made it own the watch factory'. The exploitation begins when the inevitable inequality of wealth that arises from private ownership of the means of production (the primary tenet of capitalism, as you know) creates a separate class of people with great power, and interests outside the rest of humanity. Believe it or not, wealth creates power and power corrupts.

On the rare occasions when I think, 'hey, private ownership doesn't seem so bad, everyone should have the right to maximise his or her own potential' - I look at the giant corporations lobbying government, BP trying to evade responsibility for the oil spill, and companies accepting bailouts but firing their workers anyway.

He's on our side, mostly. Relax.

Thanks bro.

 

[SylviaB]

Yes, this is the fundamental problem. For the state to be eliminated, the majority of the populace would have to be anti-statist, and thus support the same values as most Anarchists. Hypothetically, we end up with a whole lot of people who support liberty, equality and the absence of hierarchy and illegitimate authority. These values would manifest in collectivised workplaces. You would be surprised at the power of grassroots struggle.

Look, let's agree to work together and get rid of the state.

you'll see that the free market is emergent and results in a higher standard of living for the (previously) poor, but you and your collectivist buddies will still be able to form your own socialist-only communties and live in non-hierarchal bliss

deal?

 

[katietheskatie]

fuck no

and double fuck no on the government putting together some bullshit 'generous' budget that relied on this tax being passed to pay for it .. what's your plan when the tax proposal gets denied, dickwads

 

[Optimus Prime]

fuck no

and double fuck no on the government putting together some bullshit 'generous' budget that relied on this tax being passed to pay for it .. what's your plan when the tax proposal gets denied, dickwads

ahahah its funny how ignorant you are and how much hatred you have, only the cut to the company tax rate and the increase in super depended on the RSPT.

 

[SylviaB]

It's easy to be generous with other people's money.
-Ron Paul

 

[TacoTerrorist]

Look, let's agree to work together and get rid of the state.

you'll see that the free market is emergent and results in a higher standard of living for the (previously) poor, but you and your collectivist buddies will still be able to form your own socialist-only communties and live in non-hierarchal bliss

deal?

Deal. As long as we can convince the workers in your communities to unionise.

 

[katietheskatie]

ahahah its funny how ignorant you are and how much hatred you have, only the cut to the company tax rate and the increase in super depended on the RSPT.

hurrrrr i jump on katie every chance i get i'm so awesome

pretty sure wayne swan outright said that this would offset a shitload of planned spending from 2012 onwards. i'm sure they will just pull the cash from thin air if it doesn't pass, how silly and ignorant of me, i sincerely apologise.

 

[SylviaB]

Deal. As long as we can convince the workers in your communities to unionise.

no, unionising is very often not in the best interests of workers

e.g. General motors etc

 

[Optimus Prime]

Not every chance, the frequency with which you post shit that has no basis in fact is just so often it seems that way.

 

[katietheskatie]

because i post in ncap with such frequency and all, and all my other posts in ns etc are really meant to be so ~factual~. seriously, idk what i've done but ffs please get over whatever issue you have with me, it's super fucking irritating and pathetic.