Weltan

7 ms·

1.
by Weltan 13y ago
Yeah, asking why you do something is as much a question about an action as asking whether you'd do it. You're not asking "Would you pay it?" you're asking: "Would you pay it if condition x were false?" You
2.
by Weltan 13y ago
Is that the correct test, though? Ask the guy if he would take the job if he wasn't starving: He'll say 'No'. So in a system where he has no recourse to some safety net, he's not acting voluntarily in any case where
3.
by Weltan 13y ago
On a legal conception (my field), people don't pay taxes because they are forced to do so by force, people pay taxes for a wide variety of reasons: fear of consequences, habit, actual willingness to pay taxes, social cohesion, internal
4.
by Weltan 13y ago
I don't see this 'larger implication'. Where is this objective moral scale I can look at? The one that'll tell me that I'm more moral than you, or you're more moral than me? I don't claim I'm more mor
5.
by Weltan 13y ago
Did I say that? I didn't realize I made such a categorical statement! I thought I said that the market already takes the government into account, not that the government cannot be a reason for unemployment. The government certainly cou
6.
by Weltan 13y ago
Then where/how/why does this 'evaluation' you speak of happen?
7.
by Weltan 13y ago
The market is a system constantly re-evaluating itself to reach equilibrium. It's a very weak view of the market which takes away from it the ability to take into account government 'interference'. Indeed, most governments do
8.
by Weltan 13y ago
Yeah, but such a statement requires no actual evidence. I can tell you I'm okay with it, because that's a fact about myself. The fact that your view is incompatible just shows that I don't consider all opinions morally valid,
9.
by Weltan 13y ago
Right, and I guess what I'm saying is that it's fine to do so at someone else's expense. But that's the moral argument and it's a simple one, I don't see government force as illegitimate and therefore I'm
10.
by Weltan 13y ago
I didn't say we have to evaluate the cost in any sort of vacuum of political power, the tools are here and the tools are perfectly capable of taking into account government. In fact, the tools necessitate a governmental economic policy
11.
by Weltan 13y ago
So there's no room in this case where and individual would be unable to find work? Somehow, everyone will have a skill-set and the personal capability (even quadriplegic people?) at any given time to find work on demand and to change t
12.
by Weltan 13y ago
Are you suggesting that in a society without a government there would be no unemployment? (To clarify, unemployment is the opposite of employment. Unemployment is 'not working'.) On your first point, it's not whether or not i
13.
by Weltan 13y ago
I'm aware of the strange views of Libertarians, but I'd never heard a currency itself marked as coercive! I agree: It's a strange view of coercion where getting fired and ending up on the street provided you're fired by
14.
by Weltan 13y ago
I see, so a coercive currency is just fiat currency (or just currency) with an appended modifier. This modifier itself is then qualified with 'indirect' because the regulations enabling the use of these currencies is backed by gov
15.
by Weltan 13y ago
What is a coercive currency and which economists suggest it?
16.
by Weltan 13y ago
They're not obligated to do so, but they do have the right to do so. The name Mario is not a trademark itself since common names cannot be trademarked, although product names containing the name Mario are trademarked by Nintendo, such
17.
by Weltan 13y ago
The real solution is single-payer, a public option may have eased transition into single-payer sometime in the future, whereas a sudden transition into single-payer would have shocked the economy and been nigh impossible (it wasn't eve
18.
by Weltan 13y ago
That's one of the reasons why subsidising and regulating private health insurance is not a good approach. If the government worked the way it was supposed to (rationally), then they would have voted for a public insurance option. They
19.
by Weltan 13y ago
The right system is the one which gives the judge a discretion as to who pays costs, guided by court rules as well as economic sense and equitable principles.