On 11/21/2016 01:11 PM, jim bell wrote:

>> In the United States, 500
> billionaires presently own about 1/2 of the capital assets;
>
> Did they obtain them legally or illegally?  If illegally, enforce
> the law.  If legally, change the laws if necessary.

Under the jurisdiction of State institutions created for the benefit
of the very rich, anything they agree among themselves to permit is
"perfectly legal." 

Okay, then.  legal.  But it sounds like you simply resent the fact that people can become wealthy.  

> That includes running a rigged house game
supported by massive deception and economic coercion, and assuring
that theirs are the only games in town.

I don't like government either.  I want to have it eliminated.  But somehow, most of the people who resent government don't act as if they want to see it eliminated.   They LIKE big government.  It's just, they want that big government to work for THEM, and people who think as they do.

>> to retain
>> control of those assets they need a legal system that defines
>> their rights of ownership and enforces them,
>
>> I thought that personal property is to be considered a "right",
>> rather than a "privilege".  I guess you have a different opinion.

>Libertarian ideology relies heavily on false context. 

Chuckle.  Vague.

> When people
hear "personal property" the think "physical objects under my control,
and the fruits of my personal labors." 

That's part of it.  

 >This context is not comparable
to possession and trading of legal instruments defining ownership over
geographically dispersed industries, vast tracts of land, anticipated
profits from as yet unexploited resources, etc., in locations occupied
and facilities operated by what the commies call "wage slaves."

Sorry, I disagree that it "is not comparable".  It's called personal property, what distinguishes freedom from slavery, for instance.

>In the U.S., most people's personal property is actually a collection
of legal instruments specifying the rent they pay on a finance
company's car, a mortage company's house, etc. 

Actually, I'd call that "other people's property".  If you want to buy an item, but you don't have the full price, there are arrangements which can be made.  

> Low wages 

How do you define, "low wages"?   Low, compared to what?

>plus
expensive Real Estate creates forced dependency on land lords for the
majority of Americans.

If you want to buy property, paying for it over time, you can do so.  Why resent this?

>> civil infrastructure built and maintained at public expense to
>> support
> the productivity of their capital assets
>
> Numbskull Obama said, "You didn't build that!".  A factory-owner
> may have a road in front of his factory for transportation.  But
> the government didn't pay for that road:  The people who paid
> gasoline taxes (including the factory-owner) paid for that road.
> Ascribing all this infrastructure to "the government" misleads.

Ah so:  Taxation is payment for services rendered when that supports a
Libertarian argument, otherwise not.  :D

I'm not sure what you mean by "supports a Libertarian argument".

I'm objecting to others (such as Obama) who tried to use the existence of roads (which are generally not financed by a single entity, as being justification for taxation.  There is a valid system in place to allocate the costs of road-building and maintenance between users of those roads.  It's not perfect, but at least it should prevent the argument that roads are solely constructed by public funds.  

>> , and a propaganda regimen to
> persuade the rest of us that this is all for the best.
>
> Blame the MSM.  I do.

> From:
> http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-dat
a
>> "The Top 50 Percent of All Taxpayers Paid 97 Percent of All Income
>> Taxes; the Top 5 Percent Paid 57 Percent of All Income Taxes; and
>> the Top 1 Percent Paid 35 Percent of All Income Taxes in 2011"
>
>> I consider this to be evidence of a very serious problem.
>> Actually, a big set of problems.  You won't see it, however.

>Libertarian ideology relies heavily on cognitive bias and false
assumptions.  The argument presented above is persuasive - as long as
a "normative" distribution of assets and incomes is assumed.  But in
reality, a fraction of 1% of the population dominates in both income
and assets.  The models presented above does not have sufficient
resolution to accurately describe the subject matter addressed.

I don't automatically consider it "natural" that people who happen to make more money should pay more tax.  That's more of a default position, a convenience in 'logic'.    Taxes (if you accept their existence) should presumably cover costs which can be better addressed collectively, rather than individually.  A person who makes more money doesn't automatically use more services from government.  


Check this high resolution model out:
http://www.lcurve.org/

>Note also that "income tax" applies to personal income, not capital
gains. 

I don't believe that "capital gains" should be classified AT ALL as "income".  However, the IRS has a form titled "Capital Gains Income", but I think that's a fraud.  Buy an ounce of gold for $1000, sell it later for $1500.  Did you actually have an "income"?  You swapped one asset for another, which later appeared to be worth more in comparison with pieces of paper with numbers printed on them.  Is there a 'gain'?  Or is it just fictional?  I think the latter.  

Or if you buy a house, and later resell it for for dollars, yet those dollars are worth less due to inflation, shouldn't that "gain" be adjusted by compensating for the reduced value of the dollars involved?  This doesn't seem to be such an issue today, but in the 1980's there were some years of great inflation.  Why not allow people to adjust any "gains" for that?   Again, it's just government-greed that prevents this.

The 16th Amendment doesn't define "income".  That's a major defect.  Over time, government has been motivated to declare things "income" which really shouldn't qualify.  Further, the 16th Amendment does not, explicitly, justify a PROGRESSIVE tax system.  One in which taxed are anything other than proportional to value.  Tax at X%, nothing greater.  THAT would be a tax on income, NOT a tax on how much OTHER income you have, too.

> Personal income as understood by John and Jane Q. Public is
only a small fraction of what members of our ruling class "make" in
the course of a successful year.

What's your point?

>> instead they pay accountants and attorneys to advise them
> on how to avoid taxation.
>
> I see absolutely nothing wrong with this.  If a person lost,
> regularly, 30% of his income to burglary and theft, he'd see
> nothing wrong with hiring some form of protection to see it reduced
> or stopped. Naturally, people who don't think it's theft would
> disagree, and would resent the fact he was trying to reduce that
> theft.  Even more naturally, a person who actually benefits from
> that theft would really, really hate the fact that the person
> paying the taxes would even THINK about seeing them reduced, in any
> way.

>Libertarians see absolutely nothing wrong with the very rich "gaming
the system" for personal advantage in every way that having a lot of
money to spend makes possible. 

More accurately, Libertarians believe "taxation is theft", meaning that there's nothing wrong with trying to avoid such theft.

> This leaves everyone else on the
losing end of every deal that was supposed to be "fair and honest"
under rule of law. 

You need to be much more specific about this.

> Perhaps this explains why the Libertarian Party
was co-opted by well funded right wing extremists around the turn of
the century

I wouldn't be surprised if, well prior to 2000, somebody had accused the libertarians of 'being co-opted by well funded right wing extremists".  What specific takeover are you talking about?

" and has been working under their direction ever since.
What may have been a disruptive influence on national politics is now
only a propaganda platform, pushing political discourse to the Right
as far as it is able. "

Are you saying that "Right" means "keep your own property and income"?   If so, what's wrong with "right"?

" If you are too smart for the RNC, the
Libertarians have a better idea - and the same domestic economic
agenda, both functional and fictional."

Details, details.  How so?

>> Political activists are presently running a "Fight For Fifteen"
> campaign in the U.S., asking for a de facto 40% pay cut relative
> to 1968's more or less "living" minimum wage.  How fucked up is
> that?
>
> I guess you're confused.  After WWII, America became the de-facto
> manufacturer to the world.  Little competition.  Wages were
> (relatively) high.  The rest of the world was, relatively, poor.
> Most families got by with only one breadwinner, usually the man.
> This continued through most of the 1960s, and even the 1970's.
> Then Europe and Japan turned on as manufacturers.  Then Taiwan,
> South Korea, Mexico, now China and India.  America has a great deal
> of competition.  America's wages needed to be reduced to compete,
> or at least they couldn't rise as much as they ultimately might
> have done.  That is simple economics.

I guess your definition of Libertarian embraces both NeoLiberal and
NeoConservative agendas and policies.

What, exactly, does "Neoliberal" and "neoconservative" mean?!?  Obfuscation by inventing new terms is a sure way to muddy the waters.

Ever heard ot the "Nolan Chart" and "World's Smallest Political Quiz"?  I'm (100,100) on the Nolan chart.  In favor of BOTH "economic" and "social" freedoms.  Where do "neoliberal" and "neoconservatives" fit on that chart?  Otherwise, you're just throwing around vague terms that people don't necessarily understand.

>  That makes sense, as the
synthesis of NeoLiberal and NeoConservative policy is Fascism - the
foundation of Libertarian economic ideology.

Hardy har har!  Get off it!  "Fascism", as I have always understood it, is GOVERNMENT CONTROL of the means of production.  (Communism is government ownership of the means of production).   Libertarianism is PRIVATE ownership and control of the means of production.  What word-games are you playing to come to a different conclusion?

>Europe and Japan became industrial powerhouses in the 1950s due to the
aging industrial infrastructure destroyed in WWII being replaced with
the latest and best facilities and equipment,

You are going to have to support that with statistics.   Britain, for example, was still rationing well into the 1950's.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing_in_the_United_Kingdom 

Here's a counter-example:   http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/culture/2013/01/meeting-our-makers-britain%E2%80%99s-long-industrial-decline