Morality of Wealth Redistribution

You're a breath of fresh air, Enron. So many of the people I talk to merely draw lines in the sand so they are on the edge of morality.

I notice that you like to cite Thomas Jefferson and, to a lesser degree, Andrew Jackson. Was Jefferson not willing to raise arms against a tyrannical government? Was Jackson not willing to raise arms against the savages that threatened the white man's way of life? We can look at their words as wondrous, but it was in their actions backing those words that they became prolific.

Since it is not likely that typical revolution is possible, and there is no more land to take for expansion purposes, it is probably wise to consider our starting point as different than were theirs. The next revolution needs to come from informed voters and consumers. The problem is going to be how democracy works (even if we are truly a constitutional republic). Few people are going to be willing to give up what they deem as entitlements, and people are likely always going to be voting for those who promise them someone else's wealth and buying whatever costs them the least. As such, it is unlikely that any such revolution will succeed based on principles, but may have a chance of succeeding if there is derived or perceived benefit through change.

I contend that change is more likely by utilizing the taxation system such that there are incentives for businesses and rich people to do that which is good for the masses of people in such a way that it makes economic sense for them to do it.

For example, unemployment taxes are collected based on the number of employees a company has. If the base rate for taxation were adjusted upward, and credits given for employing Americans, then we will, in essence, have motivated businesses through their bottom lines to employ Americans and not outsource labor, which results in lower unemployment taxes for them. In turn, we will not have to shoot people, or even imprison them, for stealing that which they may, then, be able to buy.

Healthcare is another example of how tax incentives might work for the good of the common person. If the base tax rate were increased with credits (not deductions) for providing for those who cannot afford to pay, then health care facilities could decide whether to become exclusive for only those who can afford the services, or public so that less income results in profits.

Though my proposals may not seem libertarian on the surface, I'm not really inclined to shoot a couple of pistols at armies that have tanks and planes. I'm also not so short-sighted that I believe that people in my generation will somehow begin living on a conscience level rather than a conscious level. Historically, many people have thought that society would change like that, and, historically, each has been incorrect.

The next revolution has to be creative. We must make it cost less to buy American products rather than imports without imposing tariffs. We must find a creative way to provide for the needy so they don't just vote themselves our money for nothing. The ideal has always been to "create a more perfect union," not "the perfect union."

Goldwing Tom wrote:I notice that you like to cite Thomas Jefferson and, to a lesser degree, Andrew Jackson. Was Jefferson not willing to raise arms against a tyrannical government? Was Jackson not willing to raise arms against the savages that threatened the white man's way of life? We can look at their words as wondrous, but it was in their actions backing those words that they became prolific.

I could not agree more.

Goldwing Tom wrote:Since it is not likely that typical revolution is possible, and there is no more land to take for expansion purposes, it is probably wise to consider our starting point as different than were theirs. The next revolution needs to come from informed voters and consumers. The problem is going to be how democracy works (even if we are truly a constitutional republic). Few people are going to be willing to give up what they deem as entitlements, and people are likely always going to be voting for those who promise them someone else's wealth and buying whatever costs them the least. As such, it is unlikely that any such revolution will succeed based on principles, but may have a chance of succeeding if there is derived or perceived benefit through change.

I contend that change is more likely by utilizing the taxation system such that there are incentives for businesses and rich people to do that which is good for the masses of people in such a way that it makes economic sense for them to do it.

For example, unemployment taxes are collected based on the number of employees a company has. If the base rate for taxation were adjusted upward, and credits given for employing Americans, then we will, in essence, have motivated businesses through their bottom lines to employ Americans and not outsource labor, which results in lower unemployment taxes for them. In turn, we will not have to shoot people, or even imprison them, for stealing that which they may, then, be able to buy.

I like that you are thinking outside of the box. However, I feel that the best way to increase the standard of living for poor and rich, is to remove government from economic planning. If the government tries to centrally plan incentives for employment, it will backfire.

For example, let's use the suggestion that you have made above. If we raise taxes for those who are outsourcing, and give breaks for those who are using domestic labor, we are actually going to make our businesses less competitive in the global marketplace. There is a reason that businesses outsource. Businesses outsource because they have to pay less for comparative labor. If we take this advantage away from our companies at home, foreign companies will be able to take the competitive advantage of the more cost effective labor. This would ultimately be a net-net loss for American companies.

Goldwing Tom wrote:Healthcare is another example of how tax incentives might work for the good of the common person. If the base tax rate were increased with credits (not deductions) for providing for those who cannot afford to pay, then health care facilities could decide whether to become exclusive for only those who can afford the services, or public so that less income results in profits.

Though my proposals may not seem libertarian on the surface, I'm not really inclined to shoot a couple of pistols at armies that have tanks and planes. I'm also not so short-sighted that I believe that people in my generation will somehow begin living on a conscience level rather than a conscious level. Historically, many people have thought that society would change like that, and, historically, each has been incorrect.

The next revolution has to be creative. We must make it cost less to buy American products rather than imports without imposing tariffs. We must find a creative way to provide for the needy so they don't just vote themselves our money for nothing. The ideal has always been to "create a more perfect union," not "the perfect union."

If we want a higher standard of living, we should get the gov't out of the business of trying to effect the markets.

We can not make it cost less to buy American products by government intervention. I would like to hear a suggestion as to how to make American products less expensive by gov't intervention without creating a shortage.

I am of the opinion that we have to continue to educate those closest to us, or we will never have a free economy.

I would like to hear a suggestion as to how to make American products less expensive by gov't intervention without creating a shortage.

Your challenge is a bit unfair as it presumes a starting point other than government intervention as if we have no government intervention. As such, I will draw this example from a starting point of "where we are now" so that I can illustrate how we can create incentives while maintaining some semblance of existing "entitlements" that are arguably unfair, but inarguably already exist.

If we took similar products, one which is imported that sells for $5, and one which is produced domestically that sells for $6, consumers will more than likely opt for the imported product that costs $5. Presuming the profit is identical for each product, the tax for each sale is the same. However, because unemployment taxes are based on payroll expenditures, the company producing the product domestically has to increase the price of the product by the difference in labor costs plus the amount of the tax to pay to unemployed Americans because they employ Americans!

If the government were to implement a tariff of $1 on the product, consumers would then make a choice between either product at the cost of $6, and may opt for the domestically produced product out of principle. However, the tariff will result in retaliatory tariffs, which will drastically reduce exports resulting in a major competitive disadvantage in the world market.

If we were to critically examine the problem, and accept that voters are not going to vote away their "entitlements," we can conclude that those who are unemployed are so more because of the company that imports its products than because of the company that produces its product domestically. Rather than tax the company that employs Americans, it seems superior to raise the rate of taxation on both companies, and provide a tax credit for domestic employment to the company that reduces the need for unemployment benefits in the first place.

Presuming the increased rate forces the company that imports its product and sells it for $5 to raise its price to $5.50 to maintain its profit margin, and eliminating the unemployment tax on payroll and reduced taxes through credit incentive allows the company that sells its product for $6 to reduce its cost to $5.50, consumers benefit by lower costs over tariffs. Furthermore, companies that choose to import products rather than employing Americans would consequently be paying for the "entitlements" to unemployed Americans rather than the companies that employ Americans.

While that may not be as desirable as removing minimum wage laws so companies can employ Americans for $1.50 per hour, it has more chance of succeeding than to convince Americans that they have no right to more than a company pays to employ a person in China. Also, not only will there not be retaliatory tariffs on American goods, we will merely be doing what other countries are already doing. Finally, it would also reduce costs on our exports making America more competitive in the global market.

I am of the opinion that we have to continue to educate those closest to us, or we will never have a free economy.

Good luck getting a majority that way! Ben Franklin thought an overthrow every twenty years or so was the only way to keep the country from becoming despotic!

If we tax imports to gain a competitive advantage with our domestic products, we are going to hurt Americans. For one, other nations will likely retaliate with a similar tariff on our products. More importantly, we are forcing American's to spend more than they would have to otherwise on the imported good. If there are 1 million products sold per year, $1 million dollars per year are being taken from Americans and put into the hands of the government that could have been spent elsewhere. We are also setting up an artificial market condition (the foreign product being of equal price is artificial). This artificial situation will affect how the domestic producer plans the production and marketing of the product.

When I have an extra minute, I will start a thread regarding tariffs, subsidies, etc. Protectionism is a flawed practice.

That's why I said tariffs are not the answer:

If the government were to implement a tariff of $1 on the product, consumers would then make a choice between either product at the cost of $6, and may opt for the domestically produced product out of principle. However, the tariff will result in retaliatory tariffs, which will drastically reduce exports resulting in a major competitive disadvantage in the world market.

I am suggesting that companies that produce unemployment pay for unemployment. It would, indeed, cost consumers more for imports, but less for domestic products. However, there would be a greater number of employed consumers who can choose between comparably priced imports and domestics.

Goldwing Tom wrote:That's why I said tariffs are not the answer:

If the government were to implement a tariff of $1 on the product, consumers would then make a choice between either product at the cost of $6, and may opt for the domestically produced product out of principle. However, the tariff will result in retaliatory tariffs, which will drastically reduce exports resulting in a major competitive disadvantage in the world market.

I am suggesting that companies that produce unemployment pay for unemployment. It would, indeed, cost consumers more for imports, but less for domestic products. However, there would be a greater number of employed consumers who can choose between comparably priced imports and domestics.

Companies can employ people, they can't un-employ people. You make it sound like companies owe people jobs. Of course companies do not owe anyone anything besides to respect others' God-given rights (which employment is not one of them) and to hold true to their contracts.

I can't help but realize the absurdity of these sort of tariffs. For one, it violates the idea of free trade, which was important to our Founding Fathers. Further, it takes away from the individuals' rights to buy goods at a lower price from another country. Just because American's can't produce a comparable car for the same price as Japan, doesn't mean that I should have to pay more for a Toyota than I already would. This is a moral issue, because you are stepping on my rights to buy a quality product for less. On a micro level, it is obvious why this is not right. If I find a guy that will sell me corn for $.25/pound from Mexico, why should I be prohibited to buy it from him without paying a fee to the government? Why should I be forced to pay $.40/pound (if that was the going rate) from a US farmer? This violates my right to voluntary exchange with just the Mexican farmer. This treats that right of voluntary exchange as a privilege, which it isn't.

Not only is this an ineffective practice, an immoral practice, but where does it end? How sucky does an American industry have to be in order for us to step out of the way and let it fail? If you think that there is no slippery slope here, you should read more about the textile industry in America. Here is a passage from a working paper found at http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=search&q=tariffs: "Almost 200 years later at the dawn of the 21st century, the United States Government protected 168,786 jobs in the textile and apparel industry at a cost of roughly $33.6 billion, makingthe annual cost per job saved in the industry just shy of $200,000." Talk about counter-productivity...

Protectionism rewards mediocre goods producers while punishing exceptional producers. How would we choose which industries we should "protect" and which we should allow to have fair competition? The market is the best determiner of which industries should survive. If a company can't survive in a particular industry because of foreign competition, they are not providing enough American's with enough deals that they find beneficial. When a business is not providing enough beneficial exchange opportunities for individuals, it is a drain on the economy. It draws resources away from other businesses and individuals such as labor, raw materials, and finished goods. Those resources will be reallocated if we allow those companies to fail. They will continue to be reallocated until they are aligned in a way that produces a win-win for the business and enough individuals to create a sustainably profitable business.

Finally, even if you do not realize the harm that tariffs cause by simply existing, you must realize the power that the government has when it has tools to mess with the economy. When you have a politician with that sort of power, it will end up abused. That is why we see such an abuse of subsidies, tariffs, and other tools of intervention.

You keep bringing up tariffs as if I am promoting tariffs. You are also bringing in ideals that do not exist, and will probably never exist. If one does not concern himself with whether his ideals are practical, then there are a lot of things that can be improved. However, if one must consider an ideal based upon reality, then perfect ideals are sometimes cast by the side.

Under existing taxation rules, domestic producers pay a quasi-tariff in the form of unemployment taxes. This is counter-productive. Companies that do not employ Americans do not pay the stipends to unemployed Americans. Whether it is moral or not, it exists, and will continue to exist. Ironically, companies that reduce unemployment in America through employment are charged these taxes, which must either be eaten from profits or added to the consumer cost. Again, whether it is moral or not, it exists and will continue to exist.

By reversing the taxation scheme, it is not a tariff on imported products; it is a credit for reducing the need for unemployment stipends. If you want to see it as adding cost to imports, so be it. It does. If you want to see it as leveling the playing field between imports and domestic products without adding tariffs, you will be able to do so by accepting that reality is what must be dealt with. Consumers are more likely to buy based on principles if there is not a significant cost difference.

Using your example of buying the corn from someone who imports it from Mexico at $.25 versus buying it from someone who sells domestic corn at $.40, you seem to fail to understand that a portion of that $.40 is because he pays $.07 in unemployment taxes. If that one factor were shifted, your choice would be imported corn at $.32 versus domestic corn at $.33. Not only does it shift your decision from the principle of thrift to the principle of what is good for America, the result is that more companies will choose to employ Americans because it does not affect their bottom line.

Our good forefathers are rolling in their graves if they can see what America has become. They may even suggest taking up arms against the government, just as they did against the governing body they revolted against. If that is not included in your plan, then you cannot emulate them. If it is in your plan, it will certainly fail. Even if you have a million guns, you only have two hands.

Goldwing Tom wrote:You keep bringing up tariffs as if I am promoting tariffs. You are also bringing in ideals that do not exist, and will probably never exist. If one does not concern himself with whether his ideals are practical, then there are a lot of things that can be improved. However, if one must consider an ideal based upon reality, then perfect ideals are sometimes cast by the side.

Under existing taxation rules, domestic producers pay a quasi-tariff in the form of unemployment taxes. This is counter-productive. Companies that do not employ Americans do not pay the stipends to unemployed Americans. Whether it is moral or not, it exists, and will continue to exist. Ironically, companies that reduce unemployment in America through employment are charged these taxes, which must either be eaten from profits or added to the consumer cost. Again, whether it is moral or not, it exists and will continue to exist.

By reversing the taxation scheme, it is not a tariff on imported products; it is a credit for reducing the need for unemployment stipends. If you want to see it as adding cost to imports, so be it. It does. If you want to see it as leveling the playing field between imports and domestic products without adding tariffs, you will be able to do so by accepting that reality is what must be dealt with. Consumers are more likely to buy based on principles if there is not a significant cost difference.

So you are basically saying giving tax credits to eliminate the paying of unemployment tax...? That is a great idea. I thought that you were saying tax imported goods. That is fair. I agree, we should not have employers paying an unemployment tax... it makes no sense.

I am arguing against taxing companies that outsource more heavily... I thought that is what you were suggesting, but I must have misread.

Goldwing Tom wrote:Using your example of buying the corn from someone who imports it from Mexico at $.25 versus buying it from someone who sells domestic corn at $.40, you seem to fail to understand that a portion of that $.40 is because he pays $.07 in unemployment taxes. If that one factor were shifted, your choice would be imported corn at $.32 versus domestic corn at $.33. Not only does it shift your decision from the principle of thrift to the principle of what is good for America, the result is that more companies will choose to employ Americans because it does not affect their bottom line.

So you are suggesting a tariff on an imported good. I agree with half of your proposal... to eliminate the unemployment tax. I do not agree with the tariff on imported goods to fund unemployment benefits for all of the reasons that I have already listed in previous posts.

Goldwing Tom wrote:Our good forefathers are rolling in their graves if they can see what America has become. They may even suggest taking up arms against the government, just as they did against the governing body they revolted against. If that is not included in your plan, then you cannot emulate them. If it is in your plan, it will certainly fail. Even if you have a million guns, you only have two hands.

I agree that the forefathers of this country would be sick and suggest revolution. I imagine that in this situation, they would try to have as effective of a revolution as possible (which probably wouldn't involve guns at this point).

Goldwing Tom wrote:You keep bringing up tariffs as if I am promoting tariffs. You are also bringing in ideals that do not exist, and will probably never exist. If one does not concern himself with whether his ideals are practical, then there are a lot of things that can be improved. However, if one must consider an ideal based upon reality, then perfect ideals are sometimes cast by the side.

I feel differently. I do not feel that the government being non-interventionist in our economy is not impossible or something that could only happen in a utopia. I feel that trying to refine interventionism is futile. We can refine all that we want, but the real answer is to get the government out of our economy. Maybe there is very little chance that the uSA will ever be free again... However, I am not going to waste my time trying to talk of tweaking interventionism to work just a little bit better. Instead, I will tell the truth about interventionism: that government intervention in economics is immoral and irresponsible. Will I change the opinion of a few hundred million Americans? Of course not. Will I be able to understand the markets more accurately and help others understand the benefits of individual liberty in the marketplace? I hope so. If not, I would not have any interest in economics or politics. What drives me, is the search for the truth of the matter.

Liberty is intriguing. I believe that once people realize the beauty of individual freedom, they will want it more than almost anything else. Regardless of whether or not someone else will recognize my individuality and my free agency, it is still grounded on something more solid than a rock. I love it and I believe that many people out there will love it too.

So you are suggesting a tariff on an imported good. I agree with half of your proposal... to eliminate the unemployment tax. I do not agree with the tariff on imported goods to fund unemployment benefits for all of the reasons that I have already listed in previous posts.

If there were a general tax rate increase, with a compensatory credit given for employment, it could be done without increasing the deficit or affecting what people consider entitlements. The result of the tax increase would increase prices (presuming businesses collect rather than pay taxes), but the credit would level the playing field for domestic products.

I feel it is very important to not increase the deficit, and virtually impossible to pass any change in which people will lose what they deem are entitlements. The tax increase is the only way to accomplish this mathematically.

I feel differently. I do not feel that the government being non-interventionist in our economy is not impossible or something that could only happen in a utopia. I feel that trying to refine interventionism is futile.

You are young. Let's see if you still feel that way in twenty-five years.

Did you read the article on Nozick? He died believing in his principle of economic justice (which is what yours sounds like), but he seems to have modified his view on whether it could be done between the time he wrote it (about thirty-five) and some of his later books.

I agree with your principles, but I disagree with your assessment that they will come about because this generation of people is special compared to previous generations. Keep in mind that both Socrates and Jesus Christ were executed.

[quote="Goldwing Tom"]

If there were a general tax rate increase, with a compensatory credit given for employment, it could be done without increasing the deficit or affecting what people consider entitlements. The result of the tax increase would increase prices (presuming businesses collect rather than pay taxes), but the credit would level the playing field for domestic products.

I feel it is very important to not increase the deficit, and virtually impossible to pass any change in which people will lose what they deem are entitlements. The tax increase is the only way to accomplish this mathematically.

If you think it is virtually impossible to decrease spending on entitlements, then you would have to realize that our economy is doomed anyway. If this is true, then there is no use in me hoping for any change, as that change would only delay the inevitable collapse of our economy.

The entitlements will be taken away one way or the other. If we keep printing money to meet our obligations, we will see the value of those Social Security, Welfare checks, and unemployment checks disappearing through hyperinflation. Either way, the market will not allow these entitlements to go on forever.

The only viable option is to cut spending. Either I will promote change, or I will be saying I told you so when this is all said and done. I won't suggest measures that are unsustainable, even if they are more likely to be passed into existence.

Goldwing Tom wrote:You are young. Let's see if you still feel that way in twenty-five years.

Did you read the article on Nozick? He died believing in his principle of economic justice (which is what yours sounds like), but he seems to have modified his view on whether it could be done between the time he wrote it (about thirty-five) and some of his later books.

I agree with your principles, but I disagree with your assessment that they will come about because this generation of people is special compared to previous generations. Keep in mind that both Socrates and Jesus Christ were executed.

I am young, relative to some. I hope that I never resign to defeat no matter how old I am. Ideas are gamechangers and are worth pursuing and promoting.

I feel that I might have given you the wrong impression... I am not predicting this sort of change, just advocating for it. I do not think that I am exceptional or that this generation is exceptional. I just can't live with myself if I am not honest and I can not suggest change that is unsustainable and inevitably fails.

Here is what Ludwig von Mises said... I think it pertains:

"Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore, everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us."

http://mises.org/story/3140

Here is a link that takes you to Henry Hazlitt's 70th birthday address. I find it inspiring and relevant.

That was an interesting read. His torch has been passed, but, alas, he is "the late Henry Hazlitt."

Of all the things you said, the one I most would encourage you to change is that you do not think of yourself as exceptional. To the contrary, you are a very impressive man who has the youth to carry the torches others, like Henry Hazlitt and Ludwig von Mises, have passed on to you. I would encourage you to carry forward the message with zeal, but to add to it something that I hope will inspire some thought.

In his message, Hazlitt said to remain brave enough to always say "two plus two equals four." While I have no argument that four can be achieved with two twos through addition, consider that four also can be achieved with two twos through multiplication and squaring.

So what does that mean?

To me, it means there are other ways to accomplish the same goals. If you are to succeed at doing what people like Hazlitt, Mises, and Mencken failed to do, you must change something in the equation. Society will remain comprised of people with human natures. When principles are pitted against natures, natures always win. The key, then, seems to be to not pit natures against principles, but rather to formulate the principles such that natures are not contrary to principles. I sincerely believe that most people will demonstrate principled behavior provided there are not benefits to abandon principles.

So, while I agree with you that free market is superior to socialism, it is a futile battle when it is pitted against "money for nothing." Money for nothing plays on the human natures of greed, gluttony, and sloth, whereas free markets require the principles of responsibility, hard work, and contribution to earn reward. If we suggest people merely give up their money for nothing, we will, too, one day be "the late" people who may have inspired someone else to carry the torch forward. However, if we find a way to not remove money for nothing, but to make money for nothing less likely to be demanded, then we have, in essence, moved closer to the ideal of a free market through reduced demand for money for nothing.

The average person does not understand complex thought. It is not because they are incapable, but because they simply think simply. They don't vote for the best candidate. They vote for the candidate with the best marketing slogan. If you are to utilize this phenomenon to your advantage, you have to come up with a better marketing slogan, or one that will compete with the marketing slogans that will oppose your ideals.

Rodney Dangerfield said when he was young he wanted to change the world. He still wanted to change the world as an old man, but his experiences suggested he could not. Hazlitt seemed to say something similar.

If you are to change that so you can look back on the changes you made, then, mathematically, you must do something differently. It has been written many times by many people that the worst mistake someone can make is to do the same thing and expect a different result.

Two plus two equals four. So do two times two and two squared. Hazlitt seemed to not mention that. Did he consider it? Who knows?

Will you consider it? You certainly seem capable, at least from my limited experiences with you.

Is it worth a shot? Who knows?

GT,

Thank you for thinking of me as someone with ability to make a difference.

I absolutely agree with almost everything you are saying. Here is what I am hearing, please correct me if I am wrong:

"Free market ideals are superior to Socialism, but they do not have the same appeal to the same people. In order to promote change to more libery and free'er markets, we have to find a creative way to motivate enough people to not hold their handouts higher than their freedom. This is difficult because people love their hand outs."

If that is, in fact, what you are saying, then I agree completely. This is the struggle. I appreciate your suggestion to think of a different approach, because that is the only chance to regain freedom in this country. It will take a dynamic approach and incredible patience to win liberty back in our markets and private lives.

Here's probably the way I would say it:

"Free market ideals will fall to socialism because businesses will always seek the highest profit, while consumers will always seek the lowest prices and vote for protections from the consequences. If the highest profit can be obtained through providing tax incentives, businesses will go after the tax incentives. If the lowest prices can be obtained through buying from companies seeking those tax incentives, consumers will buy those products. Though higher tax rates violate free market principles and promote socialism, the tax incentives leverage the natures of businesses and consumers to reduce the demand for socialism. The reduced demand for socialism will result in reduced supply of socialism. Though not free market, it utilizes free market principles to negate socialism in a way that is more marketable to the masses who vote for marketing slogans."

You will not convince enough people to give up their profits and hand outs (natures) to give them away for a free market (principles). Wtih very few exceptions, people will act principled only when it does not violate their natures.

I really don't feel this is complete, but I have an errand to run. Perhaps it's good enough, though, to give you the gist that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Goldwing Tom wrote:Here's probably the way I would say it:

"Free market ideals will fall to socialism because businesses will always seek the highest profit, while consumers will always seek the lowest prices and vote for protections from the consequences. If the highest profit can be obtained through providing tax incentives, businesses will go after the tax incentives. If the lowest prices can be obtained through buying from companies seeking those tax incentives, consumers will buy those products. Though higher tax rates violate free market principles and promote socialism, the tax incentives leverage the natures of businesses and consumers to reduce the demand for socialism. The reduced demand for socialism will result in reduced supply of socialism. Though not free market, it utilizes free market principles to negate socialism in a way that is more marketable to the masses who vote for marketing slogans."

You will not convince enough people to give up their profits and hand outs (natures) to give them away for a free market (principles). Wtih very few exceptions, people will act principled only when it does not violate their natures.

I really don't feel this is complete, but I have an errand to run. Perhaps it's good enough, though, to give you the gist that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Yeah, I respect your opinion, but I disagree. I think that our founding fathers showed us that such a situation is possible to create. Also, the most profitable for businesses AND individuals is the free market. Yes, a majority might vote for certain advantages, but we should have a constitution that does not allow this.

I hear what you are saying. You are saying that capitalism will inevitably fall into socialism because people will vote for their best interest. Since each person's interest is to receive preferential treatment from the government, you are saying, it will inevitably happen. Here is how I would see it: Socialism inevitably fails. The best and most clean way to eliminate government from corruption (which is what special treatment from the gov't is caused by), is to have a small government that has it's hands tied and is lawfully unable to have a hand in the economy. If we embrace the fact that there will likely be corruption, we are putting the nail in the coffin for the well being of the society. The only way to have a good and sustainable standard of living, a moral government, and individual freedom, is to get the government out of the economy. The fact that this CAN happen is evident because of early uS history. I think it can happen again. If not, the consequences will be nasty. Is it an uphill battle? Yes. Could it happen? Yes. Will it happen if all a lot of the people who know true economics give up the truth because they don't think others will listen? Not a chance.

We are approaching a real chance for change in economic policies. We are on the verge of what will be the largest financial crisis to ever hit the uSA. The uSA will not exit this crisis as the world power that it was during the 20th century. If there is any time to be educating and pushing freedom in the markets, it is now. Socialism is about to fail. What will replace it? That is not determined yet. There will be many people fighting on both sides to find out what sort of economy replaces ours that is soon to fail.

The government is already constrained by the Constitution. The founding fathers fought the government with guns. They created a country in a land with vast resources and relatively scant population. Their starting point was different than what the next revolution will have as its starting point. Their problems were different than today's problems.

They were fighting against taxation without representation. We now have representation, and an abundance of taxation.

The common denominator of all failed philosophies is that somehow, some way, people will become conscientious when they understand. The one word that causes the failure is "when." The day will never come that the general mass of people will understand. They will continue "adding things up" despite that our sight, our minds, and the universe are all naturally "deductive."

Perhaps America's socialism will devolve into a free market. It's never happened anywhere else before at any time in history, but maybe it will happen here soon.

GT,

What do you suggest then? It seems that you are of the opinion that there will be no way to gain more economic freedom. Are you suggesting that we do nothing? Or are you suggesting that we do something besides pursue economic freedom? Those are honest questions, not meant in a snide way at all. I understand that you find it hard to imagine that we could someday see economic freedom, but what is the alternative to promote? Is there an alternative in your mind?

Here is the problem that I am finding in this discussion: The problem that we face is interventionism. If we start with the assumption that interventionism will never be defeated, then what point in discussing furthering people's standard of living around the world? You see, we have too much of that already... People will assume that free markets can't work, until they see the evidence for themselves. Once they realize that it would work, they say that it won't happen, so why try. Well, I will argue that there is no effective interventionist policy. The fact that it is interventionist makes it unable to be better than if it were free.

Earlier in this thread we mentioned Ludwig von Mises and Henry Hazlitt. We noticed what they did not accomplish... Hopefully we can now also realize what the DID accomplish. We are having this discussion today, which we may not have had if they didn't pursue truth like they did. They have refuted socialism and left us with a legacy of the Austrian School of Economics. This is not a small thing. There are brilliant collections of writings on economics by Mises. Where all of their hard work will lead, I am not sure. Maybe it will be 10 generations down the line that a radical change in world government is accomplished. It might be that what I learn and the truth that I pursue is not going to change America today or tomorrow. However, it might change enough minds in a week, a month, a decade, or a couple of centuries after we are dead. Who knows. I guess one of the root issues for me is that I have something inside of me that wants to know the truth. Even though the consequences are unknown, I have always preferred the red pill to the blue.

Here is what I would suggest based on what you wrote:

Focus on children. Prejudices do not go away because of changed minds so much as through attrition.

I don't see the government just changing how they operate. Government has the same motives as businesses do in many ways, and significant advantages over businesses. Those who do not benefit from free market, i.e. government employees, will launch marketing campaigns against free market reforms. For example, if someone were to promote getting the federal government out of education, the campaign against them would use terms like "Vote no if you love children." If the responsible side does not have something equally simplistic, choosing to rely upon reason and formulas for how it would benefit children, they will almost certainly lose. After all, who doesn't love children?

I have a friend who is a college grad, and a home owner. He supported removing the super-majority requirement for school levies. I suggested that he try it in his own home by allowing his children to cast votes for things like 'what is for dinner' and 'what color to paint the house.' His retort was on the order of 'when they pay the bills, they can make those decisions.' I guess he didn't see the irony.

I admire your tenacity, but I believe it would be more productive to utilize economic theory to reduce demand for socialism through small tweaks that eventually achieve the end result. If demand drops, so will supply.

Yeah, I just had a baby girl, so I will definitely be raising her to know her stuff. I hope to reach as many people as I can... and I am sure that I will learn a lot along the way.

I think there will be one set of circumstances that can create enough of a disruption to create an opportunity for change: desperation. We are heading toward it. I do not think that good times will encourage a smaller government as much as difficult times and an undeniable set of failures of the government.

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3292051&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/

The Brain Train wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/video2/video08.html?maven_referralObject=3292051&maven_referralPlaylistId=&sRevUrl=http://www.foxnews.com/

I guess Obama has a redeeming quality.