What is the purpose of a Government?

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: glen
Big buisness creates goods, money, and employment.
Why should they pay taxes?

they do. the legal tax burden points it at one person (for ease of collection) but the actual cost is spread between the two parties based on the angles of the supply and demand curve for that person's labor... if there wasn't a tax you'd take a lower amount of pay but it would still be higher than your after-tax would be higher so you'd be better off. so the difference is the amount of the tax the business pays.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: glen
Big buisness creates goods, money, and employment.
Why should they pay taxes?

Because they use services the government provides.

 

[smp]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: smp Amused you and your libertarian ilk would have us beleive that it is not an individual's natural instinct to survive. You would have us all believe that we are naturally lazy and apathetic. My argument to you, and your libertarian ideology, is that it is a human's natural instinct to do anything in their power, to both survive and prosper. Libertarianism suggests that we need financial motives to prosper, to invent, to succeed and to survive. Without private property there would be no individual rights. I disagree with it all. Linux is a perfect example (and even though I understand most linux developers are libertarian, which to me doesn't make any fscking sense) of both survival and success, without a financial motive and yes, in a collective environment *GASP* .. the fact that a bunch of INDIVIDUALS got together to work towards a COMMON *GASP* goal without any financial reward and accomplishing something amazing, itself disproves your ideology. I am not a communist. Communist states are just that, states and it is the state that I am against, in all of it's forms, whether capitalist or communist. Communism was coercion. On the other hand.... I agree totally with much of what libertarianism (objectivism maybe, whatever you want to call it, laissez faire) preaches, but it falls short. The term objectivism itself is highly flawed. Human beings are not objective, life is not objective, Ayn Rand and her capitalist ilk are not in the same league as Keirkegaard, Kant, Neitzche et al whatsoever. So how then, can you put faith in someone who preaches objectivity (without even acknowledging that pure objectivity in man is impossible!) and yet has no foundation in the study of life itself. Life can not be organized the same way as economics. I agree with the 'objectivist' point of view regarding the economy, but human life can not fit under that same umbrella. Therefore you can not organize a society under the libertarian ideology.

SMP, again and again we do this dance, and you refuse to recognize history. We have had anarchy in history. The reason we don't recognize it is because it is as brief as it takes the next thug to take control. NEVER, in the history of man has a society lasted long without a leader, a tyrant or a government. You can be against a state of any kind all you want. Just recognize the fact that it is the state protecting your right to speak against it, not you. I have never said the will to survive is not inherent in humans. But so is the will to get a leg up. We are, by nature, competitive. BTW, the developers of Linux DO proper from their labor, in the form of reputation... and that reputation leads to finacial opportunity. Unless the developers of Linux are living in a cardboard box (FAR from it), your "example" falls flat. The developers of Linux are NOT altruistic. They are all gaining something from their labor.

Yes, we have had anarchy in history and it has always failed. I never said anything about anarchy (in this thread).
The linux developers are gaining something from their labour.... they are. Not their employers or the corp that owns them. They benefit from it directly, and inderectly people who use linux. Nobody is exploiting the labour that they pour into linux. Nobody is coercing them to do the labour.

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: smp The concept of private property is a flawed one as well. One who is poor and has no assets, no property, only has labour as an asset. Trading your labour (your life) for food, shelter and security (fuedalistic serfdom), is coercion and slavery. Put the whip to me, or I might perish for lack of will to survive.

Than life itself is slavery, for what did we trade for food when we had to hunt and grow it ourselves? What did we trade for shelter when we had to build it and maintain it ourselves? What did trade do for security when we had to fight for ourselves? Our labor. Only today, we trade our labor for money, and our money for goods. Either way, we must labor to survive. SMP, do you ever think for yourself? Because you sure as hell aren't thinking things through very much.

Again, you answer yourself. Ourselves .. again, not the masters, but themselves. Labour is good for you, when you get out of your labour what you put in. In a capitalist system, you only get a small percent of what your labour is actually worth.
I didn't appreciate the 'thinking for yourself' comment either. I never said that labour is wrong, exploitation of labour is wrong.

SMP, again and again we do this dance
You're one of the few on this board that I care to dance with. You shoud take that as a compliment.


edit:
I like arguing with you. I refuse to flame though, so be nice to me. I'm not attacking your character, just your ideology. This is after all, only in good fun.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: glen
Big buisness creates goods, money, and employment.
Why should they pay taxes?

Because they use services the government provides.

When business pays taxes, they simply add the cost of taxes on to the retail price of their goods or services. Taxes on business are just a tax on consumers, nothing more.

 

[Amused]

SMP, no one is exploiting workers, but the workers themselves.

Here's a little Rand again:
"Do not make the mistake of thinking that a worker is a slave and that he holds his job by his employer's permission. He does not hold it by permission - but by contract, that is, by a voluntary mutual agreement. A worker can quit his job; a slave cannot."

Without people working together in companies and corporations, we would not have the cheap, readily available products we enjoy today. The very computer you are typing on exists only because visionary men with ambition hired others to make the parts for it.

The only other choice is collectivism, and we've seen what happens with that.