Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
Topic closed!!!
Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD
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.
Because you are just too lazy to travel if you want to leave? :D
No. It's because competition is good. Whether the good is bread or a law system.
Btw, as I recall you don't like euro. How come, that your favourite country doesn't have a national currency, it uses CHF?
Have I ever said that a country must have its own currency? In contrary, I am against national currencies (and against supernational currencies). Once again: competition is good.
What's your problem, with Africa then?
That there is de facto no law system. And the laws that do exist, are not very libertarian. Once gain, I'm not an anarchocapitalist.
Aha! So now you are not libertarian, but a minarchist.
No. Within libertarianism, I'm a minarchist. I'm not sure if you understand what libertarianism is. Minarchism is - just like anarchocapitalism - positioned within libertarianism.
Problem is, that minarchists think that central governments should exist, security should be non-profit monopoly, so a minimal taxation should exist too.
If you think that's true, you don't understand what minarchism is either.
No. It's because competition is good. Whether the good is bread or a law system.
Btw, as I recall you don't like euro. How come, that your favourite country doesn't have a national currency, it uses CHF?
Have I ever said that a country must have its own currency? In contrary, I am against national currencies (and against supernational currencies). Once again: competition is good.
What's your problem, with Africa then?
That there is de facto no law system. And the laws that do exist, are not very libertarian. Once gain, I'm not an anarchocapitalist.
Aha! So now you are not libertarian, but a minarchist.
No. Within libertarianism, I'm a minarchist. I'm not sure if you understand what libertarianism is. Minarchism is - just like anarchocapitalism - positioned within libertarianism.
Problem is, that minarchists think that central governments should exist, security should be non-profit monopoly, so a minimal taxation should exist too.
If you think that's true, you don't understand what minarchism is either.
Minarchism is - just like anarchocapitalism - positioned within libertarianism.
Yes, that's what I told you 2 comments ago. Earlier you were representing the whole libertarian spectrum (which is quite big), stating that anarchy doesn't exist within libertarianism, because it's collectivist.
Now my problem is, that you say, the USA is not libertarian, but Liechtenstein is. It's true that taxes are lower in the rent-seeker Liechtenstein. But they have quite an extensive social system. For example ALL of their citizens have to have healthcare insurance, while in the USA insurance is still not obligatory (not even with Obamacare).
You as a minarchist should defy welfare states like Liechtenstein for wasting tax-payers money, and should like the American system more. Or maybe not?
If you think that's true, you don't understand what minarchism is either.
Well, describe it!
Yes, that's what I told you 2 comments ago. Earlier you were representing the whole libertarian spectrum (which is quite big), stating that anarchy doesn't exist within libertarianism, because it's collectivist.
Now my problem is, that you say, the USA is not libertarian, but Liechtenstein is. It's true that taxes are lower in the rent-seeker Liechtenstein. But they have quite an extensive social system. For example ALL of their citizens have to have healthcare insurance, while in the USA insurance is still not obligatory (not even with Obamacare).
You as a minarchist should defy welfare states like Liechtenstein for wasting tax-payers money, and should like the American system more. Or maybe not?
If you think that's true, you don't understand what minarchism is either.
Well, describe it!
Yes, that's what I told you 2 comments ago. Earlier you were representing the whole libertarian spectrum (which is quite big), stating that anarchy doesn't exist within libertarianism, because it's collectivist.
I never said I represented the whole libertarian spectrum. I represent myself.
You as a minarchist should defy welfare states like Liechtenstein for wasting tax-payers money, and should like the American system more. Or maybe not?
Yes. But the point is that in Liechtenstein - relatively - less taxpayers' money is wasted because in total, taxes are lower in Liechtenstein.
Well, describe it!
Educate yourself.
I never said I represented the whole libertarian spectrum. I represent myself.
You as a minarchist should defy welfare states like Liechtenstein for wasting tax-payers money, and should like the American system more. Or maybe not?
Yes. But the point is that in Liechtenstein - relatively - less taxpayers' money is wasted because in total, taxes are lower in Liechtenstein.
Well, describe it!
Educate yourself.
Educate yourself.
Ok, here is an article.
"But how far can one take the free market? Can it handle absolutely all the essential services of society, including defense and justice? Here libertarians split: some, the individualist anarchists, answer yes, but others, often termed minarchists, decline to go this far."
And:
"Often, but not always, as Tibor Machan anxiously reminds us, minarchists favor taxation to pay for these services."
Ok, so we get closer: you're in the minority of minarchists. :)
But the point is that in Liechtenstein - relatively - less taxpayers' money is wasted because in total, taxes are lower in Liechtenstein.
And in Arabia taxes are negative. I don't see why this is minarchy, or any kind of ideology. You just hate taxes. That's not a problem, nobody likes them.
Ok, here is an article.
"But how far can one take the free market? Can it handle absolutely all the essential services of society, including defense and justice? Here libertarians split: some, the individualist anarchists, answer yes, but others, often termed minarchists, decline to go this far."
And:
"Often, but not always, as Tibor Machan anxiously reminds us, minarchists favor taxation to pay for these services."
Ok, so we get closer: you're in the minority of minarchists. :)
But the point is that in Liechtenstein - relatively - less taxpayers' money is wasted because in total, taxes are lower in Liechtenstein.
And in Arabia taxes are negative. I don't see why this is minarchy, or any kind of ideology. You just hate taxes. That's not a problem, nobody likes them.
Ok, so we get closer: you're in the minority of minarchists. :)
Exactly. I'm a minarchist who says defense and justice can be paid without levying taxes.
I don't see why this is minarchy, or any kind of ideology.
What do you mean by 'this', because I never said the Arab states are minarchist.
You just hate taxes.
I hate the lack of freedom and theft, yes.
Exactly. I'm a minarchist who says defense and justice can be paid without levying taxes.
I don't see why this is minarchy, or any kind of ideology.
What do you mean by 'this', because I never said the Arab states are minarchist.
You just hate taxes.
I hate the lack of freedom and theft, yes.
...defense and justice can be paid without levying taxes.
How? Your favorite state is living from taxes too.
I never said the Arab states are minarchist.
You said, that Liechtenstein is libertarian, which is quite the same bs, because it's a welfare state.
I hate the lack of freedom and theft, yes.
That's not an ideology. That's what the "this" refers to.
How? Your favorite state is living from taxes too.
I never said the Arab states are minarchist.
You said, that Liechtenstein is libertarian, which is quite the same bs, because it's a welfare state.
I hate the lack of freedom and theft, yes.
That's not an ideology. That's what the "this" refers to.
How?
Make the fines fines high enough to cover the costs of the justice-system.
For defense, it's a bit more difficult. In short (so I'm simplifying): send letters to all citizens saying you need X euro (for instance: 10 billion euro) to offer the service of defense. The contract only works if enough money is gathered. If not, the contract is annulled immediately and no defense service is provided. This way, people will be stimulated to pay for it. (This is very short!)
You said, that Liechtenstein is libertarian
No I didn't. I said it was the state on Earth that was the closest to it. Nuance is something you need in a discussion. So please respect the nuances I say. Liechtenstein is not a libertarian state. There is currently no libertarian state, and actually, there never has been one in the past.
That's not an ideology.
It is. It's called libertarianism. You can disagree with it, but that doesn't make it any less than an ideology. I'm not saying socialism isn't an ideology because I (heavily) oppose it.
Make the fines fines high enough to cover the costs of the justice-system.
For defense, it's a bit more difficult. In short (so I'm simplifying): send letters to all citizens saying you need X euro (for instance: 10 billion euro) to offer the service of defense. The contract only works if enough money is gathered. If not, the contract is annulled immediately and no defense service is provided. This way, people will be stimulated to pay for it. (This is very short!)
You said, that Liechtenstein is libertarian
No I didn't. I said it was the state on Earth that was the closest to it. Nuance is something you need in a discussion. So please respect the nuances I say. Liechtenstein is not a libertarian state. There is currently no libertarian state, and actually, there never has been one in the past.
That's not an ideology.
It is. It's called libertarianism. You can disagree with it, but that doesn't make it any less than an ideology. I'm not saying socialism isn't an ideology because I (heavily) oppose it.
How? - [ANSWER]
Well, at least you wrote something.
I said it was the state on Earth that was the closest to it.
Liechtenstein is quite the opposite with it's social system. USA is closer actually.
actually, there never has been one in the past.
There were a lot. 19th century laissez-faire states were libertarian. Not having taxes is anarcho-capitalist + you. Libertarian can mean other things too.
It's called libertarianism.
If that would be libertarianism, than everybody would be a libertarian, which is not true. Socialists and conservatives don't like taxes either.
Well, at least you wrote something.
I said it was the state on Earth that was the closest to it.
Liechtenstein is quite the opposite with it's social system. USA is closer actually.
actually, there never has been one in the past.
There were a lot. 19th century laissez-faire states were libertarian. Not having taxes is anarcho-capitalist + you. Libertarian can mean other things too.
It's called libertarianism.
If that would be libertarianism, than everybody would be a libertarian, which is not true. Socialists and conservatives don't like taxes either.
Liechtenstein is quite the opposite with it's social system. USA is closer actually.
Depends on how you look at it. What is - for me - most essential - given that social freedoms (like free speech) are respected - is the level of taxes. In that case, Liechtenstein is closer. By the way, what does it matter what example is closer?
There were a lot. 19th century laissez-faire states were libertarian.
They were not. See freedom of speech (and often legalized death penalty and/or slavery).
Socialists and conservatives don't like taxes either.
I don't know what socialists you have in Hungary, but socialists like the idea of taxes. They might not like to pay them (although a true socialist should like to pay them), but they like the concept of taxation.
Depends on how you look at it. What is - for me - most essential - given that social freedoms (like free speech) are respected - is the level of taxes. In that case, Liechtenstein is closer. By the way, what does it matter what example is closer?
There were a lot. 19th century laissez-faire states were libertarian.
They were not. See freedom of speech (and often legalized death penalty and/or slavery).
Socialists and conservatives don't like taxes either.
I don't know what socialists you have in Hungary, but socialists like the idea of taxes. They might not like to pay them (although a true socialist should like to pay them), but they like the concept of taxation.
Liechtenstein is not a libertarian state. There is currently no libertarian state, and actually, there never has been one in the past.
I think I heard it before..
..I can't remember...
Oh yes, it was the same for communism!
:PpPp
(edited)
I think I heard it before..
..I can't remember...
Oh yes, it was the same for communism!
:PpPp
(edited)
They were not. See freedom of speech (and often legalized death penalty and/or slavery).
Speech was free with restrictions, like nowadays. For total freedom of speech without restrictions, see Rwanda '94. But political liberalism differs from economic libertarianism. For example Pinochet tried libertarian reforms within an autocracy, and for a time, it worked.
And your utopia is a good example too, because your idea's police and court is interested in fining people instead of justice, and the court is not financially independent. So your idea is not democratic either, yet you call it libertarian.
socialists like the idea of taxes.
Nope. They think, that a state must have more tasks, than the libertarians. So they accept that higher taxes are needed. The vast majority of libertarians also think that a state is needed with limited tasks, and they accept that some taxes are needed. Both think that taxes should be as low as possible to successfully complete the tasks.
Btw did you know that in many countries with planned economy taxes were minimal or zero? For example in Hungary, most taxes were introduced around 1990. Why would be taxes needed, if everything is state property? Maybe you should try living in North Korea after all. :P
So as you can see, level of taxes is not everything. For example Liechtenstein exploits it's main resource: the fact that they are (relatively) very small, so they can profitably accept the bribes from the semi-legal and illegal world. Thus they can maintain their leftist welfare state form very low taxes too.
a true socialist should like to pay them [the taxes]
I see, you have only heard about socialists from Romney speeches. :D
(edited)
Speech was free with restrictions, like nowadays. For total freedom of speech without restrictions, see Rwanda '94. But political liberalism differs from economic libertarianism. For example Pinochet tried libertarian reforms within an autocracy, and for a time, it worked.
And your utopia is a good example too, because your idea's police and court is interested in fining people instead of justice, and the court is not financially independent. So your idea is not democratic either, yet you call it libertarian.
socialists like the idea of taxes.
Nope. They think, that a state must have more tasks, than the libertarians. So they accept that higher taxes are needed. The vast majority of libertarians also think that a state is needed with limited tasks, and they accept that some taxes are needed. Both think that taxes should be as low as possible to successfully complete the tasks.
Btw did you know that in many countries with planned economy taxes were minimal or zero? For example in Hungary, most taxes were introduced around 1990. Why would be taxes needed, if everything is state property? Maybe you should try living in North Korea after all. :P
So as you can see, level of taxes is not everything. For example Liechtenstein exploits it's main resource: the fact that they are (relatively) very small, so they can profitably accept the bribes from the semi-legal and illegal world. Thus they can maintain their leftist welfare state form very low taxes too.
a true socialist should like to pay them [the taxes]
I see, you have only heard about socialists from Romney speeches. :D
(edited)
For total freedom of speech without restrictions, see Rwanda '94.
Yes, because freedom of speech gives me the right to slaughter another race. Is this stupidity or ignorance?
Let me quote myself from this topic's page 12:
"No. You say I made a confusion between Freedom of thought and Freedom of speech, but you confuse Freedom of speech and Freedom of acting. Freedom of speech stops right there where someone else's rights are violated. Threatening is still a crime. I just wanted to say that I think everyone should have the 'right' to say something, even if it is very insulting to other people."
So no, the Rwandan Genocide is not an expression of free speech. So I ask you again: is this stupidity or ignorance?
But political liberalism differs from economic libertarianism.
Political libertarianism (or classic liberalism) is combining right economic ideas with libertarian social ideas.
For example Liechtenstein exploits it's main resource: the fact that they are (relatively) very small, so they can profitably accept the bribes from the semi-legal and illegal world.
What bribes?
I see, you have only heard about socialists from Romney speeches.
No. I live in Belgium. Believe me, I know socialists.
Yes, because freedom of speech gives me the right to slaughter another race. Is this stupidity or ignorance?
Let me quote myself from this topic's page 12:
"No. You say I made a confusion between Freedom of thought and Freedom of speech, but you confuse Freedom of speech and Freedom of acting. Freedom of speech stops right there where someone else's rights are violated. Threatening is still a crime. I just wanted to say that I think everyone should have the 'right' to say something, even if it is very insulting to other people."
So no, the Rwandan Genocide is not an expression of free speech. So I ask you again: is this stupidity or ignorance?
But political liberalism differs from economic libertarianism.
Political libertarianism (or classic liberalism) is combining right economic ideas with libertarian social ideas.
For example Liechtenstein exploits it's main resource: the fact that they are (relatively) very small, so they can profitably accept the bribes from the semi-legal and illegal world.
What bribes?
I see, you have only heard about socialists from Romney speeches.
No. I live in Belgium. Believe me, I know socialists.
What bribes?
Accepting money for keeping the secret of semi-legal or illegal business.
So no, the Rwandan Genocide is not an expression of free speech.
Telling the exact location of the fleeing tutsies without directly saying to kill them was legal according to Rwanda's laws about free speech. And generally saying that tutsies should be killed was also.
but:
Freedom of speech stops right there where someone else's rights are violated.
I see you also think some restrictions are needed. For example if you don't want to violate others rights to human dignity, you can't say lots of thing.
Political libertarianism (or classic liberalism) is combining right economic ideas with libertarian social ideas.
So you say that independent justice is not needed to classify politically liberal? Because I think political liberalism's basics includes human rights and freedom, the others are results. Providing basic human rights is the least minimum.
No. I live in Belgium. Believe me, I know socialists.
Yes, because politicians usually very authentically represent their so called ideas. Is this stupidity or ignorance?
(edited)
Accepting money for keeping the secret of semi-legal or illegal business.
So no, the Rwandan Genocide is not an expression of free speech.
Telling the exact location of the fleeing tutsies without directly saying to kill them was legal according to Rwanda's laws about free speech. And generally saying that tutsies should be killed was also.
but:
Freedom of speech stops right there where someone else's rights are violated.
I see you also think some restrictions are needed. For example if you don't want to violate others rights to human dignity, you can't say lots of thing.
Political libertarianism (or classic liberalism) is combining right economic ideas with libertarian social ideas.
So you say that independent justice is not needed to classify politically liberal? Because I think political liberalism's basics includes human rights and freedom, the others are results. Providing basic human rights is the least minimum.
No. I live in Belgium. Believe me, I know socialists.
Yes, because politicians usually very authentically represent their so called ideas. Is this stupidity or ignorance?
(edited)
Accepting money for keeping the secret of semi-legal or illegal business.
As long as the laws of Liechtenstein aren't broken, there is no bribe. You try to change the content of words to make them fit your story, but I'm not going along with that.
For example if you don't want to violate others rights to human dignity, you can't say lots of thing.
There is no 'right on human dignity'. There is a 'right to live' though. That's why saying Tutsi's should be killed is a threat and therefore cannot be considered an opinion (an opinion is always non-violent).
So you say that independent justice is not needed to classify politically liberal?
Dafuq?
Because I think political liberalism's basics includes human rights and freedom
That is correct.
Yes, because politicians usually very authentically represent their so called ideas.
Are you suggesting I don't know what socialism is?
Apart from that, did I say that the socialists I know are politicians? No, I didn't. I meant socialists I personally know. Friends of mine.
Stop twisting words, it's quite annoying.
As long as the laws of Liechtenstein aren't broken, there is no bribe. You try to change the content of words to make them fit your story, but I'm not going along with that.
For example if you don't want to violate others rights to human dignity, you can't say lots of thing.
There is no 'right on human dignity'. There is a 'right to live' though. That's why saying Tutsi's should be killed is a threat and therefore cannot be considered an opinion (an opinion is always non-violent).
So you say that independent justice is not needed to classify politically liberal?
Dafuq?
Because I think political liberalism's basics includes human rights and freedom
That is correct.
Yes, because politicians usually very authentically represent their so called ideas.
Are you suggesting I don't know what socialism is?
Apart from that, did I say that the socialists I know are politicians? No, I didn't. I meant socialists I personally know. Friends of mine.
Stop twisting words, it's quite annoying.
I think everyone agrees that the current system is sick. And it must change. By getting the government out of the financial system.
Government intervention wouldn't be needed if greed wouldn't dominate the bankers world. But this is a characteristic of humans so that's one of the reasons why it most likely will never change.
Government intervention wouldn't be needed if greed wouldn't dominate the bankers world. But this is a characteristic of humans so that's one of the reasons why it most likely will never change.