st_dux

No it isn't (at least in the United States): There are some exceptions where big companies get away with what is essentially tax evasion through clever accounting (a problem that could be fixed by simplifying the tax code and removing loopholes), but by and large, most tax income is collected from the wealthiest individuals. The top 1% pays 39% of all taxes collected, and the top 5% pays 59%. 95% of the population pays less than half of the taxes. There is no gold bubble. Gold will continue to go up in value as fiat currencies worldwide continue to falter. By the end of the decade you will see gold prices above $5,000 per troy ounce. They will just stop producing then (or move overseas to more business-friendly countries); there is nothing that says they have to actually put up with your proposed insane tax hikes. People will lose their jobs and the economy will be weakened. True, but market law is not the law of the jungle. Market law constitutes a set of rules such as the right to property and the prohibition of fraud that allow people to cooperate with one another in an environment free of coercion. The reason that we're in our current economic situation is not that market law has failed; on the contrary, we have not allowed market law to function. We have distorted market signals with government-guaranteed loans, artificially low interest rates and coercive legislation, and when the housing bubble burst, we socialized the losses of the institutions which, according to market law, should have failed.

And this is exactly why I hate classic RPGs, yet I can enjoy a game like Skyrim. It has just enough player-based skill and participation to make it interesting. From a marketing perspective, I believe that Bethesda has made a shrewd move in combining aspects of classic RPG with action-based gameplay: It definitely broadens their audience.

I agree that the status quo, left unchanged, will inevitably lead to economic disaster, and I never said anything about ignoring fraud -- clearly, fraud needs to be prosecuted in a free market system -- so I'm not sure what you're on about. I was simply responding to Walker's crazy idea that we should tax all rich people "until they scream" as a solution to our economic growth problem. No, it isn't. What we have now is a progressive tax system in which those with higher levels of income pay higher percentages of tax, i.e., if you earn twice as much as someone else, you don't merely have to pay twice as much in taxes: You have to pay more than twice as much because the fact that you earn twice as much puts you into a higher tax bracket. It penalizes people who earn more even more than a flat tax. On the other hand, it's also so complex and riddled with loopholes and exemptions that some extremely wealthy entities, e.g., GE, can get away without paying much at all in taxes. If it were simplified to a basic flat rate it would both be more fair to typical mid-to-high-income earners and it would make it impossible for super corporations to find ways out of getting taxed at all. The only group that wouldn't benefit from this change would be accountants, who make their living off of those corporations who find it more profitable to spend their cash on tax evasion than expansion (which is, needless to say, very un-capitalistic).

I can assure you that it isn't.

That would be catastrophic for the worldwide economy. Despite the government corruption that has been encouraged by some of the "1%ers" (government corruption that has only been able to occur because the government has been given too much power), most of the wealth and jobs in the world today have been generated by the 1%. It has nothing to do with them "being paid enough"; it has to do with allowing and encouraging them to invest in new wealth-generating ventures. Overtaxing them will just encourage them to lay off their workers and close their factories to retire somewhere in the Caribbean. You cannot generate a successful economy through force. Just ask Mao. The tax system is already like this and everyone knows it. In fact, it's more extreme because the person with higher income not only has a larger 10% but he will also have to pay more than 10%. This is called "progressive taxation" and it's used throughout the Western world with relatively little rage; most of the rage comes from those paying the least in taxes. I don't see how simplifying the tax code would change any of this.

(emphasis added) The problem is with the head of the tax office, and more generally, the government. Simplifying the tax code and disallowing the government to grant special favors and create loopholes for the "1%ers" is the only way to solve the problem in the long term.

I give up, Walker. Please explain to me how petroleum is not a fossil fuel.

Not just any oil, but petroleum, which is a fossil fuel.

Plastic is made from fossil fuels.

@walker: Capitalism is a system of profit and loss. The system we have, in which private profits are made but losses are socialized by the government, is not capitalism. Capitalism has not failed; the government has failed by bailing out businesses that should have failed and would have under capitalism.

@walker: It's the government that is to blame. They are the ones that took the money from the "99%" to pay for the failures of the "1%". Without the government, those reckless banks would have failed. They would have paid.

The "1%ers" didn't take the money out; it was given to them by the government. It was the government that stole the money from the American taxpayer and handed it over to failing businesses. If the government had handed a chunk of that money over to you, would you have refused on general principle? No? Then stop blaming the banks for simply using what the government gave them. Blame the government for giving it to them in the first place.

We all know how well that turned out!

Are you seriously suggesting that everyone in a particular political party agrees on everything? What would be the point of Republican or Democrat debates if that were the case? Why would we have primary elections? I'm not saying that Ron Paul isn't really a Republican, but I am saying that his views on the last section of the Civil Rights Act are unique among Republicans. This is a demonstrable fact. Republicans (and Democrats) disagree on all sorts of issues within their own party, so the fact that Ron Paul is alone on this issue is hardly unprecedented. Also, you've still ignored my first point: How does it make any sense to "pander to racists" when those who abhor racism clearly outnumber those who condone it? It doesn't make any political sense to appease a tiny fringe group while alienating a much larger portion of voters. What evidence do you have that this counter-intuitive goal is in fact Ron Paul's aim?

Is the South African military not strong enough to contain something like this?

What can't you figure out about third person? It's really not that much different.

Walker, what's with the willful ignorance? Instead of posting the same thing over and over again, why don't you actually respond to my last post? Why are you ignoring these points? Are you content to be a propaganda machine for the Democratic party, or would you actually like to join the discussion?

No one is arguing to cancel student loans entirely. Banks and other financial institutions should of course be allowed to loan money to students for the purpose of gaining an education, but there needs to be some risk involved on the bank's part, and right now, there isn't any because the government guarantees them all. The result is that increasingly large loans are given out to everyone without question or even reasonable expectation of repayment. This, in turn, removes all incentive for colleges and universities to keep costs low, and that is why tuition costs are spiraling out of control in this country. Government-guaranteed student loans produce a tangible short-term benefit, but the long-term damage to the sustainability of our education system is rarely considered. Burning crosses on people's lawns is a crime because it violates their property rights and in some cases constitutes a threat of physical violence. The criminality of the action has nothing to do with racism; it would be a crime even if the motivation for committing it had nothing to do with race. Likewise, winding up a lynch mob to hang someone is a crime whether or not race is involved. The crime is murder, not racism. Racism itself is a way of thinking. It is not an action, and it is not a crime. Do you really not see that: Ron Paul is not pandering to racists. His objection to the last section of the Civil Rights Act is a hypothetical one based solely on an intellectually consistent view of property rights. It is not a practical objection: He does not actually consider the repeal of the last section of the Civil Rights Act to be possible or necessary. Your charge that Paul's hypothetical opposition to one part of the Civil Rights Act -- an opposition that he and everyone else knows would never result in that section actually being repealed -- is actually an attempt to win the votes of hardcore racists is absolutely baseless and, given the fact that those who abhor racism vastly outnumber those who condone it, frankly absurd. Ron Paul is the only Republican who has expressed these views. No one else in the Republican party today has ever expressed any desire, hypothetical or otherwise, to repeal any part of the Civil Rights Act. It is a blatant composition fallacy on your part to continue to associate all Republicans with the views of one particular individual in the party.

I do not believe that maintaining the integrity of property rights is done at the expense of happiness in society. On the contrary, I see property rights as a natural extension of the non-aggression principle on which the social contract is based, and I believe that it has done more than any other single idea to create happiness in society. That's why it's worthy of protection. While I see the value in handicap accessibility, I don't believe that it's fair or necessary to force property owners to spend their own money to provide it. If the public feels strongly enough about this issue, then they should have no problem allowing the government to use taxpayer money to fund the construction. As for the student loan success story, that's great. I am not against the concept of student loans -- higher education is generally regarded as an investment for the future, after all -- but they are currently too easy to access due to government guarantees. There is no credit check and no consideration regarding how valuable your education actually will be toward earning a living capable of paying back the loan, and this is why there are so many defaults on student loans. Your friend is the exception here rather than the rule, and I have little doubt given the profitability of the field he has chosen to enter that he could have acquired such a loan in a free market without government guarantees. That being said, I certainly wouldn't fault anyone for taking advantage of government-guaranteed loans. I think the government is being reckless in offering them, but I would never fault anyone for simply taking advantage of the opportunities afforded to him. I'm glad that your friend had an opportunity and found success. There is a difference, but that difference amounts to little more than legal fiction. Fundamentally, property is property. As for your car analogy, you actually only need to follow those rules if you intend to use public roadways or facilities. It's perfectly legal to buy a car for your personal use and drive it around a private track without a license. No one does this, of course, but the point is that the regulations arise from the use of a public resource (the road), not the use of private property (the car). Racism is always a form of thought and never a form of action. There is no such thing as a "racist action." There are actions that may result from a racist mindset, but the actions themselves are not inherently racist -- actions don't have thoughts of their own. Establishing a distinction between "normal crime" and "racist crime" (e.g., "hate crime") serves only to legally reinforce the concept of racism. In the United States, overt racism is actually not a crime. You can spew racist thoughts and speech in any format as much as you'd like, and people sometimes do. Now if you get so enraged and insane that you use your racist ideas as an excuse to commit assault, that's illegal -- but it's the assault that's illegal, not the racism. We don't legally suppress any ideas in the United States, regardless of how offensive or tasteless they may be to most people.

It's not about the damage done to the racist. It's about the integrity of property rights. The libertarian doesn't care about the racist business owner; he would be perfectly happy to see him go out of business on account of his discriminatory practices, but only if this occurs on the open market. As for your real life example, I don't believe the diner should have been forced to spend money on construction projects simply to appease one costumer with special needs. From their perspective, it's a waste of money. It doesn't matter if you personally believe they're making "plenty"; it's theirs, not yours and not your friend's. Imagine how you'd feel if someone told you that your house was not handicap accessible, and as per building regulations in the area, it had to be in order for you to legally live in it. Imagine being forced to spend money that you may or may not have readily available in order to renovate your house in a way that doesn't benefit you at all. In principle, this is exactly what happened in your story. A diner is just a house that someone has turned into a large dining room and opened up to guests. I never said there was an absolute right to property. You are quite right: There are no absolute rights; all rights are negotiated in the social contract. My point was that the right to property is one of the defining rights in every Western social contract currently in use. Do you disagree with this? You're right: Property rights are protected by the state. My point is that this protection is a good thing that should not be arbitrarily revoked. I know that it often is revoked -- I'm not living in a fantasy land as you seem to believe -- but except in cases where the rights of others are violated I do not believe that such revocation is justified. In the case in point, of racist business owners refusing service to particular customers, I do not believe any rights are being violated. The right to property is clearly granted by the social contract; the right to be served at restaurants is not. Business owners may refuse service to patrons for a variety of reasons, and I do not see the sense in arbitrarily taking one of those reasons and making it legally invalid. Clearly. I'm not suggesting that property rights transcend the social contract or that we should get rid of it. Thievery and racism are not at all analogous. If you lock up a thief, there is less theft. If you shut down a racist's business, racism is not lessened; if anything, it is reinforced and strengthened. -------- The whole point is this: Whether or not you agree with Ron Paul on this issue, you must understand that his intention is not to "pander to racists." His argument is based solely on property rights and his understanding thereof, and he does not believe that allowing private property owners to discriminate would promote racism; to the contrary, it would expose racists, hurting the position in the long run. This isn't a campaign issue for him, and it's not a big deal. It's just one of those hypothetical questions that's been thrown at him a few times to see just how ideologically consistent he really is. As it turns out, he's quite consistent.

Walker, try to turn off your propaganda machine for a few seconds and actually think about this from an objective, logical point of view. The right to property is one of the fundamental principles of contemporary Western society. Under this principle, an owner of a piece of property has the sole authority to choose with whom he shares that property and at what price, if any. Do you agree or disagree with this definition? If you agree, then it should be quite clear that any law which forces the owner of a piece of property to share that property with anyone against the owners' will is in violation of the principle of property rights. It is because of this violation and nothing else that Ron Paul is opposed to the last section of the Civil Rights Act. It shouldn't be that difficult to understand. The idea that we can eliminate racism by violating the property rights of racists is ridiculous. Telling the racist saloon owner that he must serve all customers regardless of race or face forced closure does not make the saloon owner not racist; if anything, it strengthens his irrational hatred. Moreover, allowing the owner to discriminate is not the cause of his desire to do so. Property rights don't cause racism.

Please stop spouting this nonsense. I explained in my last post (which you apparently ignored) why Ron Paul opposes the last section of the Civil Rights Act. It has everything to do with holding a consistent view on property rights and nothing to do with "pandering to racists." In addition, Ron Paul's position on this issue is rather unique among Republicans, so it is incorrect to generalize it as held by the whole party.

@walker: Do you even know what we're talking about? Ron Paul's opposition to the last section of the Civil Rights Act (the only part that deals with private, rather than public, property) has absolutely nothing to do with pandering to racists. There is no "racist vote" and there hasn't been for decades; openly espousing racism today is tantamount to political suicide. Ron Paul is opposed to the last section of the Civil Rights Act because he understands that it is a direct violation of property rights, and unlike most politicians, Ron Paul is ideologically consistent. ---------- Post added at 08:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:41 AM ---------- Take a look at the student loan default rate sometime. College tuition has been able to become far too expensive in this country precisely because anyone, regardless of credit, can easily get a government-guaranteed loan to go study liberal arts and come out with a degree that makes them no more hireable than when they went in. The market is not allowed to work in higher education: Too many people go to college; nobody pays for it, and the colleges therefore have no incentive to lower prices.

Ron Paul doesn't want to repeal the Civil Rights Act. He only disagrees with one part of it, and it's not a priority issue by any means.