Corporate tax cuts/breaks don't create jobs!

[jacee]

I'm pretty sure the average Canadian isn't so anti-democratic that they want to overthrow a government that was just elected less than 6 months ago.

Why would anybody?

The government works for us.

We pay their salaries.

And likewise the police.

It's the wealthiest tax evaders and the bankers who help them who need a wake up call.

[jacee]

The government didn't build the sky scrapers, private industry did. So, the same guys who built them now. Corporations. Businesses. People trying to make an honest buck - not politicians trying to steal every dollar you make.

Zachary I think you are very Young.

How would the private sector build anything if there was no public infrastructure?

No roads, sewers, watermains?

That's what taxes are used for.

That and multi-million dollar subsidies to the oil sands, and there you might have a point.

[jacee]

That is not realistic……We’ll always have to pay some form of tax….the argument is what percent of income.

No it isn't!

The discussion is why don't the wealthiEST Canadians pay all their taxes owing - $550b and counting - so the rest of us aren't stuck paying the federal debt, that is 'coincidentally' about the amount they owe us in taxes?

Edited September 16, 2011 by jacee

[dre]

Historically societies which have had the most amount of economic freedom - that is to say the lowest taxes - have been the most prosperous.

This is just flat out false.

[bloodyminded]

The government didn't build the sky scrapers, private industry did. So, the same guys who built them now. Corporations. Businesses. People trying to make an honest buck - not politicians trying to steal every dollar you make.

Which business is going to pay for the infrastructure? You want sky-high costs that almost no one can afford?

And what about our militry adventures, the ones in which the Superfriends flit about battling evil and protecting liberty?

Who's going to pay for that? Private industry?

Oh, wait:

Rather we should allow private competing courts to arbitrate disputes and have private security firms and insurance firms take over the few necessary functions of police. Anyone who has ever stood in a government court understands the miscarriages of justice that occur with a government monopoly on justice.

You don't think a market-based justice system, and competitive courts (how would that even work, by the way?) isn't going to be an abortion, completely soaked to the skin in miscarriages of justice?

Anarcho-capitalism is an idea dead in the water.

Edited September 16, 2011 by bloodyminded

[bloodyminded]

Societies have existed and indeed prospered without government. The not so wild west and iceland during the middle ages are two examples of prosperous anarchistic societies.

Did they have competitive, "free market" courts of law?

I'm not convinced you've thought all this through.

[Zachary Young]

Did they have competitive, "free market" courts of law?

http://mises.org/daily/1121/Medieval-Iceland-and-the-Absence-of-Government

Instead of a judicial branch of government there were private courts that were the responsibility of the godar. To solve disputes, members of this court system were chosen after the crime happened. The defendant and plaintiff each had the right to pick half the arbitrators.

[Zachary Young]

Roads and the like will be paid for by consumers and supplied by corporations. It will actually cost less because market competition will drive down prices, and we will have higher quality (no more pot holes). Just look at the pavement in a mall parking lot, and contrast it with government roads. Of course it would be impossible in a libertarin society to have military interventions like our current one in Libya or our occupation of Afghanistan. War is not profitable - this is why it requires both coercive taxation and the debasement of a currency to afford it. That's okay... I'm not too worried about who will go bomb brown people.

A market based justice system would be subject to competition. Judge's stock in trade would be the fairness of their decisions. There is no justice in our current court system. I once stood before a judge, 4 years ago, for the terrible crime of not showing up to probation meetings and missing a court date. The judge sentenced me to 30 days in jail, but before he did so he asked me if I could pay a fine. I couldn't. I had no money. I could have bought my way out of jail. You call that justice? The poor get no justice in government courts. How can you expect a government court to provide justice in a dispute between an individual and the government? When an organization has a monopoly on arbitrage they will use that monopoly to their own advantage.

[bloodyminded]

A market based justice system would be subject to competition. Judge's stock in trade would be the fairness of their decisions.

And who determines this "fairness" and how? The Market????

There is no justice in our current court system. I once stood before a judge, 4 years ago, for the terrible crime of not showing up to probation meetings and missing a court date. The judge sentenced me to 30 days in jail, but before he did so he asked me if I could pay a fine. I couldn't. I had no money. I could have bought my way out of jail. You call that justice? The poor get no justice in government courts. How can you expect a government court to provide justice in a dispute between an individual and the government? When an organization has a monopoly on arbitrage they will use that monopoly to their own advantage.

I agree with our point about money; the poor are the primary victims of institutional injustices. (Not "the businessman," as you might otherwise believe.) If you can't pay the right fees, you go to jail while awaiting trial; if you have money, you do not. That's an injustice by definition, opposed to the very principles of same.

Further, the cliche about expensive lawyers versus state-paid defense lawyers is in fact generally true. That's buying jsutice...which you think should be more the case, not less!

(For example, what do you propose be done with defendants who have no money to pay lawyers?)

I don't see how a competitive, free market justice system (which you as of yet have declined to explain how it could possibly even begin to work) would solve this problem.

Why would it? It would have nothing to gain by solving the issue--and therefore, thanks to market principles, it could not in good faith attempt to solve it.

Edited September 16, 2011 by bloodyminded

[CPCFTW]

Roads and the like will be paid for by consumers and supplied by corporations. It will actually cost less because market competition will drive down prices, and we will have higher quality (no more pot holes). Just look at the pavement in a mall parking lot, and contrast it with government roads. Of course it would be impossible in a libertarin society to have military interventions like our current one in Libya or our occupation of Afghanistan. War is not profitable - this is why it requires both coercive taxation and the debasement of a currency to afford it. That's okay... I'm not too worried about who will go bomb brown people.

A market based justice system would be subject to competition. Judge's stock in trade would be the fairness of their decisions. There is no justice in our current court system. I once stood before a judge, 4 years ago, for the terrible crime of not showing up to probation meetings and missing a court date. The judge sentenced me to 30 days in jail, but before he did so he asked me if I could pay a fine. I couldn't. I had no money. I could have bought my way out of jail. You call that justice? The poor get no justice in government courts. How can you expect a government court to provide justice in a dispute between an individual and the government? When an organization has a monopoly on arbitrage they will use that monopoly to their own advantage.

One problem you're forgetting is what happens when the "brown people" come bomb us? I'm very conservative, but also patriotic, and we at least need taxation for a military to defend ourselves. I'm a big fan of military isolationism to keep costs down though.

Edited September 16, 2011 by CPCFTW

[dre]

Roads and the like will be paid for by consumers and supplied by corporations. It will actually cost less because market competition will drive down prices, and we will have higher quality (no more pot holes). Just look at the pavement in a mall parking lot, and contrast it with government roads. Of course it would be impossible in a libertarin society to have military interventions like our current one in Libya or our occupation of Afghanistan. War is not profitable - this is why it requires both coercive taxation and the debasement of a currency to afford it. That's okay... I'm not too worried about who will go bomb brown people.

A market based justice system would be subject to competition. Judge's stock in trade would be the fairness of their decisions. There is no justice in our current court system. I once stood before a judge, 4 years ago, for the terrible crime of not showing up to probation meetings and missing a court date. The judge sentenced me to 30 days in jail, but before he did so he asked me if I could pay a fine. I couldn't. I had no money. I could have bought my way out of jail. You call that justice? The poor get no justice in government courts. How can you expect a government court to provide justice in a dispute between an individual and the government? When an organization has a monopoly on arbitrage they will use that monopoly to their own advantage.

Roads and the like will be paid for by consumers and supplied by corporations. It will actually cost less because market competition will drive down prices, and we will have higher quality (no more pot holes). Just look at the pavement in a mall parking lot, and contrast it with government roads.

This is pretty much fantasy. If the realestate required for roads had to be purchased on the private market the cost of use would be astronomical, and without the power to expropriate land the projects would be scuttled by property owners, or held hostage.

And your claim that private roads would be better and cheaper is just not realistic.

[dre]

One problem you're forgetting is what happens when the "brown people" come bomb us? I'm very conservative, but also patriotic, and we at least need taxation for a military to defend ourselves. I'm a big fan of military isolationism to keep costs down though.

Of the trillions of dollars countries like Canada and the US have spent on military NOT ONE SINGLE PENNY has ever been used to repell an invasion of brown people. In fact our military and the way its used is one of the biggest security problems we have.

[CPCFTW]

Of the trillions of dollars countries like Canada and the US have spent on military NOT ONE SINGLE PENNY has ever been used to repell an invasion of brown people. In fact our military and the way its used is one of the biggest security problems we have.

What's your point? I already said I'm in favour of isolationism. Military for defensive purposes is an insurance policy. Just because we haven't been invaded doesn't mean we never will be. Furthermore, countries will encroach on our sovereignty without a military presence (ie. in the arctic).

[CitizenX]

What's your point? I already said I'm in favour of isolationism. Military for defensive purposes is an insurance policy. Just because we haven't been invaded doesn't mean we never will be. Furthermore, countries will encroach on our sovereignty without a military presence (ie. in the arctic).

CPCFTW we agree on this point...WOW... ...Happy days.

Edited September 16, 2011 by CitizenX

[WWWTT]

Roads and the like will be paid for by consumers and supplied by corporations. It will actually cost less because market competition will drive down prices, and we will have higher quality (no more pot holes). Just look at the pavement in a mall parking lot, and contrast it with government roads.

Wow!Your comparing the Tim Horton's parking lot with the 401!

How many fully loaded transports drive at 110km/hr in -20 weather in January through the Tim Hortons parking lot over a 24hr period on the average weekday?

WWWTT

[Zachary Young]

Not many transport trucks driving through city roads yet they are still potholed to hell. Lots of cars go in and out of mall parking lots yet they are in pristine shape. I hear 407 is much nicer to drive on than other highways... never been on it myself.

There is no competition in roads. What we have now is road socialism. Like any other form of socialism, it doesn't work. it doesn't work because it is impossible, absent a price system, to rationally allocate scarce resources. So we have for example traffic congestion. Try driving through toronto during rush hour. Everyone wants to use the road at this time. If there was pricing this problem would solve itself. Think how unsafe our roads are. How many people die every year while driving? The government planners have no incentive towards road safety, like competing corporations would. Market competition drives prices down because people can choose between less expensive alternatives. When you have a system of socialism there is no competition - prices go up and quality degrades.

I am absolutely, like my conservative friends here, an 'isolationist' or 'non interventionist'. Actually I think we should just get rid of our military, but if we are to have one it should be strictly for the purpose of national defence. When we intervene in places like Libya and Afghanistan we actually threaten our national security by building animonisty towards us around the world. And it's very expensive. We need to stop spending so much money overseas.