4 ms·

I think anti-free-market ideologies like Piketty's are deeply authoritarian and violent. What does it mean to reject the free market? It means rejecting a righ

by aminok 10y ago

I think anti-free-market ideologies like Piketty's are deeply authoritarian and violent. What does it mean to reject the free market? It means rejecting a right of a person to 1. keep what they receive in private trade, and to 2. engage in any voluntary interaction they wish with another consenting adult, especially if it involves the exchange of currency (god forbid!). As a corollary to this, it means prying into people's personal affairs to determine how much in income tax they owe (tax laws that profoundly violate privacy rights by forcing people to disclose how much currency they received in private trade and from what sources) and whether they engaged in prohibited voluntary interactions with other consenting adults (interactions like one person letting another stay at their home for a short-duration in exchange for an amount of currency). In my opinion, this deeply misguided mentality that Piketty and you exhibit is responsible for billions having their human rights violated on a systematic basis, and probably a similar number of people having shorter, less fulfilling lives than they otherwise would have.

vanderZwan 10y ago
You reject an entire line of thinking before even reading into it, because you make assumptions about what you think a few key-words mean in a particular context.
- aminok 10y ago
  You're assuming I didn't read it. Maybe you're psychologically projecting.
  - vanderZwan 10y ago
    No, I'm concluding it because I have read it so know disconnected from reality your interpretation is.
    - aminok 10y ago
      This is a low value comment. A substantive comment would identify parts of my argument that you believe are disconnected from reality, and would substantiate the claim with logical arguments.
      - vanderZwan 10y ago
        Note how you still avoid talking about whether you've ever read it or not.
drieddust 10y ago
> I think anti-free-market ideologies like Piketty's are deeply authoritarian and violent. I watched the whole video I didn't see him arguing with authority and violence. He said there can be other factors and he wants to open up a debate. > As a corollary to this, it means prying into people's personal affairs to determine how much in income tax they owe ... His argument is to have finanacial transparency which does not mean taxing everything. As far as progressive taxation is concerned, Organised groups or individuals generate Income by exploiting resources which are either natural or is generated by other individuals. Towards what end they accumulate this wealth? To use within the social framework? So when they use that money won't it impacts society? so I actually fail to understand why they should not be income taxes?
- aminok 10y ago
  He supports heavy taxes on private property. Tax laws are based on violence. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcing-the-law-is-inherently-violent/488828/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcin... >Enforcing the Law Is Inherently Violent >A Yale law professor suggests that oft-ignored truth should inform debates about what statutes and regulations to codify. Socialist ideology relies exclusively on aggressive violence. >His argument is to have finanacial transparency which does not mean taxing everything. Transparency is a euphemism for violating people's privacy. >As far as progressive taxation is concerned, Organised groups or individuals generate Income by exploiting resources which are either natural or is generated by other individuals. Towards what end they accumulate this wealth? "exploiting" is such a leftist buzzword. People in a market generate income by trading something of value that they generate for currency that others freely give them. Their income is what they receive through private trade. They come under no moral obligation to provide income to other co-nationalists simply as a consequence of making private trades.
  - drieddust 10y ago
    > He supports heavy taxes on private property. Tax laws are based on violence I didn't get the same impression watching the video. Do you have any references? As far as Law and Violence is concerned, I agree voilence to some degree may be involved. So what is your alternative? No Law every man/group for himself? There is no such thing as No Law. Void will ne replaced with Natural Law in which powerful eliminates weak. If well reasoned Law is not present in society, Law of jungle will take over. > People in a market generate income by trading something of value for currency that others freely give them Something of value is the operative word here. From where "something of value" comes? There is no tax on exchanging valuable thoughts. We are only taking about financial trades which does impacts society.

by aminok 10y ago

vanderZwan 10y ago

You reject an entire line of thinking before even reading into it, because you make assumptions about what you think a few key-words mean in a particular context.

aminok 10y ago
You're assuming I didn't read it. Maybe you're psychologically projecting.
- vanderZwan 10y ago
  No, I'm concluding it because I have read it so know disconnected from reality your interpretation is.
  - aminok 10y ago
    This is a low value comment. A substantive comment would identify parts of my argument that you believe are disconnected from reality, and would substantiate the claim with logical arguments.
    - vanderZwan 10y ago
      Note how you still avoid talking about whether you've ever read it or not.

drieddust 10y ago

> I think anti-free-market ideologies like Piketty's are deeply authoritarian and violent. I watched the whole video I didn't see him arguing with authority and violence. He said there can be other factors and he wants to open up a debate. > As a corollary to this, it means prying into people's personal affairs to determine how much in income tax they owe ... His argument is to have finanacial transparency which does not mean taxing everything. As far as progressive taxation is concerned, Organised groups or individuals generate Income by exploiting resources which are either natural or is generated by other individuals. Towards what end they accumulate this wealth? To use within the social framework? So when they use that money won't it impacts society? so I actually fail to understand why they should not be income taxes?

aminok 10y ago
He supports heavy taxes on private property. Tax laws are based on violence. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcing-the-law-is-inherently-violent/488828/ http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/enforcin... >Enforcing the Law Is Inherently Violent >A Yale law professor suggests that oft-ignored truth should inform debates about what statutes and regulations to codify. Socialist ideology relies exclusively on aggressive violence. >His argument is to have finanacial transparency which does not mean taxing everything. Transparency is a euphemism for violating people's privacy. >As far as progressive taxation is concerned, Organised groups or individuals generate Income by exploiting resources which are either natural or is generated by other individuals. Towards what end they accumulate this wealth? "exploiting" is such a leftist buzzword. People in a market generate income by trading something of value that they generate for currency that others freely give them. Their income is what they receive through private trade. They come under no moral obligation to provide income to other co-nationalists simply as a consequence of making private trades.
- drieddust 10y ago
  > He supports heavy taxes on private property. Tax laws are based on violence I didn't get the same impression watching the video. Do you have any references? As far as Law and Violence is concerned, I agree voilence to some degree may be involved. So what is your alternative? No Law every man/group for himself? There is no such thing as No Law. Void will ne replaced with Natural Law in which powerful eliminates weak. If well reasoned Law is not present in society, Law of jungle will take over. > People in a market generate income by trading something of value for currency that others freely give them Something of value is the operative word here. From where "something of value" comes? There is no tax on exchanging valuable thoughts. We are only taking about financial trades which does impacts society.