Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
The question is what would have happened if all those saved banks had fallen?
There are banks who wouldn't get hit by this. You must know Triodos Bank (it's a so called ethical bank) in Belgium and the Netherlands.
Ofcourse this system is wrong and sick as banks have become way to important and powerful, but that's how it is at the moment and not likely that will change soon.
I think everyone agrees that the current system is sick. And it must change. By getting the government out of the financial system.
There are banks who wouldn't get hit by this. You must know Triodos Bank (it's a so called ethical bank) in Belgium and the Netherlands.
Ofcourse this system is wrong and sick as banks have become way to important and powerful, but that's how it is at the moment and not likely that will change soon.
I think everyone agrees that the current system is sick. And it must change. By getting the government out of the financial system.
Cypriots reject EU deal, crisis continues
The Cypriot government has overwhelmingly voted against a deal to bailout country's banks. Not a single MP supported the financial bailout package designed by international lenders. The bailout is deeply unpopular because it involves a levy on bank deposits. The debt crisis remains though, so emergency talks are now scheduled for Wednesday to save the country from going broke.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-20/cypriots-reject-eu-deal-crisis-continues/4584220
The Cypriot government has overwhelmingly voted against a deal to bailout country's banks. Not a single MP supported the financial bailout package designed by international lenders. The bailout is deeply unpopular because it involves a levy on bank deposits. The debt crisis remains though, so emergency talks are now scheduled for Wednesday to save the country from going broke.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-20/cypriots-reject-eu-deal-crisis-continues/4584220
However, it's dishonest to base it on false argument that taxing is theft.
It's not a false argument. From the libertarian POV, taxation is theft. All the arguments but one are irrelevant:
- You get something in return: that doesn't matter, if it's against my will, it's theft.
- Taxation is based on initiation of violence by the government: by not paying taxes, I'm not taking away anything from any one else.
- I do not owe the Belgian society anything because I am born here.
- It's voted democratically. So what? If we vote democratically to kill all the black people, should one accept that too?
The only relevant one is the one El Pupe once gave: the government / central bank is the institution that literally 'makes the money'. However, they are a monopolist and we don't have a choice in what money we use. That's why that monopoly must disappear, and everyone should be allowed to 'make' currencies. The ones that are the most reliable ones will be the ones used the most. In that case, the government has no 'right to tax'. So in fact, they make a monopoly, forbid everyone else to compete with them and then they say they can tax because they provide the currency. That's sick.
It's not a false argument. From the libertarian POV, taxation is theft. All the arguments but one are irrelevant:
- You get something in return: that doesn't matter, if it's against my will, it's theft.
- Taxation is based on initiation of violence by the government: by not paying taxes, I'm not taking away anything from any one else.
- I do not owe the Belgian society anything because I am born here.
- It's voted democratically. So what? If we vote democratically to kill all the black people, should one accept that too?
The only relevant one is the one El Pupe once gave: the government / central bank is the institution that literally 'makes the money'. However, they are a monopolist and we don't have a choice in what money we use. That's why that monopoly must disappear, and everyone should be allowed to 'make' currencies. The ones that are the most reliable ones will be the ones used the most. In that case, the government has no 'right to tax'. So in fact, they make a monopoly, forbid everyone else to compete with them and then they say they can tax because they provide the currency. That's sick.
And there are really few banks that doesn't own any bond of nobody outside their country.
They are rare, but they do exists. Like I said, there are ethical banks (who only invest in ethical projects, not in other financial products). Why should their customers pay a tax for the other banks?
If Euro falls with enormous disasters because of the banks of Cyprus, we really must burn those ignorant eurocrats at Bruxells..
Please don't burn Brussels along with it ;-)
They are rare, but they do exists. Like I said, there are ethical banks (who only invest in ethical projects, not in other financial products). Why should their customers pay a tax for the other banks?
If Euro falls with enormous disasters because of the banks of Cyprus, we really must burn those ignorant eurocrats at Bruxells..
Please don't burn Brussels along with it ;-)
It's not a false argument. From the libertarian POV, taxation is theft.
I agree,
and I can add that from communist POV, property is theft.
Maybe for som other POV ther will be other theft (I can imagine a lot of them!)
The point maybe is why to discuss ideological POV where other people discuss facts and consequences!
I agree,
and I can add that from communist POV, property is theft.
Maybe for som other POV ther will be other theft (I can imagine a lot of them!)
The point maybe is why to discuss ideological POV where other people discuss facts and consequences!
They are rare, but they do exists. Like I said, there are ethical banks (who only invest in ethical projects, not in other financial products). Why should their customers pay a tax for the other banks?
Yes, there are very few banks, but there are!
Why?
Because the deposit contract is a risky one (with a very low risk, but still present),
when you give something to someone, you always risk to lose it.
Please don't burn Brussels along with it ;-)
I won't, promise!
:P
Because the deposit contract is a risky one (with a very low risk, but still present),
when you give something to someone, you always risk to lose it.
Once again, read, please. Why should customers of banks who are not on the edge of bankruptcy pay to save the other banks?
when you give something to someone, you always risk to lose it.
Once again, read, please. Why should customers of banks who are not on the edge of bankruptcy pay to save the other banks?
I read..
but you must start to accept answers that you don't like.
You made a contract with a bank.
A gov make a tax on that bank, that bank pay, you pay!
You ask "why?"
I answer because you signed a riscky contract that make possible to happen that.. you get some advantages on giving money to bank, but you must be aware of the fact that youo take some risk too..
If your "why?" means if is right that it happens, well I think is useless to discuss about it.
Those are the rules of the game. We always forget them, but..
(edited)
but you must start to accept answers that you don't like.
You made a contract with a bank.
A gov make a tax on that bank, that bank pay, you pay!
You ask "why?"
I answer because you signed a riscky contract that make possible to happen that.. you get some advantages on giving money to bank, but you must be aware of the fact that youo take some risk too..
If your "why?" means if is right that it happens, well I think is useless to discuss about it.
Those are the rules of the game. We always forget them, but..
(edited)
A gov make a tax on that bank, that bank pay, you pay!
That's not what this is about. The bank doesn't make you pay. The government taxes you to save other banks. It's a direct tax on the customers. (For the customers of the healthy banks.)
you get some advantages on giving money to bank, but you must be aware of the fact that youo take some risk too..
I know. But I don't have to pay for OTHER people their risk, do I? That's the point.
You either can't understand English or you refuse to read it.
(edited)
That's not what this is about. The bank doesn't make you pay. The government taxes you to save other banks. It's a direct tax on the customers. (For the customers of the healthy banks.)
you get some advantages on giving money to bank, but you must be aware of the fact that youo take some risk too..
I know. But I don't have to pay for OTHER people their risk, do I? That's the point.
You either can't understand English or you refuse to read it.
(edited)
That's not what this is about. The bank doesn't make you pay. The government taxes you to save other banks. It's a direct tax on the customers. (For the customers of the healthy banks.)
you are right but the sense remains the same.
know. But I don't have to pay for OTHER people their risk, do I? That's the point.
It is unavoidable. That's the answer you still miss.
that is one of the risks of that contract you made...
Anyway, this discussion is useless.
You pretend to demonstrate an injustice in taxation, I don't have any interest in this question, i think is useless to discuss about justice, ideologies or morality about taxation.
I have a lot more interest for the mechanisms that will rule this situation, now that Cyprus parliament refuse the "saving" plan.
And now? What is going to happen?
you are right but the sense remains the same.
know. But I don't have to pay for OTHER people their risk, do I? That's the point.
It is unavoidable. That's the answer you still miss.
that is one of the risks of that contract you made...
Anyway, this discussion is useless.
You pretend to demonstrate an injustice in taxation, I don't have any interest in this question, i think is useless to discuss about justice, ideologies or morality about taxation.
I have a lot more interest for the mechanisms that will rule this situation, now that Cyprus parliament refuse the "saving" plan.
And now? What is going to happen?
Okay. I'll deliver you a bread tomorrow, whether you like it or not. You're going to pay for it. Implied conduct you know.
No, I won't. I didn't eat it. And if you violently put it in my mouth, that's assault. So no money for you. But:
Have you ever been to school? Did you step on the pavement, or any public place? Did you enjoy the protection of the police?
If you didn't, then probably nobody knows, you exist, so you don't have to pay taxes. If you did, that's implied conduct for you.
Yes, because that [Sub-Saharan Africa] is the example of a libertarian society.
I didn't talk about libertarianism. That's the example of a semi-anarchist society, because you want a society without taxes. These states work independently from their society, so they don't collect taxes from most people. Of course even these countries collect some taxes from mayor companies like mining - they're not perfect just close example.
An example for libertarian society is the USA. That's not a perfect example either in reality nothing is so pure like an economic model. But it's based on libertarianism. Still there's a lot of taxes there, so for you, it's irrelevant.
Btw, could you give me an example of your version of "libertarian" society? I'm really curious.
No, I won't. I didn't eat it. And if you violently put it in my mouth, that's assault. So no money for you. But:
Have you ever been to school? Did you step on the pavement, or any public place? Did you enjoy the protection of the police?
If you didn't, then probably nobody knows, you exist, so you don't have to pay taxes. If you did, that's implied conduct for you.
Yes, because that [Sub-Saharan Africa] is the example of a libertarian society.
I didn't talk about libertarianism. That's the example of a semi-anarchist society, because you want a society without taxes. These states work independently from their society, so they don't collect taxes from most people. Of course even these countries collect some taxes from mayor companies like mining - they're not perfect just close example.
An example for libertarian society is the USA. That's not a perfect example either in reality nothing is so pure like an economic model. But it's based on libertarianism. Still there's a lot of taxes there, so for you, it's irrelevant.
Btw, could you give me an example of your version of "libertarian" society? I'm really curious.
No, I won't. I didn't eat it.
Exactly. One should pay what one consumes.
Have you ever been to school? Did you step on the pavement, or any public place? Did you enjoy the protection of the police?
Yes. Yes. Yes.
The point is that I don't have a choice. I am obliged to go to school until the age of 18. Of course I stepped on the pavement, how could I else, the government has a monopoly on it. The same for the police.
I didn't talk about libertarianism. That's the example of a semi-anarchist society, because you want a society without taxes.
It has nothing to do with semi-anarchism. It's libertarianism. I want a libertarian society. People often say/think that I'm an anarchist, but I'm really not: I'm not a collectivist.
An example for libertarian society is the USA.
That's a good one. The USA is in no way a libertarian society. It's more libertarian than Belgium and the other Western European countries. Still very, very, very far away from a libertarian society. Calling the USA an example of libertarianism is like calling Stalin's Soviet Union an example of socialism. It's really not.
Btw, could you give me an example of your version of "libertarian" society? I'm really curious.
Like I already said, Liechtenstein. No coincidence that their monarch (Hans-Adam II) is a libertarian. It's not a perfect example (still some taxes, although at a rate of 1-2%; a monarchy which conflicts with the libertarian principles) but it's rather close.
Exactly. One should pay what one consumes.
Have you ever been to school? Did you step on the pavement, or any public place? Did you enjoy the protection of the police?
Yes. Yes. Yes.
The point is that I don't have a choice. I am obliged to go to school until the age of 18. Of course I stepped on the pavement, how could I else, the government has a monopoly on it. The same for the police.
I didn't talk about libertarianism. That's the example of a semi-anarchist society, because you want a society without taxes.
It has nothing to do with semi-anarchism. It's libertarianism. I want a libertarian society. People often say/think that I'm an anarchist, but I'm really not: I'm not a collectivist.
An example for libertarian society is the USA.
That's a good one. The USA is in no way a libertarian society. It's more libertarian than Belgium and the other Western European countries. Still very, very, very far away from a libertarian society. Calling the USA an example of libertarianism is like calling Stalin's Soviet Union an example of socialism. It's really not.
Btw, could you give me an example of your version of "libertarian" society? I'm really curious.
Like I already said, Liechtenstein. No coincidence that their monarch (Hans-Adam II) is a libertarian. It's not a perfect example (still some taxes, although at a rate of 1-2%; a monarchy which conflicts with the libertarian principles) but it's rather close.
It's not a false argument. From the libertarian POV, taxation is theft.
That's like saying "it's not a false argument, because from the Pastafarian POV, the world is a flying bowl of spaghetti".
Good for them, but it is still false :P
Having said that, calling the Cyprus levy a tax is a huge euphemism. It is pure expropriation - and yes, you can always replace expropriation with "tax", if I expropriate your house I can also claim that I'm applying a >100% tax on the profits you are making out of it.
But, let's not forget, when a government wants to tax something, say, cigarettes, it passes a law setting the tax, and then I decide whether to smoke and pay it. Freezing all your decisions until I set the "tax" simply shows that the government is not taxing deposits, it is simply confiscating already deposited money.
By the way, wrt arguments in the line of "hey, debt is risky": well, it turns out deposits are not simple debts, but they actually have a public guarantee on them, which all EU countries agreed to extend to every euro below 100,000 per account/person. So when Eruopeans, including Cypriots, held bank deposits, they could only expect losses after getting the first 100,000 back. Not that expropriating only after 100,000 is great, but is a minimum. The initial proposal was so crazy that I had a hard time convincing myself it was not Argentina but somewhere else :P
That's like saying "it's not a false argument, because from the Pastafarian POV, the world is a flying bowl of spaghetti".
Good for them, but it is still false :P
Having said that, calling the Cyprus levy a tax is a huge euphemism. It is pure expropriation - and yes, you can always replace expropriation with "tax", if I expropriate your house I can also claim that I'm applying a >100% tax on the profits you are making out of it.
But, let's not forget, when a government wants to tax something, say, cigarettes, it passes a law setting the tax, and then I decide whether to smoke and pay it. Freezing all your decisions until I set the "tax" simply shows that the government is not taxing deposits, it is simply confiscating already deposited money.
By the way, wrt arguments in the line of "hey, debt is risky": well, it turns out deposits are not simple debts, but they actually have a public guarantee on them, which all EU countries agreed to extend to every euro below 100,000 per account/person. So when Eruopeans, including Cypriots, held bank deposits, they could only expect losses after getting the first 100,000 back. Not that expropriating only after 100,000 is great, but is a minimum. The initial proposal was so crazy that I had a hard time convincing myself it was not Argentina but somewhere else :P
The point is that I don't have a choice. I am obliged to go to school until the age of 18. Of course I stepped on the pavement, how could I else, the government has a monopoly on it. The same for the police.
So you just want the services, but you don't want to pay for it.
I'm not a collectivist.
Some anarchists are collectivist, but not the anarcho-capitalists. They sound quite similar to you.
calling Stalin's Soviet Union an example of socialism
Socialism and libertarianism are huge aggregations, that have different sub-ideas. Stalinism was a very radical and distorted form of socialism, like anarcho-capitalism is a very radical and distorted form of the huge libertarian family of ideas.
Lichtenstein: very interesting.
A state partially living from the taxes of offshore companies, and half of it's tasks are actually handled by Switzerland. It also has a fair rate of real-estate tax. But it's basic personal income tax is really low indeed.
There are several small countries like Lichtenstein, living from being a tax paradise. That means they are also massively living from taxation. It can be low because the number of companies are artificially overrepresented. If everyone would do the same, they wouldn't be able to continue it.
So you say that a country should be small, and become an offshore-paradise. Maybe you should think about declaring the independence of a district of Brussels, or whatever town you live in.
But I know a better example: Arabian oil-monarchies. They don't impose taxes on their private citizens, they even pay them money for doing nothing. Veeery "libertarian" isn't it?
So you just want the services, but you don't want to pay for it.
I'm not a collectivist.
Some anarchists are collectivist, but not the anarcho-capitalists. They sound quite similar to you.
calling Stalin's Soviet Union an example of socialism
Socialism and libertarianism are huge aggregations, that have different sub-ideas. Stalinism was a very radical and distorted form of socialism, like anarcho-capitalism is a very radical and distorted form of the huge libertarian family of ideas.
Lichtenstein: very interesting.
A state partially living from the taxes of offshore companies, and half of it's tasks are actually handled by Switzerland. It also has a fair rate of real-estate tax. But it's basic personal income tax is really low indeed.
There are several small countries like Lichtenstein, living from being a tax paradise. That means they are also massively living from taxation. It can be low because the number of companies are artificially overrepresented. If everyone would do the same, they wouldn't be able to continue it.
So you say that a country should be small, and become an offshore-paradise. Maybe you should think about declaring the independence of a district of Brussels, or whatever town you live in.
But I know a better example: Arabian oil-monarchies. They don't impose taxes on their private citizens, they even pay them money for doing nothing. Veeery "libertarian" isn't it?
So you just want the services, but you don't want to pay for it.
No. I want the services I prefer and I am willing to pay for it.
Some anarchists are collectivist, but not the anarcho-capitalists. They sound quite similar to you.
Yes, but people often put them all together in one group. Anarchocapitalism is very different from anarchism. I'm not an anarchocapitalist by the way, I'm a minarchist.
There are several small countries like Lichtenstein, living from being a tax paradise. That means they are also massively living from taxation. It can be low because the number of companies are artificially overrepresented. If everyone would do the same, they wouldn't be able to continue it.
That's why I'm in favor of small countries. Small countries (like Liechtenstein) increase the possibility to vote with the feet. Then I could move to states that suit me without moving thousands of kilometers.
Maybe you should think about declaring the independence of a district of Brussels, or whatever town you live in.
I have no problem with independence for Brussels.
They don't impose taxes on their private citizens, they even pay them money for doing nothing. Veeery "libertarian" isn't it?
No. Giving money away (by the state) is not libertarian. Besides that, libertarianism isn't only about the economic aspects of life. Freedom of speech is one of the key elements too, and let's agree that the Middle-East is not a heaven for freedom of speech.
No. I want the services I prefer and I am willing to pay for it.
Some anarchists are collectivist, but not the anarcho-capitalists. They sound quite similar to you.
Yes, but people often put them all together in one group. Anarchocapitalism is very different from anarchism. I'm not an anarchocapitalist by the way, I'm a minarchist.
There are several small countries like Lichtenstein, living from being a tax paradise. That means they are also massively living from taxation. It can be low because the number of companies are artificially overrepresented. If everyone would do the same, they wouldn't be able to continue it.
That's why I'm in favor of small countries. Small countries (like Liechtenstein) increase the possibility to vote with the feet. Then I could move to states that suit me without moving thousands of kilometers.
Maybe you should think about declaring the independence of a district of Brussels, or whatever town you live in.
I have no problem with independence for Brussels.
They don't impose taxes on their private citizens, they even pay them money for doing nothing. Veeery "libertarian" isn't it?
No. Giving money away (by the state) is not libertarian. Besides that, libertarianism isn't only about the economic aspects of life. Freedom of speech is one of the key elements too, and let's agree that the Middle-East is not a heaven for freedom of speech.
Small countries (like Liechtenstein) increase the possibility to vote with the feet. Then I could move to states that suit me without moving thousands of kilometers.
:D Really? :D Is it really why you like Lichtenstein? Because you are just too lazy to travel if you want to leave? :D
Btw, as I recall you don't like euro. How come, that your favourite country doesn't have a national currency, it uses CHF?
No. I want the services I prefer and I am willing to pay for it.
What's your problem, with Africa then? For example there is security: You could decide to protect yourself, buying a Kalashnikov and maybe hiring some bodyguards, or you could pay to a warlord of your choice. In some countries there are several of them to choose.
I'm not an anarchocapitalist by the way, I'm a minarchist.
Aha! So now you are not libertarian, but a minarchist. Problem is, that minarchists think that central governments should exist, security should be non-profit monopoly, so a minimal taxation should exist too. There were taxation in the 19th century, where that idea belongs to.
:D Really? :D Is it really why you like Lichtenstein? Because you are just too lazy to travel if you want to leave? :D
Btw, as I recall you don't like euro. How come, that your favourite country doesn't have a national currency, it uses CHF?
No. I want the services I prefer and I am willing to pay for it.
What's your problem, with Africa then? For example there is security: You could decide to protect yourself, buying a Kalashnikov and maybe hiring some bodyguards, or you could pay to a warlord of your choice. In some countries there are several of them to choose.
I'm not an anarchocapitalist by the way, I'm a minarchist.
Aha! So now you are not libertarian, but a minarchist. Problem is, that minarchists think that central governments should exist, security should be non-profit monopoly, so a minimal taxation should exist too. There were taxation in the 19th century, where that idea belongs to.