Zachary Young

Disagree. Actually fractional reserve banking is an important factor in business cycles. Bank credit expansion fools entrepreneurs into reallocating too many resources into capital goods industries. Eventually the market self corrects and you have the bust. Depression. People out of work. It wouldn't be so bad but then government steps in to save the day and makes everything worse. It's a viscious cycle. Obviously central banks share a lot of the blame as well with their artificial manipulation of interest rates. Fractional reserve banking is fraudulent. They say they've got your money but they don't. It's also unstable - if the government didn't constantly step in to bail out the banks they would go broke.

That's why you have 'trials'.

Alternatively I think it might be alright for her to have him killed or brutally maimed. It should be up to the victim... if the victim was a Tolstoyist and wanted to just forgive the offender that would be fine. If they wanted monetary restitution that would be fine. If they wanted to inflict harm on the assailant, again it should be up to them.

Yes. Of course the woman wouldn't want to be anywhere near the rapist, so he would actually be held in something sort of like a prison, where he is forced to labour until restitution - quite a lot of restitution - is repaid to the woman. Obviously it's impossible to undo the harm of rape, but I'd say forcing him to work to pay her back say a million dollars would at least empower her in some respect and perhaps help alleviate the damage by some small degree.

The Canadian Revenue Agency is a gang of thieves.

I don't like it. Any tax is a bad tax. I do think Banks are a huge scam. They print money by lending out 10x as much as they have on hand for deposits. This is called fractional reserve banking. If we abolished fiat currency and returned to a gold standard and outlawed the fraud that is fractional reserve banking our society would be much wealthier and we wouldn't have to deal with depressions and high unemployment and economic turmoil. But raising taxes is NOT the answer, it's never the answer. The more money government has the less money you have.

There are people who get rich at everyone else's expense. Government bureaucrats, police, politicians and corporations that deal in procurement such as the merchants of death. There is a legitimate grievance against anyone who is a net tax recipient. But if someone gets rich because he sells products that consumers want to buy you can hardly say he gets rich at anyone else's expense. His actions actually create a good deal of wealth for others.

I guess it's both. I'm not rich (no income at all currently, sadly) but would like to be some day. So that is my 'vested interest'. But it is absolutely a philosophical point of view here. I believe that it is immoral to initiate violence or coercion and I view taxation as exactly that. It is armed robbery - give us your money or we will lock you in a cage. It has all the moral authority of the highwayman.

That is a VERY rude question. I do mind, thank you very much.

Not the same rate. No, that is not equal. That is not fair. All Canadians should be taxed the same dollar amount. I say $5 ought to cover it.

They don't bother reporting it because they realize there's no point. Nothing can be done. Not really the police's fault here - the important thing to understand is that you should defend yourself from crime, the cops can't and won't help you. Secure your valuables and be ready to defend yourself with violence against anyone who would assault you or take your stuff. Be self reliant, don't rely on the government to protect you.

So, if I discuss Nazi Germany does that mean I'm not allowed to dismiss Hitler's views as insane?

dre : I am glad that you have renounced the goal of income equality. Welcome to the good side!

Well, I am loosely familiar with the history of economic thought, from Aristotle on to St Thomas Aquinas, from the Spanish Scholastics and the Brilliant Turgot, onto Smith, Ricardo, Mengar, Bohm Bawerk, Mises... that idiot Marx and that deviant Keynes. I have a general idea about the fallacy that is macro economic policy, I grasp most of the concepts involved w/ micro, demand curves and the like. I'm well aware of the economitricians fetish for numbers and graphs.... but I was never formally schooled in the subject, if that's your question.

If you want to discuss the best ways of starting up a company, if you want to discuss the best methods of building a GUI, then bill gates is your guy. On the topic of economics he is clearly unschooled. Then again, so are most economists! Only the austrian school really understands how the economy functions and what is the best method or organizing society (along voluntary lines w/ respect for private property).

Perhaps your experiences have been different then mine. Care to elaborate? What do you think they are going to do, go knock door to door until they find your stolen property? The cops always make matters worse.

Bill Gates is not an economist. He is unqualified to comment on this subject.

I myself have had trouble finding work in the past, owing to my criminal record, and my own personal laziness (which is legion). If it weren't for government intervention in the market place, if it weren't for the minimum wage law and high taxation it would be much easier to find a good job. But I think anyone, if they are truly motivated, can find a job, working @ McDonalds or delivering flyers or what have you.

Because the imaginary people in my head are far more eloquent and not nearly as whiny.

That is exactly what the police do right now. Ever tried to get something stolen back? 'We can't help you'. Police aren't here to help you, they are here to serve the state and it's interests.

I am very much concerned with raising the standard of living for the poor. And if you look at where this has been accomplished it wasn't in societies concerned with egalitarianism but rather with societies concerned with the preservation of property rights. In America during the 18th and 19th century there was laissez-faire capitalism and you saw standards of living for the very poor rising faster than at any other time period in any other society. As Milton Friedman said - if you put equality above liberty, you end up with neither, but if you put liberty above equality you end up with a good measure of both. I personally do not think it is good to have people closer together in wealth or income. I think that if wealth is stolen, then it is unjust and should be returned, but if wealth is created it belongs to whoever created it. Someone like Bill Gates, that bought personal computers to the world, deserves his billions. You want wealth - go out and create some, but don't use the goveernment to steal it from someone else to give it to you. They're going to keep it for themselves anyway, it won't work.

No, clearly in the case of a murder or a stolen car their is a victim. Namely the guy who got murdered or the guy who got his car stolen. Just because there is law doesn't mean it's just. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral. The Law, dickens observed, is an ass. The solution to our problems is not more government, not more laws. Elected officials will never be the answer. The solution is people acting morally. How about we use our heads and consider individual matters ourselves instead of delegating our moral authority to the state? The state is a criminal organization, it cannot seriously accuse others of wrong doing without the most tragic hypocrisy.

that sucks guyser. On the other hand you have big casinos that actually profit off of exploiting the weaknesses and mental illnesses of others. The police shut down their competition, innocent bingo games like yours or small stakes poker games run for a profit. Sickening.

The problem is there is no respect for property rights any more in this society. People think they have the right to dictate to others what they should do with their businesses, their land, their homes. Too many damn busybodies. Starting a business is VERY HARD WORK. We should be greatful to businessmen for all the good they do for the economy and for ourselves and not punish them for what they are doing and not try to control how they run their businesses.

"But my question still stands: never mind people using welfare for bad purposes or what have you; if you could push a button and end it immediately, could you not see some sudden, devastating and awful things occurring to a lot of people?" Getting a job is not awful and devastating. No, absolutely nothing terrible would happen. Look - I've known a lot of people on welfare in my life. My mother raised me and my sisters on it. I have lived with people on it. Now my mother was kind of the exception that proves the rule, but most of the people I have known who were on welfare did so because they liked to party and didn't want to work. If their welfare cheques got cut off they would have to go out and get jobs. I don't think people who "abuse" welfare (whatever that means) are bad. I think they are just rationally exploiting the system a little. I don't have any moral contempt for them. But they definitely don't need the cheque and if you cut it off it would probably do them a lot of good. Having a job is an essential part of a full life. Forcing them to work would actually greatly improve them. I mean, we should do some things to make it easier for them to find a job, like eliminating the minimum wage and not criminalizing harmless behaviour like drug use. We should cut taxes so that businesses flourish and we should cut taxes so that there is more savings and thus investment and thus more capital and thus higher productivity and thus (finally!) higher wages. But on the issue of welfare simply about welfare, we end it tomorrow and it will make things better for everyone. But it's far MORE important that we cut military spending and spending on police and spending on politicians salaries and spending on making the friends of politicians rich than that we should cut spending on welfare.