Warren Buffet On Taxes

[Napolean]

On entitlements: How many of you can honestly say that you would seriously be able to grow your business if you were given $ 1,000,000.00 with no strings attached?

Half of you can't even make a profit on $ 50.00 adwords vouchers, no matter how many times you sign up for a new google account.

It's the same thing with entitlements, someone isn't going to turn their lives around with free money given to them, they have to work hard for something in order to learn anything. Only then can they begin experiencing success. You don't get there without making mistakes, and when the government robs you of the opportunity to make mistakes, you never advance.

On Buffet: Did I miss something on what he did? As far as I know he's a buy and hold investor, just operating on common sense and patience. You research a company, gauge how well its being managed, and if you like what you see, buy a little bit of stock in the company every week or every month. Most people don't have the raw patience to stick it out when a company is going through its usual ups and downs, and even more people won't do the kind of research Buffet that seemed to be passionate about.

Is he still buying more companies? I hope not, it looks like his patience and common sense is weaning.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

Armies existed before government.

I'll call bullshit on that. Source please. And I don't mean just some pissy ass nomadic militia, but an actual trained & armed military who was capable of mobilizing and protecting a populous and its borders.

You sound like some teenager who's totally delusional as to how the world works. Yeah, let's just get rid of all governments in the world. I'm sure that will work out just fine and dandy. If that happened, what do you think the outcome would be? Right, people emerging as leaders and starting governments, defining boundaries, and so on.

 

[guerilla]

I'll call bullshit on that. Source please. And I don't mean just some pissy ass nomadic militia, but an actual trained & armed military who was capable of mobilizing and protecting a populous and its borders.

So I have to find an example that fits your narrow definition?

Are you really going to argue that organized (and effective) self-defense can't emerge in the market?

You sound like some teenager who's totally delusional as to how the world works.

LOL.

Yeah, let's just get rid of all governments in the world. I'm sure that will work out just fine and dandy.

Are you going to make an argument, or just assertions?

 

[Ar Scion]

You didn't address it at all.


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.


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


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.


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


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, are you trolling?

If you think that someone who struggles with one problem in his life is unfit to deal with any others, you have a very skewed understanding of humanity.

I'm sorry, but when your position doesn't even portray human beings for who they are it's hard to take it seriously, particularly when it's supposed to be about people.

Your position paints a caricature of the human race.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

Are you really going to argue that organized (and effective) self-defense can't emerge in the market?

Yes, it emerges in the form of taxes administered by a government. If you'd like, we can call it a "Monthly Military Fee" instead. Not to mention, how do they know what they're even protecting, unless there's some type of consensus on it? That's what a government is.

 

[guerilla]

guerilla, are you trolling?

Not at all. I don't have time to troll, and if I did, it wouldn't be here.

If you think that someone who struggles with one problem in his life is unfit to deal with any others, you have a very skewed understanding of humanity.

I didn't claim that. If you want to say I did, source it.

I'm sorry, but when your position doesn't even portray human beings for who they are it's hard to take it seriously, particularly when it's supposed to be about people.

Your position paints a caricature of the human race.

Sounds like more emo guilt trip, doublethink bullshit to me.

I am not a Utopian. I know what humans being are capable of on both sides of the leger. Governments killed millions of their own citizens in the 20th century. WWI and WWII killed millions more. Those were state on state wars.

The dangerous lunatic at a shopping mall parking lot doesn't even rank as an amateur when you allow flawed humans the opportunity to wield overwhelming force against one another, and call it legal and proper.

I don't trust people, which is why I don't think government is a good idea. You seem to trust people, because you still won't address how we can choose a government, when we're as flawed as you seem to think we are.

You are the one trolling, avoiding the argument, whatever. And I will continue to bring up the obvious flaws in your argument, as you continue to avoid and make emotional non sequiturs.

All you have to do, is explain how you got from;

"People need to be pushed"

to

"Therefore we need government."

Assuming you were of course talking about a government staffed by those same people who need to be pushed, and not some Kingdom of God or rule by Alien authority.

 

[guerilla]

Yes, it emerges in the form of taxes administered by a government.

There are plenty of voluntary defense organizations, and there always have been. The Hanseatic League is a great example of this.

Society comes before government, just as law, money and security also come before government. Government is simply the act of monopoly and parasitism, dressed up as something official and representative.

Not to mention, how do they know what they're even protecting, unless there's some type of consensus on it? That's what a government is.

Name one government that operates by consensus.

 

[Kiopa_Matt]

I'm done. You're either a) trolling, b) completely delusional, or c) your parents forced you to live inside a bubble throughout your childhood. Your comments / ideas have absolutely no rationality to them though, so I'm done.

 

[guerilla]

lol at thread tag and ad hominem arguments

Waaaah Waaah Waaah "I'm done! My butt hurts! Owies!"

 

[JakeStratham]

On Buffet: Did I miss something on what he did?

Probably not. Buffet has become a celebrity. Folks give him credibility on topics that have tenuous connections to that which made him famous (investing). It's like Johnny Depp making comments about how to run a studio, and everyone rushing to listen.

Silly, but not unexpected with emotional people.


And lol at some of the folks in this thread. You guys have already been checkmated with logic, and don't realize it. Fun to watch the emoting, though.

 

[7Radu]

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.

you think in very extremist terms, society isn't just right or left.

assume only 0.1% are rapists, thieves and murderers, restrained only by the fact that there are police and laws. What shall an innocent fella do if he gets attacked, when there's no police or laws?

I understood your previous point, that society is not educated enough to make the right choice (vote), so basically, the effect of governance is null. However, if the one elected, maintains the functioning of the law and order, if not in full, as per your statements (which I agree to), but there's at least SOME order and it's still better than pure anarchy.

 

[ly2 from WF]

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?

Obviously you need more diversity and multiculturalism in your town.

 

[ly2 from WF]

I'll call bullshit on that. Source please. And I don't mean just some pissy ass nomadic militia, but an actual trained & armed military who was capable of mobilizing and protecting a populous and its borders.

You sound like some teenager who's totally delusional as to how the world works. Yeah, let's just get rid of all governments in the world. I'm sure that will work out just fine and dandy. If that happened, what do you think the outcome would be? Right, people emerging as leaders and starting governments, defining boundaries, and so on.

The roaming gangs of Arabs in Iraq and Afghanistan seem to be doing a pretty good job against the EPICLY HUGE and INSANELY WELL FUNDED U.S. forces using only AK47s and IEDs.

When it comes to protecting your country and your land, you don't need some spineless, worthless fuck politician organizing shit. You just do it.

This thread is full of big government faggots and pussy liberal hand wringers who are scared to let their fucking balls hang.

 

[guerilla]

you think in very extremist terms, society isn't just right or left.

I prefer the term radical, from the greek radic, or "root". I am a root striker in the mold of Henry Thoreau.

I also didn't claim society was left or right.

assume only 0.1% are rapists, thieves and murderers, restrained only by the fact that there are police and laws. What shall an innocent fella do if he gets attacked, when there's no police or laws?

Defend himself. What do you do when the police and laws work for Stalin or Hitler and you are surrounded by millions of potential thieves and murderers?

You can hire help, you can ask for help, but when you put a monopoly agency in charge of law and protection, you get what you'd expect. Corruption. There is no check or balance on a monopoly. If Obama wants to start a war, and it is illegal, he just starts it. No one can stop him. After awhile, people don't even care to try any more.

Btw, there is a lot of violence and theft in society due to laws, because those laws institutionalize WHO can do the beating and looting. If the cops beat you, who do you complain to? The cops? When the courts screw you, who do you complain to? The courts?

I understood your previous point, that society is not educated enough to make the right choice (vote), so basically, the effect of governance is null.

Not quite, but close. If the people aren't able to control themselves, then why would anyone let them vote? That's the rationale for denying criminals a vote. If you're dangerous then you don't get to vote. People either are dangerous or not.

I say they are. Who really likes their government and believes their government is just, efficient, benevolent, etc? Who believes their politicians can't be bought, or act ethically, or always deliver on their promises?

Who here believe that government operates with a consensus, that is everyone in the state, explicitly endorses the government's decisions (and if so, then how do you explain the need for elections)?

However, if the one elected, maintains the functioning of the law and order, if not in full, as per your statements (which I agree to), but there's at least SOME order and it's still better than pure anarchy.

Pure anarchy is not violence. People have been mis-educated on what that word means.

Anarchy comes from "An Archy". Without rulers. It means free people living without someone ruling them. It means people dealing with one another, without someone holding a club over them, or commanding their relationship.

True anarchy is a peaceful order of voluntary relations. Much like most of the internet. There are no cyber police, most of us come and go without being antisocial trolls like Kiopa Matt, talking shit about people's upbringing or mental states.

There will always be the immature children online, just like there will always be someone who will rather steal than work, or commit violence instead of resolving issues peacefully. That is indeed reality. Men are not angels.

The notion that we need someone to tell us not to rape and kill, and that we can use humans JUST LIKE US for that role, is contradictory, and frankly, a very low level of discussion.

The US is in a state of anarchy with Japan. Neither rules each other. Is there a war between the US and Japan right now? Or do they exist for the most part, peacefully?

What about the US and Switzerland? Who rules them? And yet, they still get along.

How can this be? By the rationale of the people who say we need a monopoly agent to protect us, we need a world government, which will police all countries, everywhere, and everyone living in them.

Who here is for world government? And who will elect the first group of angels to run and control our lives?

 

[Moxie]

rule by Alien authority.

 

[JakeStratham]

To one of guerilla's points:

I go to Starbucks every morning. Sometimes with books, and sometimes to meet friends. Been doing it for years, and have spent thousands of hours there. In that time, I've never witnessed an act of aggression.

People may occasionally irritate others, but everyone essentially cooperates. Some are there to voluntarily give up their green paper tickets for products. Others just want to hang out with friends. I've seen people ask for help, and others either offer it or decline. No aggression. I've never been approached and told, "Gimme your chair, or I'll beat your ass."

Now, I can tell you that in Fullerton CA, a man was beaten and killed by a bunch of knuckleheads. So, some folks are definitely aggressive.

Oh wait... cops did that. Never mind.

 

[Moxie]

a consensus, that is everyone in the state, explicitly endorses

A consensus does not have to be unanimous.

 

[guerilla]

A consensus does not have to be unanimous.

Democracy is not a consensus was my point. A consensus by any reasonable use of the word wouldn't include a 50% + 1 vote majority of the people who bothered to vote at all.

 

[Ar Scion]

I didn't claim that. If you want to say I did, source it.

No, you did. The essence of your mischaracterization states that "because people cannot coexist in a relatively functional society without collective rule" therefore "people cannot be trusted to vote".

That's the essence of your misguided and ultimately flawed attempt at a reductio ad absurdum.

My point is the exact opposite, that individuals have varying levels of overall self-governing capacities (some would call it general self-discipline), and within each individual there are varying levels of self-governing capacities (the capacity to govern one's addiction to a drug versus the capacity to govern one's hygiene habits).

It is usually an external force that elicits self-discipline. That's why you see people who join the army become very self-disciplined, and lose it the moment they leave the service. Someone isn't on their ass.

All you have to do, is explain how you got from;

"People need to be pushed"

to

"Therefore we need government."

Assuming you were of course talking about a government staffed by those same people who need to be pushed, and not some Kingdom of God or rule by Alien authority.

Because the relationship between those who govern and those who are governed is not a linear, unidirectional relationship. In an ideal system its cyclical, not linear.

The people put as much pressure on the government as the government does on the people.

This is done via rules and regulations guiding the behavior of those in office, the extent of their powers, the means by which they are checked and balanced. The power exerted by voting and other legitimate means by which political office-holders are influenced by their constituents.

You are right to be skeptical of government. You are right to mistrust the government. But the solution is not to discard is, the solution is to reform and manage it more perfectly.

 

[guerilla]

No, you did. The essence of your mischaracterization states that "because people cannot coexist in a relatively functional society without collective rule" therefore "people cannot be trusted to vote".

I did, or the essence of? What did I actually say? I am simply applying your logic consistently, because you will not.

My point is the exact opposite, that individuals have varying levels of overall self-governing capacities ...

I don't question this.

It is usually an external force that elicits self-discipline. That's why you see people who join the army become very self-disciplined, and lose it the moment they leave the service. Someone isn't on their ass.

This is an opinion, not a fact.

Because the relationship between those who govern and those who are governed is not a linear, unidirectional relationship. In an ideal system its cyclical, not linear.

Ideal systems are Utopianism. I am not a Utopian. You claimed you weren't either with your nuanced views about "reality".

The people put as much pressure on the government as the government does on the people.

Can you prove this?

This is done via rules and regulations guiding the behavior of those in office, the extent of their powers, the means by which they are checked and balanced. The power exerted by voting and other legitimate means by which political office-holders are influenced by their constituents.

You mean that piece of paper that the government ignores called the Constitution? Yeah, that works real good. Who applies the rules and regulations? You? Do you have the power to do that?

If not, then the government is beyond your control.

Also, voting is not legitimate. If we all vote to send a religious group to the ovens in genocide, it is not legitimate. If we vote to prevent you from marrying the person you want, it is not legitimate. If we vote to take your property and give it to other people, that is not legitimate.

Government, theoretically, can only do the things which YOU as an individual delegate to them. If you can't do it, they can't. If you can't take my money, government can't. If you can't bomb someone, government can't. Government cannot have any rights not delegated to it, and only those rights explicitly delegated to it by its constituents.

You are right to be skeptical of government. You are right to mistrust the government. But the solution is not to discard is, the solution is to reform and manage it more perfectly.

You can't reform something which is fundamentally flawed. The problems with government are that it is a violent monopoly based on force. Until governments have to compete, and until they have to be accountable for their violence, then they cannot be improved.

And the answer to that question is the market, not government. We already have the solution, and it is a civil society based on self ownership.

Government is irrational, as it is a fundamentally socialist institution. The idea of reforming it, because you continue to insist we need it, although you cannot articulate why, is cute, but it isn't an argument.

Again, you've failed to connect the dots on why we all need government, if we all don't need the same level of governance. You also haven't explained how we only get the best humans into office, and how they show the restraint not to tax and spend, start wars, and make idiotic laws that punish their constituents for non-violent personal choices.

You can continue to make emotional appeals, or speak in broad abstractions, but that's not a substitute for a logically consistent argument based on facts.