Warren Buffet On Taxes

[lukep]

I believe government is unnecessary for sane and rational people.

I'd agree wholeheartedly with those words... But of course we don't live in utopia and in fact we're far outnumbered by ppl who need to suck the gubment teat to survive.

This line of thinking, although true, isn't practical for life on Earth. I can't see how it would become so in the next century or two either.

I don't make internet monies because governments exist. I doubt many of the successful people here do. The internet is very unregulated and mostly untaxed. And that is why it is an open, market democracy with incredible dynamism and innovation.

Stick around a minute or two... The net will be as closed and tyranical as the rest of the world as soon as those in power figure out the technicalities.

My point here is that socialism DOES have benefits... But only because it's such an imperfect world... Once welfare families, trailer parks and hoodrats cease to exist because education flourishes we won't need socialism anymore because enough people will be smart enough to see the benefits that you and I do in capitalism alone.

 

[guerilla]

My point here is that socialism DOES have benefits...

It doesn't. Socialism is irrational.

 

[JarredLv]

But of course we don't live in utopia and in fact we're far outnumbered by ppl who need to suck the gubment teat to survive.

How did we get that way? Prior to government what were these people doing? When it comes to government, a significant majority of the time the cure is also the ailment. Welfare is a self perpetuating cycle. Has there ever been a reason for a person on welfare to try and get off of it? Where is the incentive. In a world without welfare survival is the incentive.

My point here is that socialism DOES have benefits... But only because it's such an imperfect world... Once welfare families, trailer parks and hoodrats cease to exist because education flourishes we won't need socialism anymore because enough people will be smart enough to see the benefits that you and I do in capitalism alone.

The problem with socialism is that one does not simply "shrug it off." The entitlement system is cyclical. Each part depends on the other for existence and thus creates this everlasting continuity. Those that depend on welfare will continue to depend on welfare because there is no reason not to.

 

[cziffra]

How did we get that way? Prior to government what were these people doing?

Here is one example of a solution that predated welfare programs:

Welfare before the Welfare State - Joshua Fulton - Mises Daily

 

[pixelo]

The rioters in London were claiming everything was the fault of the rich, dude. They're morons, but that was the claim.

No they weren't.

They were just taking stuff that they wanted, they could hardly string two words together. They weren't the "poor" either, they are just the amoral urban underclass, many of them were driving their loot off in BMWs.

 

[Ar Scion]

I used to agree with Guerilla.

Until I realized that what I believed didn't comport with human nature. Seriously. If you don't push yourself you don't move. And more often than not you don't push yourself. So the government has to push you.

 

[infoslob]

I used to agree with Guerilla.

Until I realized that what I believed didn't comport with human nature. Seriously. If you don't push yourself you don't move. And more often than not you don't push yourself. So the government has to push you.

Thus an active (socialist) government is acting against human nature (irrational).

Guerilla just covered that.

 

[Ar Scion]

Thus an active (socialist) government is acting against human nature (irrational).

Guerilla just covered that.

I'm referring more to "sane, rational people don't need government".

We're all relatively sane and rational. But it takes a brutal kind of honesty to admit that if we weren't policed or have to face mandatory repercussions for our actions, we'd seriously consider committing certain crimes.

We know in our minds that it's wrong and unethical and irrational and all that.

But our bodies, our habits, our tendencies don't necessarily follow. Ask any man who has cheated on a woman that he liked.

Bottom line is, I'm not entirely convinced that we can govern ourselves totally.

 

[turbolapp]

Seriously. If you don't push yourself you don't move. And more often than not you don't push yourself. So the government has to push you.

Wut? There is a cause and effect order to everything in then natural world. Having an entity come in and try to regulate interrupts the natural balance.

Whether you're the type of person that moves towards rewards or moves away from negative stimuli, it's all still a natural consequence. If you don't push yourself, you stagnate and die. The people motivated by reward will push themselves to make lots of money, for example, and be living the highlife. The people moving away from negative stimuli will push themselves to...well, not die.

Either way you don't need an outside force to step in.

It takes a brutal kind of honesty to admit that if we weren't policed or have to face mandatory repercussions for our actions, we'd seriously consider committing certain crimes.

We know in our minds that it's wrong and unethical and irrational and all that.

But our bodies, our habits, our tendencies don't necessarily follow. Ask any man who has cheated on a woman that he liked.

Bottom line is, I'm not entirely convinced that we can govern ourselves totally.

Again the natural consequence here would be: She leaves you. Or You feel like shit. Or She doesn't leave you and instead makes your life miserable. Or Nothing, you have no conscious, so you do it again...etc You certainly wouldn't want a government throwing you in jail for cheating on your wife though would you?

 

[guerilla]

I used to agree with Guerilla.

I never look for agreement. I look for facts. Everyone has an opinion on everything, but the facts are what they are.

Until I realized that what I believed didn't comport with human nature. Seriously. If you don't push yourself you don't move. And more often than not you don't push yourself. So the government has to push you.

The government loots from people who dont need a push, and gives some of the loot to people who do need a push.

Again, socialism is irrational. The means do not match the (supposed) ends.

 

[guerilla]

Bottom line is, I'm not entirely convinced that we can govern ourselves totally.

This is an argument that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson made.

If men were angels, we wouldn't need a government, and because men are not angels, we need a weak government.

If you don't think you can govern yourself, what makes you think

(1) That you are qualified to vote for your governor

and

(2) that anyone elected to a position of power over you, being of the same human makeup as you, is any more competent and trustworthy to run your life than you are?

 

[7Radu]

This is an argument that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson made.

If men were angels, we wouldn't need a government, and because men are not angels, we need a weak government.

If you don't think you can govern yourself, what makes you think

(1) That you are qualified to vote for your governor

and

(2) that anyone elected to a position of power over you, being of the same human makeup as you, is any more competent and trustworthy to run your life than you are?

lack of hierarchy = chaos in the current stage of the average human mind.

if there weren't cops and someone (the one you vote) to take responsibility for their efficiency, most of the ppl would probably run around with knives stabbing everyone who they don't like.

Is that better than what we currently have?

 

[Ar Scion]

This is an argument that James Madison and Thomas Jefferson made.

If men were angels, we wouldn't need a government, and because men are not angels, we need a weak government.

If you don't think you can govern yourself, what makes you think

(1) That you are qualified to vote for your governor

and

(2) that anyone elected to a position of power over you, being of the same human makeup as you, is any more competent and trustworthy to run your life than you are?

It's not as black and white as you seem to perceive it. Nobody is totally unfit to govern themselves. We're all capable of exerting a certain level of self-control on ourselves.

Sometimes our ability to self-govern is exceeded by the object of our governance. Ie, we fail. Anyone who is honest about their life will admit this. We struggle to keep fit, keep healthy. We struggle to live up to our expectations. We struggle to maintain relationships, struggle to be self disciplined.

It's hard to deny this is the case.

 

[Torgo]

China will never take over the US.

lolol

 

[guerilla]

if there weren't cops and someone (the one you vote) to take responsibility for their efficiency, most of the ppl would probably run around with knives stabbing everyone who they don't like.

Most of the ppl like who? You? Is the only reason you are not a violent psychopath is because there are cops and laws? Because there are laws and cops, does that stop violence? It's not right for you to hurt or steal from me, we don't need police to know that, or to act upon it.

This line of argument is silly, because the person making it always makes it about OTHER humans than themselves.

I live near a small town of 15k. I have seen one police car in 3 months. The cop shop closes at 5:00 PM and we have to call the next town for weekend police assistance. Guess what? No one is raping and pillaging. We're all able to behave productively and socially. Outlier or myth buster?

 

[guerilla]

It's not as black and white as you seem to perceive it.

No offense, bu this how all doublethink starts. Nothing is objectively true, everything is shades of truth, and ostensibly, everyone is allowed to perceive their own truth.

That's elevating opinions to the level of facts. It's dangerous.

Nobody is totally unfit to govern themselves. We're all capable of exerting a certain level of self-control on ourselves.

Sometimes our ability to self-govern is exceeded by the object of our governance. Ie, we fail. Anyone who is honest about their life will admit this. We struggle to keep fit, keep healthy. We struggle to live up to our expectations. We struggle to maintain relationships, struggle to be self disciplined.

It's hard to deny this is the case.

You completely avoided my argument. If you are not fit to govern yourself, presumably due to some laziness or inherently criminal bias, then how can you choose who governs you without the same biases and incentives coming into play?

And how can we know the people we elect, are any better at controlling themselves, let alone us? How can we know they will do a good job of bossing or nannying us, when you admit we're not fit to decide that for ourselves in the first place?

Once again, socialism is irrational.

 

[Ar Scion]

No offense, bu this how all doublethink starts. Nothing is objectively true, everything is shades of truth, and ostensibly, everyone is allowed to perceive their own truth.

That's elevating opinions to the level of facts. It's dangerous.


You completely avoided my argument. If you are not fit to govern yourself, presumably due to some laziness or inherently criminal bias, then how can you choose who governs you without the same biases and incentives coming into play?

And how can we know the people we elect, are any better at controlling themselves, let alone us? How can we know they will do a good job of bossing or nannying us, when you admit we're not fit to decide that for ourselves in the first place?

Once again, socialism is irrational.

I didn't avoid your argument, G. I merely injected it with some requisite nuance that more accurately reflected the complex nature of the reality we live in.

"We are unable to govern ourselves, therefore we are not fit to believe our own logical conclusions when making a decision to vote." is not what I said, nor what I meant.

It should be self-evident if you read what I'm saying. We can govern some aspects of ourselves well, others we struggle with. Therefore one can still struggle with more difficult aspects of self-governance while being able to successfully choose their own governor. One does not exclude the other.

One can be a wise manager of their own finances while being a poor manager of their own health.

This is not to say socialism is the right way. It's to acknowledge fact, the painful kind we often work so hard to whitewash in an effort to portray ourselves as competent, superior, worthy of high esteem and respect.

 

[7Radu]

Most of the ppl like who? You? Is the only reason you are not a violent psychopath is because there are cops and laws? Because there are laws and cops, does that stop violence? It's not right for you to hurt or steal from me, we don't need police to know that, or to act upon it.

This line of argument is silly, because the person making it always makes it about OTHER humans than themselves.

I live near a small town of 15k. I have seen one police car in 3 months. The cop shop closes at 5:00 PM and we have to call the next town for weekend police assistance. Guess what? No one is raping and pillaging. We're all able to behave productively and socially. Outlier or myth buster?

well that's good for you and I'm happy things are calm and nice over there. I wish everyone's statistics look that way.

Unfortunately, I don't see the same here.

Good luck bros

 

[guerilla]

I didn't avoid your argument, G.

You didn't address it at all.

I merely injected it with some requisite nuance that more accurately reflected the complex nature of the reality we live in.

I find that people who make appeals to "reality" are almost always without a logical argument. "Reality" is supposed to be some magical word that disqualifies any opposing argument, based on the premise that reality (observation, experience, interpretation) is objectively true.

It's a non-argument.

"We are unable to govern ourselves, therefore we are not fit to believe our own logical conclusions when making a decision to vote." is not what I said, nor what I meant.

It is a logical extension, a reductio ad absurdum, from your position.

It should be self-evident if you read what I'm saying. We can govern some aspects of ourselves well, others we struggle with. Therefore one can still struggle with more difficult aspects of self-governance while being able to successfully choose their own governor. One does not exclude the other.

What does any of that have to do with selecting someone else to govern us?

Again, you're avoiding the challenge I put to you.

One can be a wise manager of their own finances while being a poor manager of their own health.

Man who sleeps with itchy bum, wakes up with smelly finger.

This is not to say socialism is the right way. It's to acknowledge fact, the painful kind we often work so hard to whitewash in an effort to portray ourselves as competent, superior, worthy of high esteem and respect.

More gibberish.

If you don't want to have a serious discussion, no problem. But don't carry on with this bullshit and waste both of our time. There are plenty of people on this forum talking loud and saying nothing, surely we have better opportunities for our intelligence and potential.

 

[guerilla]

well that's good for you and I'm happy things are calm and nice over there. I wish everyone's statistics look that way.

Unfortunately, I don't see the same here.

Good luck bros

You didn't answer my question. Are you a rapist, thief and murderer, restrained only by the fact there are police or laws?

Is your father? Your brother? Your child?

The truth is, some cultures are defective. The western culture, from Greece to the UK to America is increasingly becoming defective when there is less respect for property rights and individual freedom due to increased socialism.

So maybe you live in a place which has a shitty culture, and so doesn't have the civilized norms that other places might benefit from, but surely putting some official meathead on the corner in a costume and arming him with a club or gun doesn't make society a nicer, or safer place to be.