[Ludi]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', 's')omeone has to pay taxes to make that happen.[/color]

[americandream]

Sorry. Too many if's and buts. The market is either free from the outset and must stand on that basis or its interventionist and fails its own strict test of consistency. It is not my concern that said investor cannot afford this or that, it is merely my concern that all subsuidies be withdrawn IMMEDIATELY, across the board. The end of and total abolishment of any subsidisation of wealth creation starting with the low wage economies where wages are artificially held down by command and force, the full restitution of a fully informed global workers right to bargain the sale of his labour, party to party on equal terms, in the West as well as in China or India, the complete removal of all tariffs, the end of the use of mixed budgets for application in private use and instead the full privatisation of everything on a user cost basis. The end of armies as well as they enforce private subsidisation.

That is what is needed for the commons to be fully in a position to judge the worth of the private system as a place of resource allocation. Just as there must be an end to the subsidisation of the commons, so must there be and end to the subsidisation of the investor. Level playing field.

Anything else and you're no libertarian but another hustler on the make. Like Marx, I am all for the free market incidentally. I hate elastoplast remedies.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'P')resumably as libertarien you will be in favour of the absolute freeing up of global trade, the removal of all overseas stationed Amercan led Western armed forces necessary to maintian resource imbalances, the complete removal of taxpayer subsidies underwriting the infrastructure used by private wealth and all the other hiddens provided by the commons to fund returns on investment (the environment comes to mind.)

A free market is precisely that. One devoid not only of the application of the fiscal to the taxpayer (its his taxes after all), but to that other hidden recipient, the investor.

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', 's')omeone has to pay taxes to make that happen.[/color]

[Outcast_Searcher]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('americandream', 'S')orry. Too many if's and buts. The market is either free from the outset and must stand on that basis or its interventionist and fails its own strict test of consistency.

[americandream]

I don't buy the transitional period. It is incumbent on you to be attacking less the interventionists and more the backpeddlers in the free market lobby. Where are the crys of outrage at the unfair subsidisation of investor wealth in the low wages of command control investor golden girl, China?

Where are the cries of outrage in the subsidisation of investor wealth in the vastly costly and commons subsidised infrastructure used by investors. It seems the problem is less with the fact that the commons are having access to their fiscal pool of tax which many have no other choice but to pay into for not being able to afford tax mitigators, its more that tax dodging investors are also gettin an unwarranted access to these resources and aren't being pulled up for it.

The free market is less about the bludging dole recipient be contained and more about investors paying for the whole infrastructure within which they expect us to shop, as consumers of said infrastructure.

Indirect taxation is utterly farcical and transfers some of the subsidising budget burden to the shopping zombie fraternity. There should be no state and no tax, direct or indirect.

As I said, any libertarian worth his salt will be pushing for the elimination of armies, nations and tax codes and the total freeing up of the capitalist global economy, borders and all. Business must be held to account. They cannot expect subsidies whilst deriding the commons. If they do, their free market stance is bogus.

Will that happen. Not likely. The true cost of a pure market would soon kill the dream of allocation by the market and they know it.

Edit: as for medical costs or retirement intitiatives, the pure market would very quickly price down medicine and render these costs minimal in the process reducing profits into the gutter but thats beside the point. Let the market truly compete as in work for every dollar they earn without any handouts, they would soon price themselves off the planet althought the consumer would do fine I'm sure. However, the sheer hidden costs of this horror of greed on steroids as well as the return of Victorian wage rates would very quickly show this for the sham it is. All this transitional excuse making simply delays that fateful day.

I'll say again, agitate for the complete libertarianisation of global capitalism. Make my day.