Will De Blasio "tax the hell" out of the super rich"?
https://www.taxthehell.com/?utm_medium=email There are BILLION$ of reasons to make them pay their fair share. 17 American oil and gas companies reported a combined total of $25 billion in direct one-time benefits from Trump's tax cuts. Energy giant ExxonMobil reported $5.9 billion in immediate tax cuts, ranking second only to Apple as the nation's single largest corporate beneficiary of the GOP tax bill. (source) ITEP Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: A Timeline In December 2017, federal lawmakers hastily enacted the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. So rushed was its passage that pr... Since Trump's tax cuts were passed, the number of companies paying ZERO in federal taxes has gone from 30 to 60 per year. These companies include: IBM, Netflix, Amazon, General Motors, etc. (source) Corporate Tax Avoidance Remains Rampant Under New Tax Law For decades, profitable Fortune 500 companies have been able to manipulate the tax system to avoid paying even a... Just 6% of tax-related savings are going to workers, while 56% are going to shareholders. (source) What the Republican tax bill did — and didn’t — do, one year later Emily Stewart The GOP tax cuts didn’t pay for themselves. They did, however, deliver a lot of stock buybacks. 433 (87%) of Fortune 500 companies declined to say publicly whether they are giving any bonuses or wage increases to their employees due to the Trump tax cuts. (source) Trump Tax Cut Truths - Americans For Tax Fairness A comprehensive tax cut analysis database explaining how the Fortune 1000+ have spent their tax cuts after the p... A total of 238,290 private sector job cuts have been announced at 361 companies since the Trump tax law was passed by Congress. (source) KEY FACTS: HOW CORPORATIONS ARE SPENDING THEIR TRUMP TAX CUTS - American... Claims that corporations are sharing a big slice of their huge Trump tax cuts with employees through bonuses and... From 2008 to 2015, 100 Fortune 500 companies paid ZERO in federal taxes while making $336 billion in profits. (source) The 35 Percent Corporate Tax Myth Profitable corporations are subject to a 35 percent federal income tax rate on their U.S. profits. But many corp... Two years after Dallas-based AT&T championed corporate tax cuts and pledged they'd lead to job creation, the company plans to cut nearly 2,000 jobs by the end of September in 23 states, including Texas and Oklahoma. (source) [enough of of De Blasio's nonsense] Apparently, it does not occur to De Blasio that if my AP (Assassination Politics, https://cryptome.org/ap.htm ) idea were implemented, it would probably only take a cumulative donation of about $1 million to see him "predicted" dead. Yes, America certainly has a problem with taxation. But the main problem is that taxation exists. And, that government seems to exist to hand out favors to people, taxing a huge fraction of the GDP, wasting $700 billion + on "defense", which could be provided by 100x less money with an AP-type system. Jim Bell
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 23:26:42 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
[enough of of De Blasio's nonsense]
what nonsense are you referring to? The libertarian analysis here is pretty clear. Tax 'cuts' are actually subsidies for corporations. Those 'tax cuts' are paid by ordinary taxpayers and inflation - inflation being a general tax that american scum collect from dollar users all over the world - something enabled by the fact that the dollar is used worlwide because of US military threats and war crimes. Also, the 'super rich' are the number one enemy of freedom, the number one supporters of the state, and the "corp" in "govcorp". The only thing they deserve is death. AP should take care of them ASAP.
Apparently, it does not occur to De Blasio that if my AP (Assassination Politics, https://cryptome.org/ap.htm ) idea were implemented, it would probably only take a cumulative donation of about $1 million to see him "predicted" dead.
Why should ppl want to kill him? Or are you saying that the 'super rich' will? I don't know what else de blasio did, but last time I checked free speech is a fundamental personal right. If your system will get ppl killed for their opinions, then your system is...flawed.
Yes, America certainly has a problem with taxation. But the main problem is that taxation exists.
That's right. Another big problem is that the funds stolen by taxation go FROM the poor to the 'super rich'.
And, that government seems to exist to hand out favors to people,
you mean, the corporations de blasio mentioned?
taxing a huge fraction of the GDP, wasting $700 billion + on "defense", which could be provided by 100x less money with an AP-type system.
Jim Bell
On Thursday, August 1, 2019, 07:05:17 PM PDT, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 23:26:42 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
[enough of of De Blasio's nonsense]
what nonsense are you referring to? > The libertarian analysis here is pretty clear. Tax 'cuts' are actually subsidies for corporations. Those 'tax cuts' are paid by ordinary taxpayers and inflation - inflation being a general tax that american scum collect from dollar users all over the world - something enabled by the fact that the dollar is used worlwide because of US military threats and war crimes.
That analysis is certainly not "libertarian", but statist: It would be held by people who believe that government should exist, that taxes should be collected and spent by governments, not the people who earned the money to pay those taxes.Now, maybe there are indeed people who (falsely) call themselves "libertarians" who believe that way: A lot has happened in the last 20 years. But I am confident in calling them "not libertarian" at all. Traditionally, libertarians say "taxation is theft". Libertarians, at least the minarchist ones, may believe in a small amount of government, but it is far less than that which currently exists. > Also, the 'super rich' are the number one enemy of freedom, the number one supporters of the state, and the "corp" in "govcorp". The only thing they deserve is death. AP should take care of them ASAP. Merely having money, a lot of it, does not automatically make anyone 'the enemy'. Rather, it is how they obtained that money, the influence they exerted, perhaps by and through government, that's the problem.
Apparently, it does not occur to De Blasio that if my AP (Assassination Politics, https://cryptome.org/ap.htm ) idea were implemented, it would probably only take a cumulative donation of about $1 million to see him "predicted" dead.
Why should ppl want to kill him? Or are you saying that the 'super rich' will? I don't know what else de blasio did, but last time I checked free speech is a fundamental personal right. If your system will get ppl killed for their opinions, then your system is...flawed.
Those people who believe "taxation is theft", classic libertarians, certainly wouldn't want a continuation of today's system of taxation theft. You apparently call what de Blasio is doing "free speech", but when a POLITICIAN speaks like that, and tries to get government to continue to rob people and to even increase that robbery, I call that "theft", or at least "attempted theft".
Yes, America certainly has a problem with taxation. But the main problem is that taxation exists.
That's right. Another big problem is that the funds stolen by taxation go FROM the poor to the 'super rich'.
Then THAT is another problem which ought to be solved. I have the solution. Government should not be in the "business" of assisting people to collect wealth, but instead by acting in a neutral fashion.
And, that government seems to exist to hand out favors to people,
> you mean, the corporations de blasio mentioned? Corporations act in the ways they do because the government allows them to do so.
taxing a huge fraction of the GDP, wasting $700 billion + on "defense", which could be provided by 100x less money with an AP-type system. Jim Bell
I notice that you didn't disagree with this part of my analysis.
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 03:23:22 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019, 07:05:17 PM PDT, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote:
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 23:26:42 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
[enough of of De Blasio's nonsense]
what nonsense are you referring to? > The libertarian analysis here is pretty clear. Tax 'cuts' are actually subsidies for corporations. Those 'tax cuts' are paid by ordinary taxpayers and inflation - inflation being a general tax that american scum collect from dollar users all over the world - something enabled by the fact that the dollar is used worlwide because of US military threats and war crimes.
That analysis is certainly not "libertarian", but statist:
My analysis is libertarian =)
It would be held by people who believe that government should exist,
Not at all. I am simply stating a fact. 'Tax cuts' for big business are a subsidy for big business. I never said government should exist. I obviously think it shouldn't exist.
that taxes should be collected and spent by governments, not the people who earned the money to pay those taxes.Now, maybe there are indeed people who (falsely) call themselves "libertarians" who believe that way: A lot has happened in the last 20 years. But I am confident in calling them "not libertarian" at all.
I'm confident in pointing out that the way you seem to be siding with big business that are corrupt to the core is not libertarian at all.
Traditionally, libertarians say "taxation is theft". Libertarians, at least the minarchist ones, may believe in a small amount of government, but it is far less than that which currently exists.
side note : traditionally the vast majority of people who posed as libertarians wanted 'limited goverment' and so 'limited taxation' or 'limited theft'...which is of course still theft.
> Also, the 'super rich' are the number one enemy of freedom, the number one supporters of the state, and the "corp" in "govcorp". The only thing they deserve is death. AP should take care of them ASAP.
Merely having money, a lot of it, does not automatically make anyone 'the enemy'. Rather, it is how they obtained that money, the influence they exerted, perhaps by and through government, that's the problem.
And in the real world we live in, ruled by CORPORATISM, the rich obtained their money thanks to the government. This is the ABC of libertarianism. If you don't believe me I suggest you look at the evidence : here, 17 TRILLIONS of stolen money FOR corporations paid by the whole fucking world. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikecollins/2015/07/14/the-big-bank-bailout/ here, warren buffett thanking the US government and explainig how the US economy is a house of cards propped by the government. https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/17/opinion/17buffett.html You're welcome Jim.
Apparently, it does not occur to De Blasio that if my AP (Assassination Politics, https://cryptome.org/ap.htm ) idea were implemented, it would probably only take a cumulative donation of about $1 million to see him "predicted" dead.
Why should ppl want to kill him? Or are you saying that the 'super rich' will? I don't know what else de blasio did, but last time I checked free speech is a fundamental personal right. If your system will get ppl killed for their opinions, then your system is...flawed.
Those people who believe "taxation is theft", classic libertarians, certainly wouldn't want a continuation of today's system of taxation theft.
That's true regarding 'true' libertarians, i.e. anarchists. Your advocates of 'limited government' are criminals who support taxation (theft...)
You apparently call what de Blasio is doing "free speech", but when a POLITICIAN speaks like that, and tries to get government to continue to rob people and to even increase that robbery, I call that "theft", or at least "attempted theft".
oh wait, that blasio guy is the mayor of new york. I didn't know him (and I regret knowing his name) Now, of course, I do agree with you that he deserved death by AP, ASAP. (still as a side note, even advocating for any sort of crime IS free speech)
Yes, America certainly has a problem with taxation. But the main problem is that taxation exists.
That's right. Another big problem is that the funds stolen by taxation go FROM the poor to the 'super rich'.
Then THAT is another problem which ought to be solved. I have the solution. Government should not be in the "business" of assisting people to collect wealth, but instead by acting in a neutral fashion.
Government acting in a neutral fashion? Clearly that is NOT a libertarian concept. It should be self-evident that the criminals who call themselves the government cannot act in a neutral way, pretty much by definition. Now, in a real free market, there's NO government and therefore there are NO 'super rich' since the only way to become 'super rich' is by DESTROYING the free market. Like for instance using governmetn granted privileges like 'intelectual property'.
And, that government seems to exist to hand out favors to people,
> you mean, the corporations de blasio mentioned?
Corporations act in the ways they do because the government allows them to do so.
Haha =) The people who hide behind the legal corporate fiction act in the way they do because they are CRIMINALS. So THEY are to blame as much as the govt that 'allows' them to be criminals. In reality both the people who hide behind the corporate fiction and the people who hide behind the state fiction are 50/50 partners in crime. Notice how according to lefties poor government is 'corrupted' by money while according to right wingers (like the rand cunt), 'poor big business' are the victims of government. The libertarian view and correct view is that they both are partners in crime.
taxing a huge fraction of the GDP, wasting $700 billion + on "defense", which could be provided by 100x less money with an AP-type system. Jim Bell
I notice that you didn't disagree with this part of my analysis.
That part was correct =)
On Thursday, August 1, 2019, 09:08:10 PM PDT, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 03:23:22 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Thursday, August 1, 2019, 07:05:17 PM PDT, Punk <punks@tfwno.gf> wrote: On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 23:26:42 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
It would be held by people who believe that government should exist,
> Not at all. I am simply stating a fact. 'Tax cuts' for big business are a subsidy for big business. I never said government should exist. I obviously think it shouldn't exist. Calling something a "subsidy" merely because they are robbing from "big business" LESS is a grotesque way of referring to it. Further, "big business's" profits can be paid to stockholders. So, taxing those profits amounts to taking away money from individuals.
that taxes should be collected and spent by governments, not the people who earned the money to pay those taxes.Now, maybe there are indeed people who (falsely) call themselves "libertarians" who believe that way: A lot has happened in the last 20 years. But I am confident in calling them "not libertarian" at all.
> I'm confident in pointing out that the way you seem to be siding with big business that are corrupt to the core is not libertarian at all. There is nothing inherently 'unlibertarian' about having corporations, at all. A corporation is merely a legal construct, initiated in the late 1700's. People wanted to be able to invest in a company, without the risk that if the company failed, they would be liable for not merely the money they invested, but for their entire worth as well.
Traditionally, libertarians say "taxation is theft". Libertarians, at least the minarchist ones, may believe in a small amount of government, but it is far less than that which currently exists.
> side note : traditionally the vast majority of people who posed as libertarians wanted 'limited goverment' and so 'limited taxation' or 'limited theft'...which is of course still theft. I, too, was a 'minarchist libertarian' until January 1995, because I independently recognized the existence of that which David Friedman called "The Hard Problem": How would a libertarian or anarchist region (analogous to 'country') exist if it couldn't tax its own citizens to fund a defense? http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Machinery_3d_Edition/The%20Hard%20Problem%20II.htmWouldn't it be attacked by 'conventional' states, succumb, and then become yet again come under the authorize of a government? Ironically, I was the one to solve that problem, inventing/discovering my Assassination Politics idea. Now, not only is an anarchist region stable, in principle no region with a conventional government stable, since their government would shortly be taken down by just about everybody.
> Also, the 'super rich' are the number one enemy of freedom, the number one supporters of the state, and the "corp" in "govcorp". The only thing they deserve is death. AP should take care of them ASAP.
Merely having money, a lot of it, does not automatically make anyone 'the enemy'. Rather, it is how they obtained that money, the influence they exerted, perhaps by and through government, that's the problem. Get rid of the mechanism of using governments to obtain influence, that impropriety can and should disappear.
> And in the real world we live in, ruled by CORPORATISM, the rich obtained their money thanks to the government. This is the ABC of libertarianism. If you don't believe me I suggest you look at the evidence : Then a good solution is to eliminate the government(s) that corporations can/do use to obtain power.
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 00:58:47 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
It would be held by people who believe that government should exist,
Not at all. I am simply stating a fact. 'Tax cuts' for big business are a subsidy for big business. I never said government should exist. I obviously think it shouldn't exist.
Calling something a "subsidy" merely because they are robbing from "big business" LESS is a grotesque way of referring to it.
Nah. My statement is factual. I guess you don't like some facts? =) - But let me state this basic economic fact again : being taxed less has the same effect as being granted a SUBSIDY. And it is a PRIVILEGE - a special law that only applies to some people. I agree, what the US government and 'business' like apple do is grotesque.
Further, "big business's" profits can be paid to stockholders. So, taxing those profits amounts to taking away money from individuals.
Of course a 'corporation' is a bunch of (criminal) individuals. I mentioned that other basic fact in a previous message. The 'corporation' is a bunch of individuals who enjoy state granted privileges. Anti free market, anti libertarian to the core.
> I'm confident in pointing out that the way you seem to be siding with big business that are corrupt to the core is not libertarian at all.
There is nothing inherently 'unlibertarian' about having corporations, at all.
Of course there is. A corporation is a creation of the state's legal system.
A corporation is merely a legal construct, initiated in the late 1700's.
by western, fascist, mercantilistic states. And not late 1700, but at the begining of the 18th century. See south sea company, east india company, etc.
People wanted to be able to invest in a company, without the risk that if the company failed, they would be liable for not merely the money they invested, but for their entire worth as well.
right, so called 'limited BY THE STATE libability'. A government privilege. Liberalism is based on personal rights - life, liberty property. "Limited liability" is not part of those rights.
> side note : traditionally the vast majority of people who posed as libertarians wanted 'limited goverment' and so 'limited taxation' or 'limited theft'...which is of course still theft.
I, too, was a 'minarchist libertarian' until January 1995, because I independently recognized the existence of that which David Friedman called "The Hard Problem": How would a libertarian or anarchist region (analogous to 'country') exist if it couldn't tax its own citizens to fund a defense?
there's no such hard problem. Also, you're completly wrong in believing that liberalism/libertarianism rests on 'expediency'. The state must be overthrown because it's just a criminal organization, full stop, end of the story. It doesn't fucking matter WHO WOULD PICK THE COTTON. And libertarians in the 19th century had already proposed systems in which 'defense' was provided by private, VOLUNTARY associations.
Ironically, I was the one to solve that problem, inventing/discovering my Assassination Politics idea. Now, not only is an anarchist region stable, in principle no region with a conventional government stable, since their government would shortly be taken down by just about everybody.
And yet that hasn't happened. Maybe your system doesn't work?
Merely having money, a lot of it, does not automatically make anyone 'the enemy'. Rather, it is how they obtained that money, the influence they exerted, perhaps by and through government, that's the problem. Get rid of the mechanism of using governments to obtain influence, that impropriety can and should disappear.
And in the real world we live in, ruled by CORPORATISM, the rich obtained their money thanks to the government. This is the ABC of libertarianism. If you don't believe me I suggest you look at the evidence :
Then a good solution is to eliminate the government(s) that corporations can/do use to obtain power.
Right. Meanwhile some people should stop pretending that corporations are not part of the government and FULLY LIABLE for their crimes and the crimes of their partners, the government.
On Sun, Aug 04, 2019 at 06:13:27PM -0300, Punk wrote:
On Sun, 4 Aug 2019 00:58:47 +0000 (UTC) jim bell <jdb10987@yahoo.com> wrote:
People wanted to be able to invest in a company, without the risk that if the company failed, they would be liable for not merely the money they invested, but for their entire worth as well.
right, so called 'limited BY THE STATE libability'. A government privilege. Liberalism is based on personal rights - life, liberty property. "Limited liability" is not part of those rights.
It's certainly not a "fundamental human right" to be able to invest in an entity representing a "collection of other humans" and have your liability limited to the amount you invested. But, it is a right to seek to manifest such a construct for the limitation of liability within a collection of individuals. How we achieve/manifest such a construct becomes the interesting question when we do away with the traditional state government.
> side note : traditionally the vast majority of people who posed as libertarians wanted 'limited goverment' and so 'limited taxation' or 'limited theft'...which is of course still theft.
I, too, was a 'minarchist libertarian' until January 1995, because I independently recognized the existence of that which David Friedman called "The Hard Problem": How would a libertarian or anarchist region (analogous to 'country') exist if it couldn't tax its own citizens to fund a defense?
there's no such hard problem.
Also, you're completly wrong in believing that liberalism/libertarianism rests on 'expediency'. The state must be overthrown because it's just a criminal organization, full stop, end of the story. It doesn't fucking matter WHO WOULD PICK THE COTTON.
And libertarians in the 19th century had already proposed systems in which 'defense' was provided by private, VOLUNTARY associations.
Ironically, I was the one to solve that problem, inventing/discovering my Assassination Politics idea. Now, not only is an anarchist region stable, in principle no region with a conventional government stable, since their government would shortly be taken down by just about everybody.
And yet that hasn't happened. Maybe your system doesn't work?
An idea like that, needs to become viral if it is to become a new dominant societal system. Perhaps AP has a lack of sufficient virality, or perhaps there's a lack of the required infrastructure - non de-anonymizable (i.e. truly anonymous) digital currencies? IDK.
Merely having money, a lot of it, does not automatically make anyone 'the enemy'. Rather, it is how they obtained that money, the influence they exerted, perhaps by and through government, that's the problem. Get rid of the mechanism of using governments to obtain influence, that impropriety can and should disappear.
And in the real world we live in, ruled by CORPORATISM, the rich obtained their money thanks to the government. This is the ABC of libertarianism. If you don't believe me I suggest you look at the evidence :
Then a good solution is to eliminate the government(s) that corporations can/do use to obtain power.
Right. Meanwhile some people should stop pretending that corporations are not part of the government and FULLY LIABLE for their crimes and the crimes of their partners, the government.
I think you missed Bell's point - libertarians don't give up a concept simply because that concept is currently misused, or can be misused - a bit like giving up guns and knives because they get misused. The "collection of entrepreneurs investing in a common outcome within a construct which limits their liability to the amount of their investment" is one such concept. That's how I read it anyway...
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 10:55:02 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
It's certainly not a "fundamental human right" to be able to invest in an entity representing a "collection of other humans" and have your liability limited to the amount you invested.
limited liability is bullshit, FULL STOP. You pay for all the damage you cause.
And yet AP hasn't happened. Maybe your system doesn't work?
An idea like that, needs to become viral if it is to become a new dominant societal system. Perhaps AP has a lack of sufficient virality, or perhaps there's a lack of the required infrastructure - non de-anonymizable (i.e. truly anonymous) digital currencies? IDK.
The idea that needs to go viral is anarchy, not AP.
And in the real world we live in, ruled by CORPORATISM, the rich obtained their money thanks to the government. This is the ABC of libertarianism. If you don't believe me I suggest you look at the evidence :
Then a good solution is to eliminate the government(s) that corporations can/do use to obtain power.
Right. Meanwhile some people should stop pretending that corporations are not part of the government and FULLY LIABLE for their crimes and the crimes of their partners, the government.
I think you missed Bell's point -
I beg to fully disagree.
libertarians don't give up a concept simply because that concept is currently misused,
What concept. Privileges? Not libertarian. Limited liability? Not libertarian. Defending big business? Not libertarian.
On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 10:39:27PM -0300, Punk wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 10:55:02 +1000 Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
It's certainly not a "fundamental human right" to be able to invest in an entity representing a "collection of other humans" and have your liability limited to the amount you invested.
limited liability is bullshit, FULL STOP. You pay for all the damage you cause.
Resolution too low, of your assertion "You pay for all the damage you cause." So you, Juan, hypothetically have a hardware/ software idea, a crypto phone let's say - it's simple, it's cheap, it provides end to end encrypted calls only (not even text messages) and it's uncrackable. It's an idea at least. You ask me for some dollars to develop this idea. I provide $100 million USD from my non corporate, common law, hedge investment trust fund. Grateful for the investment, you build out some premises, purchase manufacturing equipment, manufacture the phones and install your you-beaut uncrackable software on those phones. You've spent exactly the full invested amount, so next you and your friends start selling these phones in "freedom loving" France. Muhammad Ackbarre, a traditional custodian of French values and long term European citizen of 13 months, purchases three of your phones and uses them to arrange a successful sniper hit on Macron. The French people in 'gay Paris', or rather a group of ex- Gendarmerie, loving their president as they do <ahem>, support a group action of sorts against you and your friends, one of whom fails to contain his enthusiasm for naming me, your investor, as the money bags with money, hoping that the rifle wielding group of Macron loving score settlers will come after me, the investor. You say "well, it might not sound fair, but damn, limited liability is bullshit, full stop - might as well make Zenaan pay for all the damage he caused by investing with us and causing us to create these freedom phones". Sheeple being sheeple, the French sheeple lap up the propaganda of the ex-Gendarmerie publicity machine and willingly support their incarceration of me until I pay up their $300 million claim which has been promised "to the people, for new schools and 'ospitals, oi, and as always, pensez aux enfants, s'il vous plait!" Now, in such a laissez faire market without government backed thugs, how could "limited liability" even be manifested? Well, thuggery is thuggery, so I guess those with wealth must employ armed mini militaries to defend their wealth - neo fuedal or some such. But I, the archetypical investor who has quite some serious wealth in the bag, wish to not only protect that wealth, but to expand that wealth - I didn't get to where I am by NOT thinking about such things, that's fer surely! So I run a propaganda train myself in this new Wild West libertarian world, estolling the virtues of limited liability investment clubs, because hospitals and schools - please, think of the children! The public supports this, and proclamations are being twitted left and right that "the people of this great nation do hereby declare that we support the right of groups of individuals to manifest a common law investment entity by public declaration of its name, intentions, initial capital investment, founders, and rules, and to be thereby by incorporated, and that such humans as have deposited money into a public ledger account bearing the name of said entity, shall be limited in their liability in respect of said entity, to the amount so deposited and no more." In joyous abundance and faith, do those nations who embrace the new reality prosper in their first mover advantage...
And yet AP hasn't happened. Maybe your system doesn't work?
An idea like that, needs to become viral if it is to become a new dominant societal system. Perhaps AP has a lack of sufficient virality, or perhaps there's a lack of the required infrastructure - non de-anonymizable (i.e. truly anonymous) digital currencies? IDK.
The idea that needs to go viral is anarchy, not AP.
Ack. In Englais at least, the word "anarchy" may lack sufficient virality due to it's abuse via much propaganda effort to associate the word with "chaos". Self responsibility needs better packaging for the average sheeple, since "chaos" does not sound so appealing, and when the first word heard in relation to the political system known inter alia as "anarchy" connotes chaos, sheeple instinctively avoid further consideration of said system. Psychology/ propaganda/ communication 1-0-1.
And in the real world we live in, ruled by CORPORATISM, the rich obtained their money thanks to the government. This is the ABC of libertarianism. If you don't believe me I suggest you look at the evidence :
Then a good solution is to eliminate the government(s) that corporations can/do use to obtain power.
Right. Meanwhile some people should stop pretending that corporations are not part of the government and FULLY LIABLE for their crimes and the crimes of their partners, the government.
I think you missed Bell's point -
I beg to fully disagree.
libertarians don't give up a concept simply because that concept is currently misused,
What concept. Privileges? Not libertarian. Limited liability? Not libertarian. Defending big business? Not libertarian.
Limited liability - if I invest even say $1000 into you, that you may do something "good" in the world, there WILL be others in the world who try to attack me financially should -your- free software/ libre hardware etc cause "something bad" to happen in the world. Sheeple are sheeple for a reason - they have been fed shit, schooled and not educated. Why would I invest in you and your inspiration/ idea/ etc, and expose myself to the cruel mob just waiting to attack me due to my attempt to assist you? Seriously, this is the nature of very many humans today - try to help someone, and they turn around and blame for insufficient help, or somehow blame you for their own failure despite your help, ANYTHING but take self responsibility, and our schooling and legal and etc systems are thoroughly inducing this state of consciousness. Without handling this state of consciousness, anarchy will, I assert, rapidly devolve into chaos. I may support anarchy, but I do oppose chaos, and I refuse to ignore the dominant human psychologies in existence and of which I have had much bitter experience over the last few decades...
sorry, I should have added that since de blasio is a high ranking american politician, his talk about 'taxing the super rich' is just propaganda. The last thing a poltician like him would like to do is actually harming his accomplices.
participants (3)
-
jim bell -
Punk -
Zenaan Harkness