Going Galt

[moralist]

Your response does not address the point that prices are not infinitely elastic.

(shrug) Neither is taxation, which is just another cost of business written off by inclusion in the price charged for goods and services. And since the price of government is built into the price of every product and service every consumer pays. The only way to buy your freedom is to become a producer. Then there's always parity between the cost of goods and services you sell, and the price of goods and services you buy. Wealth is accumulated simply by producing more than what is consumed.

If you actually produced anything useful you'd know this because it's common knowledge to any responsible producer.

But you're not, so you don't.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Common costs level the playing field. Then how much something costs exists on a scale of affordability. When foreign labor costs are lower then manufacturing jobs migrate to foreign manufacturers and American jobs are lost. If you want your profits you have to get your costs at least as low as your competition. There are ways to beat this. Certain brand names get premium pricing. The iPhone has made Apple the world's biggest company. Price elasticity is merely seeking the most profit from sales. Infinite elasticity is not. The former is rational. The latter is not. Both are possible. One is sustainable.

--Brant

[Francisco Ferrer]

Your response does not address the point that prices are not infinitely elastic.

(shrug) Neither is taxation, which is just another cost of business written off by inclusion in the price charged for goods and services. And since the price of government is built into the price of every product and service every consumer pays. The only way to buy your freedom is to become a producer. Then there's always parity between the cost of goods and services you sell, and the price of goods and services you buy. Wealth is accumulated simply by producing more than what is consumed.

If you actually produced anything useful you'd know this because it's common knowledge to any responsible producer.

But you're not, so you don't.

Greg

What you appear to be incapable of understanding is that taxation cannot in every case be shifted forward without lost sales, lost revenues and lost jobs. This is an economic reality widely recognized--with the possible exception of politicians and advocates of bigger government.

A classic example is what happened to the U.S. economy in the 1990's when Congress re-imposed the luxury tax. George Will explains:

In 1990 the Joint Committee on Taxation projected that the 1991 revenue yield from luxury taxes would be $31 million. It was $16.6 million. Why? Because (surprise!) the taxation changed behavior: Fewer people bought the taxed products. Demand went down when prices went up. Washington was amazed. People bought yachts overseas. Who would have thought it?

According to a study done for the Joint Economic Committee, the tax destroyed 330 jobs in jewelry manufacturing, 1,470 in the aircraft industry and 7,600 in the boating industry. The job losses cost the government a total of $24.2 million in unemployment benefits and lost income tax revenues.

Taxation is a form of crime, no different in character than burglary, larceny or armed robbery. The fact that it is performed by a democratically elected official does not change its nature in the least. People who care about liberty focus on how to reduce rights violations, not how to pass them on to someone else.

And, by the way, regarding your statement in Post #103 that "people who complain the government is robbing them . . . are robbing someone else": Prove it.

[Brant Gaede]

Greg doesn't have to "prove it." If he'd only try for starters he'd be more than halfway there for we'd have real conversations, not this phony shit. . Anyway, things are not proved so much as they are demonstrated--if he'd only try.

--Brant

if you continually mix up the rational and irrational call it sausage, but don't call it "rational"--Greg has never claimed rationality only that his sausage is damn good--so why do some of us want to see how it's made?

[moralist]

What you appear to be incapable of understanding is that taxation cannot in every case be shifted forward without lost sales, lost revenues and lost jobs.

...only for poorly run companies with crappy business models. That's just a natural process of the weak getting weeded out while the strong thrive. Americans prosper in spite of government... only the failures whine about how "the man" is keeping them down. But you'll never understand this process because you produce nothing. You're just wordy intellectual theory like the tenured eunuchs of government funded academia. You have no real world business experience.

The more you write, the more you're making it clear that you think like an employee. Employees think of "lost jobs" because they need to be given a job by someone else. In direct contrast to you, Americans create their own jobs. Something you'll never be able to do.

Greg

[anthony]

Going Galt seems like a libertarian fantasy to me. It was surely not Galt's - nor Rand's - intention to disappear from a society permanently.

The protagonist rejects such a disappearance as the rational thing to do, but as something he is not brave enough to do.

There are degrees of removing support for the society at large ... although they leave the protagonists in a somewhat unjust position, consuming services they refuse to pay for...

Living by moral values is the personal power to remove support for the corruption in society... and everyone already possesses the power to do that.

Greg

Greg, I can count on a professional like you to see clearly that the welfare state doesn't end without the recipients themselves, the 'poor', in increasing numbers saying "Eff off Mr G Man, I don't want what you've got. I don't want what you've taken from other people and besides I intend to be well-to-do myself (or my children)one day. Just leave me alone". Libertarian intellectuals - or some of the wealthy - may argue that taxation is immoral and big government must be shrunk, but no government is going to shrink itself by dint of highblown ideas. It's the people who will themselves have to come by such principled pride, a far-seeing view of life and the taste for real freedom, selfishly.

[moralist]

Going Galt seems like a libertarian fantasy to me. It was surely not Galt's - nor Rand's - intention to disappear from a society permanently.

The protagonist rejects such a disappearance as the rational thing to do, but as something he is not brave enough to do.

There are degrees of removing support for the society at large ... although they leave the protagonists in a somewhat unjust position, consuming services they refuse to pay for...

Living by moral values is the personal power to remove support for the corruption in society... and everyone already possesses the power to do that.

Greg

Greg, I can count on a professional like you to see clearly that the welfare state doesn't end without the recipients themselves, the 'poor', in increasing numbers saying "Eff off Mr G Man, I don't want what you've got. I don't want what you've taken from other people and besides I intend to be well-to-do myself (or my children)one day. Just leave me alone". Libertarian intellectuals - or some of the wealthy - may argue that taxation is immoral and big government must be shrunk, but no government is going to shrink itself by dint of highblown ideas. It's the people who will themselves have to come by such principled pride, a far-seeing view of life and the taste for real freedom, selfishly.

Well put, Tony.

Only failures believe the lie that government is top-down, because that fills their need to unjustly shift the blame for their own personal failure onto government.

Government is in reality bottom-up. If people were to grow up and properly govern their own lives... big government would dry up and blow away from the lack of being needed. No marches, no demonstrations, no revolts, no coups, no wars... just people taking personal responsibility for their own lives.

Only that unique action possesses the power to put government in its proper subordinate position.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Going Galt seems like a libertarian fantasy to me. It was surely not Galt's - nor Rand's - intention to disappear from a society permanently.

The protagonist rejects such a disappearance as the rational thing to do, but as something he is not brave enough to do.

There are degrees of removing support for the society at large ... although they leave the protagonists in a somewhat unjust position, consuming services they refuse to pay for...

Living by moral values is the personal power to remove support for the corruption in society... and everyone already possesses the power to do that.

Greg

Greg, I can count on a professional like you to see clearly that the welfare state doesn't end without the recipients themselves, the 'poor', in increasing numbers saying "Eff off Mr G Man, I don't want what you've got. I don't want what you've taken from other people and besides I intend to be well-to-do myself (or my children)one day. Just leave me alone". Libertarian intellectuals - or some of the wealthy - may argue that taxation is immoral and big government must be shrunk, but no government is going to shrink itself by dint of highblown ideas. It's the people who will themselves have to come by such principled pride, a far-seeing view of life and the taste for real freedom, selfishly.

Well put, Tony.

Only failures believe the lie that government is top-down, because that fills their need to unjustly shift the blame for their own personal failure onto government.

Government is in reality bottom-up. If people were to grow up and properly govern their own lives... big government would dry up and blow away from the lack of being needed. No marches, no demonstrations, no revolts, no coups, no wars... just people taking personal responsibility for their own lives.

Only that unique action possesses the power to put government in its proper subordinate position.

Greg

Now, what would be the falsification of this proposition about top down and bottom up?

--Brant

[jtucek]

I can already tell from the recent posts that this is going to be mightly unpopular, but anyway. This question is mainly for Derek, as I agree with his evaluation that the argument against the "we are leeches, too, Luca" statement was really weak. Below is the section reworked. It puts Luca on a much weaker moral ground, though. Any comments you care to give will be welcome.

When she spoke at last, it was with a lifeless voice, as if something inside of her that she had trusted had just been crushed---and its dead carcass revealed that it had been a fraud all along. ``Luca, if we do not pay our taxes, that leaves us as leeches too. Every time we use some public service.''

``No. There is a small number of services properly provided for by the government, the police force is one example, and it is unfortunate that we cannot selectively pay for those. But what we pay in indirect taxes, to the extent that we are consumers in society, far exceeds our part of the payment. As to the rest? Most, I'll never use---why should I foot the bill?

``And even in the rare cases where I do use them ... I didn't ask the government to provide those services. They did anyway, wiping out all private competition, thus forcing me to deal with them. I do not feel obliged to pay for those services any more than I would pay a mobster who's used his goons to shutdown all competitors, leaving his diner the only one in operation. If the government nationalises a railroad, which I had been perfectly happy to use, or provides subsidised train fare, is that really a claim on me to obediently stand and watch while I am being extorted, to the extent that I am a producer in society, to pay for those subsidies?

``I am free never to use the train again in my life, of course, and if I do, you are right to think of me as a leech. I am a leech openly, and will not hide behind a shroud of moral high ground. This is a war. And it was the government who started it. Apparently, they think it is justifiable to deal with other men by means of a force. Very well, I accept that tenet. Their force against mine. Let them catch me and punish me, if they can. Then I will go to jail. But until they do, the leeches will have to taste some of their own medicine---with me as a free-rider on their subsidised trains.

``But this is all rather theoretical, in the vast majority of sectors, in health care for example, private providers still exist. They are a mere shadow of what they would be without the government's interference, but they do exist. The rational and moral thing to do is not to use public services and pay for them in taxes---it is to evade paying taxes and purchase your services on the free market, or on what is left of it nowadays.''

<The discussion then follows unchanged, considering health care expenditures, to the "the wellfare state has destroyed both compassion and decency by administering tax-paid charity" argument>

[Francisco Ferrer]

What you appear to be incapable of understanding is that taxation cannot in every case be shifted forward without lost sales, lost revenues and lost jobs.

...only for poorly run companies with crappy business models. That's just a natural process of the weak getting weeded out while the strong thrive. Americans prosper in spite of government... only the failures whine about how "the man" is keeping them down. But you'll never understand this process because you produce nothing. You're just wordy intellectual theory like the tenured eunuchs of government funded academia. You have no real world business experience.

The more you write, the more you're making it clear that you think like an employee. Employees think of "lost jobs" because they need to be given a job by someone else. In direct contrast to you, Americans create their own jobs. Something you'll never be able to do.

Greg

When the government suddenly imposes a tax on, say, boats, resulting in potential buyers canceling or postponing their orders or spending their money on something else, it is not the boat manufacturing industry that is poorly run; it is government.

At one time, most turnpikes and schools in America were privately built and operated. There was nothing wrong with their business model. It wasn't market forces that ended these enterprises. Instead, the private operators were pushed aside by government, which by nature is expansive, monopolistic and destructive of private wealth.

It is clear that no one has taken the time to explain to you the essential difference between market forces and government force. The former consists of goods and services being exchanged voluntarily. The later operates through violence or the threat thereof.

There is nothing "natural" about taxation or the personal and commercial losses that result from it. Taxation is about as "natural" as rape at gunpoint. As for "the weak getting weeded out while the strong thrive," that is in a sense what happened in Soviet Russia. The "weak" who lived by voluntary exchange, like Ayn Rand's father, were "weeded out," while those who lived by brute force, like Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin, thrived. The difference between seizing private wealth for the "public good" in the Soviet Union and the contemporary U.S. is a matter of degree, not kind.

And, by the way per your Post #103, since Ayn Rand considered taxation robbery, whom did Ayn Rand rob?

If advocating the radical reduction of and eventual abolition of taxation in America makes one an "employee," then quite obviously we need more of them.

If you were truly interested in private jobs being created, you would advocate zero taxation. If you truly favored 100% personal responsibility, you would advocate zero taxation.

Whom did Ayn Rand rob?

[Derek McGowan]

gonna have to agree with Greg on this one

How would a soldier in the U.S. Army cover higher taxes by raising his "prices"?

What I am agreeing with Greg on is that shrink and other overhead is built into the cost of the product. It's a cost of doing business, same as labor cost or lawyers fees. The fact that you are trying to dispute that is surprising. Honestly I thought that you (and a few others on this forum) controlled a business but that sort of ignorance to the " cost of business" is hard to reconcile.

[Derek McGowan]

Jtucek,I wrote a response to your above changes but I'm on my phone and suddenly it was gone. I will wait till I'm in front of a keyboard before I type all that out again..... Unless MSK can use some server magic to restore what had been autosaved.....

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jtucek,I wrote a response to your above changes but I'm on my phone and suddenly it was gone. I will wait till I'm in front of a keyboard before I type all that out again..... Unless MSK can use some server magic to restore what had been autosaved.....

Derek,

This forum software package, to my knowledge, does not have an autosave feature for posts.

In a future evolution, I will see if it is not too complicated to include this.

Wanna help, but sorry. I, myself, get zinged like that sometimes.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

This happens to me from time to time. I usually replace it with something better and sometimes that something better is nothing at all.

There is a problem, it seems, in using the "Quote" feature in that as you write against what you are quoting and then someone else posts on that thread you get completely wiped out.

Try this: quoting or not, type in a few lines then post those lines then go into "Edit" and complete your post if it's going to be more than a sentence or two or three. This should wipe out the instability--I think! (Owe! Every time I try to think I get this damn headache!)

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Whom did Ayn Rand rob?

Almost anybody who was a guest in her life. Not everybody, just mostbody.

--Brant

robbed of their autonomy for they didn't know it was left outside in the hall and they couldn't put it back in when they went home because they wanted to come back and continue to bask in her sun; it would have happened to me but I was never a guest so I had to be a second-handed second-hander as a "Student of Objectivism" which was too weak to keep but I still had a lot of housekeeping to get things right and getting things right that had never been really right to begin with for sundry reasons mostly growing up reasons: the vulnerability of callow youth

[Brant Gaede]

I can already tell from the recent posts that this is going to be mightly unpopular, but anyway.

If you don't worry about your popularity here it won't matter as you'll stay as long as you find any value which is the necessary fate of us all in all endeavors.

--Brant

just defer to me in everything!

[Selene]

Jtucek,I wrote a response to your above changes but I'm on my phone and suddenly it was gone. I will wait till I'm in front of a keyboard before I type all that out again..... Unless MSK can use some server magic to restore what had been autosaved.....

Derek,

This forum software package, to my knowledge, does not have an autosave feature for posts.

In a future evolution, I will see if it is not too complicated to include this.

Wanna help, but sorry. I, myself, get zinged like that sometimes.

Michael

Michael, et. al.

Apparently it does, as it has saved my ass quite a few times in the last month.

It appears in the lower left hand corner of the post about to be submitted.

For example, just a moment ago, it appeared and it says "Last auto saved 11:49:10 AM"

If I tap on the phase:

As you type, the text editor content is automatically saved so that if you had to reload this page you can restore what you've written so far.

You go to more reply options on the lower right and it will give you the option to restore saved content.

A...

[moralist]

Going Galt seems like a libertarian fantasy to me. It was surely not Galt's - nor Rand's - intention to disappear from a society permanently.

The protagonist rejects such a disappearance as the rational thing to do, but as something he is not brave enough to do.

There are degrees of removing support for the society at large ... although they leave the protagonists in a somewhat unjust position, consuming services they refuse to pay for...

Living by moral values is the personal power to remove support for the corruption in society... and everyone already possesses the power to do that.

Greg

Greg, I can count on a professional like you to see clearly that the welfare state doesn't end without the recipients themselves, the 'poor', in increasing numbers saying "Eff off Mr G Man, I don't want what you've got. I don't want what you've taken from other people and besides I intend to be well-to-do myself (or my children)one day. Just leave me alone". Libertarian intellectuals - or some of the wealthy - may argue that taxation is immoral and big government must be shrunk, but no government is going to shrink itself by dint of highblown ideas. It's the people who will themselves have to come by such principled pride, a far-seeing view of life and the taste for real freedom, selfishly.

Well put, Tony.

Only failures believe the lie that government is top-down, because that fills their need to unjustly shift the blame for their own personal failure onto government.

Government is in reality bottom-up. If people were to grow up and properly govern their own lives... big government would dry up and blow away from the lack of being needed. No marches, no demonstrations, no revolts, no coups, no wars... just people taking personal responsibility for their own lives.

Only that unique action possesses the power to put government in its proper subordinate position.

Greg

Now, what would be the falsification of this proposition about top down and bottom up?

--Brant

In America today there is none, because of the unique nature of this nation.

However, if you wish, you're totally free to make one up.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Going Galt seems like a libertarian fantasy to me. It was surely not Galt's - nor Rand's - intention to disappear from a society permanently.

The protagonist rejects such a disappearance as the rational thing to do, but as something he is not brave enough to do.

There are degrees of removing support for the society at large ... although they leave the protagonists in a somewhat unjust position, consuming services they refuse to pay for...

Living by moral values is the personal power to remove support for the corruption in society... and everyone already possesses the power to do that.

Greg

Greg, I can count on a professional like you to see clearly that the welfare state doesn't end without the recipients themselves, the 'poor', in increasing numbers saying "Eff off Mr G Man, I don't want what you've got. I don't want what you've taken from other people and besides I intend to be well-to-do myself (or my children)one day. Just leave me alone". Libertarian intellectuals - or some of the wealthy - may argue that taxation is immoral and big government must be shrunk, but no government is going to shrink itself by dint of highblown ideas. It's the people who will themselves have to come by such principled pride, a far-seeing view of life and the taste for real freedom, selfishly.

Well put, Tony.

Only failures believe the lie that government is top-down, because that fills their need to unjustly shift the blame for their own personal failure onto government.

Government is in reality bottom-up. If people were to grow up and properly govern their own lives... big government would dry up and blow away from the lack of being needed. No marches, no demonstrations, no revolts, no coups, no wars... just people taking personal responsibility for their own lives.

Only that unique action possesses the power to put government in its proper subordinate position.

Greg

Now, what would be the falsification of this proposition about top down and bottom up?

--Brant

In America today there is none, because of the unique nature of this nation.

However, if you wish, you're totally free to make one up.

Greg

If this is a factual answer it's still wrong.

--Brant

but from you it couldn't be right--which is the whole point of my question

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jtucek,I wrote a response to your above changes but I'm on my phone and suddenly it was gone. I will wait till I'm in front of a keyboard before I type all that out again..... Unless MSK can use some server magic to restore what had been autosaved.....

Derek,

This forum software package, to my knowledge, does not have an autosave feature for posts.

In a future evolution, I will see if it is not too complicated to include this.

Wanna help, but sorry. I, myself, get zinged like that sometimes.

Michael

Michael, et. al.

Apparently it does, as it has saved my ass quite a few times in the last month.

It appears in the lower left hand corner of the post about to be submitted.

For example, just a moment ago, it appeared and it says "Last auto saved 11:49:10 AM"

If I tap on the phase:

As you type, the text editor content is automatically saved so that if you had to reload this page you can restore what you've written so far.

You go to more reply options on the lower right and it will give you the option to restore saved content.

A...

Adam,

Dayaamm!

I just saw that for the first time on this very post.

And I don't use my smartphone for OL. I generally use Chrome on a Windows 8.1 desktop.

I'm going to look deeper into this.

Thanks.

Michael

[moralist]

Going Galt seems like a libertarian fantasy to me. It was surely not Galt's - nor Rand's - intention to disappear from a society permanently.

The protagonist rejects such a disappearance as the rational thing to do, but as something he is not brave enough to do.

There are degrees of removing support for the society at large ... although they leave the protagonists in a somewhat unjust position, consuming services they refuse to pay for...

Living by moral values is the personal power to remove support for the corruption in society... and everyone already possesses the power to do that.

Greg

Greg, I can count on a professional like you to see clearly that the welfare state doesn't end without the recipients themselves, the 'poor', in increasing numbers saying "Eff off Mr G Man, I don't want what you've got. I don't want what you've taken from other people and besides I intend to be well-to-do myself (or my children)one day. Just leave me alone". Libertarian intellectuals - or some of the wealthy - may argue that taxation is immoral and big government must be shrunk, but no government is going to shrink itself by dint of highblown ideas. It's the people who will themselves have to come by such principled pride, a far-seeing view of life and the taste for real freedom, selfishly.

Well put, Tony.

Only failures believe the lie that government is top-down, because that fills their need to unjustly shift the blame for their own personal failure onto government.

Government is in reality bottom-up. If people were to grow up and properly govern their own lives... big government would dry up and blow away from the lack of being needed. No marches, no demonstrations, no revolts, no coups, no wars... just people taking personal responsibility for their own lives.

Only that unique action possesses the power to put government in its proper subordinate position.

Greg

Now, what would be the falsification of this proposition about top down and bottom up?

--Brant

In America today there is none, because of the unique nature of this nation.

However, if you wish, you're totally free to make one up.

Greg

If this is a factual answer it's still wrong.

Fine with me, Brant.

My answer works for me... but it won't work for you.

In my view, I am personally responsible for how the government treats me.

In your view, you are not personally responsible for how the government treats you.

There's the two views.

Pure and simple.

Greg

[moralist]

What you appear to be incapable of understanding is that taxation cannot in every case be shifted forward without lost sales, lost revenues and lost jobs.

...only for poorly run companies with crappy business models. That's just a natural process of the weak getting weeded out while the strong thrive. Americans prosper in spite of government... only the failures whine about how "the man" is keeping them down. But you'll never understand this process because you produce nothing. You're just wordy intellectual theory like the tenured eunuchs of government funded academia. You have no real world business experience.

The more you write, the more you're making it clear that you think like an employee. Employees think of "lost jobs" because they need to be given a job by someone else. In direct contrast to you, Americans create their own jobs. Something you'll never be able to do.

Greg

When the government suddenly imposes a tax...

I on to you, Frank.

I know what you're up to.

All of your verbiage boils down to the need to blame (unjustly accuse) the government for your own personal failure, when it was your own free choice to be an employee instead of becoming a producer. So it's the consequences of your own choice which account for your view being so completely different from mine.

I chose what you didn't, and became a producer by creating my own job instead of an employee who needs to be given a job... so naturally I don't think like you do.

Because you think like an employee, you feel that you are entitled to security that you will never deserve. You never worked to earn it for yourself, because you felt entitled to someone else giving it to you.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Employees aren't producers? Greg, you've gone to la la land to sustain an argument.

--Brant

[Derek McGowan]

I can already tell from the recent posts that this is going to be mightly unpopular, but anyway. This question is mainly for Derek, as I agree with his evaluation that the argument against the "we are leeches, too, Luca" statement was really weak. Below is the section reworked. It puts Luca on a much weaker moral ground, though. Any comments you care to give will be welcome.

I like this version much better. Its much harder to argue against in my opinion and here's why-

In Luca's first paragraph he takes a more direct approach to Elke's statement of him being a leech. Previously he just blew her off, this time his words let her know that he sees her side of things. He accepts the fact that the government does provide some services that he is willing to use and not call immoral but the key is he would rather than pay for those services and those alone.

That introduces the theme of freedom (as I see it) versus your previous them of immorality and evil. I resonate with this a lot because for me freedom is the ultimate goal. There is nothing wrong with me sending money to a project I would like to support whether the project is run by family, friend, private company or government. The problem with taxes is when you can't choose what you will support- the involuntary nature.

He does lose moral ground in the final paragraph by stating that (technically) he is not in alignment with integrity BUT i think he does gain strength for his argument by first being honest * and secondly by re-framing his use of the services as a tool of war. Use the services in an attempt to bleed the service dry. Same could be said, in a negative way, of piracy. If you don't pay the artist then they will finally stop providing the product.

*It is a big issue for me when people use certain reasons for their actions and then try to claim those reasons as immutable, inherent, creator given law, when the fact is for most of the reasons the basis is really- its convenient/not convenient for me mentally or physically. A big one for me is animal rights....

p.s. I noticed this thread is now longer than the one on my book.... I'm jealous

p.p.s When I made the comment on the typos I want you to know that I had no negativity in mind. My book was proof read by 9 different people and it still has problems. I was just trying to help.

[moralist]

Employees aren't producers? Greg, you've gone to la la land to sustain an argument.

--Brant

This applies particularly to Frank, as it explains why his view of the government is completely different from mine.

Greg.