mpg
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
- Messages
- 7,795
- Reaction score
- 1,784
- Location
- Milford, CT
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
How do you define it?
How do you define it?
Wikipedia thinks this is what it is: "Economic freedom or economic liberty or right to economic liberty denotes the ability of members of a society to undertake economic direction and actions."
How do you define it?
I like this a lot better than the options in the poll. Without the economic ability to participate in our culture or market, you don't really have the right to do so.
Just look up 'economic' and 'freedom' in a dictionary...combine the two and that is how I define it.
You always have the right. In that situation you just don't have the means.
I have the right to buy a Rolls Royce. The fact that I don't have the money doesn't mean I don't possess the right.
If you think of freedom as the ability to buy a specific product, then of course you'll miss the point. If someone is too poor to undertake any moves to alter their position in life because they must devote all their meager resources towards mere survival does not really have the right to do so. Stripping someone of the means to exercise a right is a time-honored method of stripping someone of that right. A right on paper is meaningless. And I'm talking about the right to participate in the economy. Desperately trying to survive is not participation.
Who is prohibited by another from participating in the economy in this country?
If you are poor, you haven't lost a right.
How do you define it?
At least I was obvious about it.I define it as "Bait thread meant to out all the liberals as closet Commies."
Are you unfamiliar with the debate over positive rights vs. negative rights?Really? "The right to take what other people have"?
C'mon, guy, that's the silliest poll I've seen in many a year.
They don't.the question I've been asking for several years now that has yet to be answered by any conservative or libertarian: if big government, strong regulation, and high effective taxes are SO detrimental to the economy of a nation, why is it that ALL first-world democracies have all three of those traits (and have had those traits for over half a century)
Once again, they don't....and if weak government, little or no regulation, and low effective taxes are SO good for an economy and the freedom of its people, why is it that ALL nations that have these traits are third-world nations?
History and logic both say otherwise. It isn't debatable. That would be like debating evolution. Bill Nye took some heat from his own side for engaging in a debate about evolution.In other words, what you're arguing against is what has in many (but not all) cases led to economic success...and what you're arguing for has (in all cases) led to economic failure. Big government, strong regulation, and high effective taxes, then, don't guarantee a nation's economic success...but weak government, weak regulation, and low effective taxes DO guarantee a nation's economic failure.
Are you unfamiliar with the debate over positive rights vs. negative rights?
They don't.
Once again, they don't.
History and logic both say otherwise. It isn't debatable. That would be like debating evolution. Bill Nye took some heat from his own side for engaging in a debate about evolution.
I don't see the point in debating something that's so well documented.Really? Would you, then, be so kind as to show me any first-world democracy that does not have big government, strong regulation, and high effective taxes? And feel free to try to claim Singapore - because Singapore does have all three (though they're called by different names).
And while you're at it, would you also be so kind as to show me any nation that has a weak government, little or no regulation, and low effective taxes that is not a third-world nation?
What's that? You can't provide any solid examples of either to prove me wrong? Gee, wonder why? But the sad thing is, it Does Not Matter that I've got a whole world of evidence to back up what I say, and you have ZERO evidence to back up what you say...because you will not change your mind. Evidence does not matter to you. All that matters to you is Thou Shalt Never Admit that conservative dogma might actually not be as accurate as you've been taught for all these years.
I don't see the point in debating something that's so well documented.
If you think of freedom as the ability to buy a specific product, then of course you'll miss the point. If someone is too poor to undertake any moves to alter their position in life because they must devote all their meager resources towards mere survival does not really have the right to do so.
Stripping someone of the means to exercise a right is a time-honored method of stripping someone of that right. A right on paper is meaningless. And I'm talking about the right to participate in the economy. Desperately trying to survive is not participation.
If Bill Nye had turned down the opportunity to debate evolution, would you say he had nothing? Would you say he lacked intestinal fortitude?In other words, you've got nothing...and you don't have the intestinal fortitude to even try to back up what you claimed.
I'll ask you again. Are you unaware of the debate over positive vs. negative rights?Really? "The right to take what other people have"?
C'mon, guy, that's the silliest poll I've seen in many a year.
I'll ask you again. Are you unaware of the debate over positive vs. negative rights?
That said, you don't seem to get that taxes are what a nation needs to function:
all its regulatory, administrative, military, judicial, and social support functions depend on tax revenue...
Since you made the original assertion, the burden of proof is on you.It all boils down to this, guy - higher taxes are the price of admission to life in a first-world democracy. You cannot have the comprehensive physical and social infrastructure that a first-world democracy requires without higher taxes. If you still hate the thought of paying higher taxes, then there's lots and lots of third-world nation you can go to...and where you'll probably live a good and happy life if you've got a bit of money. But if you want to live in a modern first-world democracy, you MUST pay the price of admission: higher taxes.
Since you made the original assertion, the burden of proof is on you.
Would you care to show me any stable, developed nation in all human history that did not depend on tax revenue in order to function?
If there's no tax revenue, then there's no government. Only those who have money will be able to afford an education for their children - but then, the level of education available even to the wealthy will vary wildly from location to location. There's no police, firefighters, judicial system, or social workers. There's no laws. Local customs - whether good or bad - become what passes for laws. If you think that's okay, remember the Salem witch trials...and such still go on today (if by different names) in places where is no effective governance.
If all that sounds good to you, then go find someplace and declare it tax-free for everybody!
Good luck with that....