You could afford a cab?

I like how much you claim various specifics without the education in or research on economics. We all know you have no numbers to back up your claims of 1% unemployment, immunity to depressions, great reduction of recessions, healthcare, retirement accounts, vacation time, etc.

Are you an expert in this field because you payed money to get a 2 year degree? And because you've held jobs that pay you in money?

The fair tax is about 97 billion times better than what we have here, but having you argue for it just hurts the case.

If you respected his arguments and point of view, you would respond to them. You'd say "this is why I disagree," or "I think you're wrong about this," or "that's a fair point, BUT [such and such] is why it doesn't change my position."

You don't.

You're a rather disrespectful person.

You don't have to call someone names or be angry at them to be disrespectful. Being a lazy ass and continuing to post when you refuse to address many points/arguments, for example, is disrespectful too.

You do it all the time. You repeat some theoretical argument but refuse to ever actually discuss what you post or what those ideas entail. When someone calls you out on ideas that are completely ludicrous, you completely ignore this massive failure and just repeat other parts of what you posted. There's no discussion with you, because you refuse to engage in any sort of dialogue. You completely disregard anything you disagree with and any/all discussion of what you post.

You've been clear you have no interest in discussing, let alone debating, this topic.

If you request discourse in the future, please try harder. I've been rather bored.

Better question: Are you a troll?

You're advocating a police state with the death penalty for joints.

You're a lunatic.

"The problem has to start at people like you however."

And since you cannot control my thoughts, you concede that you cannot "solve" this "problem."

"I for one think advocating legalization is enough for a month in jail under the premise it spreads like a fire..."

Thank god for the 1st amendment protecting me from wannabe tyrants like you.

"Drugs destroy those using it and those they target to try to get their next fix. "

People have been drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana for thousands of years. The vast majority of people using these things neither are nor will ever be criminals.

"Btw calling me big government is a joke."

You want big government policing people's bedrooms. You want a big government controlling a police state to lock down even locals growing some marijuana plants. You want a big government waging wars across the globe. It's great that you want to trim some agencies closer to their constitutional limits, but you still support abuse of the constitution in many regards. You're a Republican, aren't you? You won't get far with the party if you don't shut up about their bribery. They're a corrupt big-government organization, and you're part of it. So you aren't the biggest government communist on the block. You're still a supporter of big government.

You generalize about all drugs as if pot is heroin, meth, crack, etc. This is not an indicator of education or expertise; it's an indicator of the opposite. You claimed that pot was significantly more harmful than alcohol. That's just laughable. If I have to explain, explaining is pointless; because you're clearly willing to deny reality in order to maintain your dogma.

You ignore statistics regarding decriminalization and usage rates. This is not an indicator of education or expertise; it's an indicator of the opposite. All of the knowledge of drug users' mentalities is useless if what you support doesn't reduce usage rates. Great, you're a great saint who wants to save people from drugs. So you support spending billions and getting people killed in order to... have 0 impact on usage rates? You're not even arguing your position. You haven't responded to this simple fact one time in weeks.

You ignore the fact that knowing you is irrelevant. Your case needs to stand on its own, not on an appeal to authority. You claim I dismiss you "out of hand without a clue." This is just a gem, considering that I've responded to every silly, ignorant "argument" you've posted; and you've literally ignored every single one of mine, including the ones that decimate your position and even vilify you for supporting the pointless waste of billions and tens of thousands of deaths. Even pointing out that what you support gets tons of people killed doesn't illicit a response. You must know you have a weak case to let even that slide.

"He tries to dismiss with a tainted site drug related crashes. Excuse me but Marijuana causes halucigens and while it speeds the blood rate up it slows the mind down. "

Your argument is bullshit and we both know it. This is a concession both of your total defeat and that you're trolling. I could find dozens more articles and academic studies showing it. I've explained it. Your ignorant (because they're false) claims don't change reality. What garbage.

Repeating that you have a small amount of experience with addicts -- purely from their perspective and not one of study -- is not an argument. I've made many. You've responded to none, choosing instead to repeat yourself that I'm stupid and god damnit you're an expert. If you're never going to respond to a single argument against your position, face it: You've conceded, facing the facts is unpleasant, and we're done.

No wonder this topic upsets you. You're committed to believing a bunch of complete falsehoods and reality confronts you constantly. Why the hell would you bring it up on a forum? This is just embarrassing.

In your "what do you call" hilarity, you left out that you're the bedroom police and you care about other people's junk. Because in the face of the economy of hundreds of millions and people's very lives (warfare), bedroom policing is really on that level and needs federal attention. Additionally, you left out the fact that your "drug war" is wasteful and gets people killed. In weeks you've never responded to this simple argument.

It's clear now that you're angry at libertarians because you can't argue an even half decent case in defense of your positions against theirs. You haven't even attempted to respond to a single one of my arguments on drugs in weeks. You don't even mention homosexuality because you won't dare respond to a single one of my arguments on that topic either.

You're just mad because I'm relatively Libertarian and Libertarians alone can call you a sheep and a corporate whore. You support whoever big government conservatives tell you to support, just as socialists support whoever big government liberals tell them to support. You actually believe that conservative vs liberal is the real dynamic in Amerika as each side edges us closer and closer to tyranny with more bailouts and bribes than history will ever be able to accurately document. You're too worried about other guys' dicks and a couple of joints to see the big picture.

You could argue that hard drugs are just too harmful and we, as a society, need to stand for our values in outlawing them. You could argue this is worth billions and even thousands of human lives. This is just an example of an argument you could make which I would completely respect.

But you're either too lazy or cowardly to even state a case. In weeks you haven't responded to a single argument I've made or position I've stated. In weeks you haven't provided justifications/explanations for your positions as I've questioned them. You repeatedly claim that you've been homeless, so you're an expert. You repeatedly claim that a multitude of obvious studies must be wrong -- though you give no explanation -- because you have a 2 year degree.

LOL

"It would not require a 100% corporate tax rate, Kemp.  As I have already explained, it would take years.  First, small raises each year in the corporate tax rate and capital gains tax rates, and then introducing progressive corporate tax rate in 2015."

Increased taxes slow economic growth. This measure would reduce corporate profits, risking a necessary rate of over 100%. Then even 100% wouldn't balance the budget. Not exactly a solution.

"I am not going to pretend to be qualified to say what the rates for the different rate brackets should be."

Yet you started this thread, and that is what you're saying--just vaguely. Maybe you aren't able to formulate an educated opinion on the matter and should investigate further.

"It doesn't really matter, just as long as they are progressive rates, the point is to allow smaller businesses to compete, return "freedom" to the "free" market system by spurring the quintessential competition necessary for free market capitalism to thrive."

Currently they're sometimes progressive, but often regressive. "Progress" from regressive reaches "fair" (ie, equal rates) before it hits "progressive." I agree that our often regressive tax code is awful, but why isn't fair good enough? Why should people be punished for their success? Small businesses don't need handouts in the form of tax advantages messing with the free market (the term here and almost always meaning "more free than the discussed alternatives").

The problem with revenue as a % of GDP isn't the corporate tax rate. It's about to be the highest rate on earth. The problem is corruption & loopholes: special deals for bribing buddies.

"It is an international issue, because corporations will set up shop in nations where they best tax advantages are.  The corporate tax rate needs to be harmonized internationally.  Level the playing field."

That's communism on a New World Order level. It's a national issue: What is your government going to do to not hinder competition with international markets. It's a national issue: Nobody has the right to force things on other people, so they should really focus on their own shit.

"> You've said very directly that you want both near 100% corporate tax rates and forcible wealth/income redistribution.
Lies.  Slander.  I wonder why you think you can get away with slandering me and lying.  Either you are doing so intentionally or have literacy issues."

You have said:
"The best way to solve the economic crisis is to announce a change to a progressive corporate tax system...."

2012 US deficit: Gonna hit about 1.5 trillion.
2012 US corporate profits: Gonna hit about 1.6 trillion.

Please explain how this is not a close-to 100% corporate tax rate you've supported. You've stated very clearly that it's the "best way to solve the economic crisis." That's not complex language. _Did you slander yourself?_ And you get upset that I suspect you're on drugs...

I said nothing about free markets. That corruption exists in society today in no way negates your previous statements in support of forced wealth/income redistribution and near 100% corporate tax rates.

You said in a recent thread, that the US government should:
"Government determines what is adding value to society, and pays people accordingly to make more of that happen."
"Government bolsters systems by which self-regulating, self perpetuating, private sector systems ensure that those people who add value to society are rewarded while those who diminish value from society are penalized."

Your words, not mine. Government domination of market/ownership = Communism.

More recently you've advocated taxing the rich at much higher rates.

Even more recently you've proposed a near 100% corporate tax rate. (You proposed a tax so high for high-earners that profitable companies which grew large would have to start "dissolving." Your focus was on government action exterminating profitable businesses and not on closing loopholes. Obviously, looking at the 1.5 trillion deficit and 1.6 trillion corporate profits, closing loopholes would not achieve anything remotely close to balancing our budget... w/o near a 100% corporate tax rate.)

You've said it _even more_ directly recently. I'm sorry I don't care enough to save references to things you're sure to openly lie about later.

These things are openly communist. They're statements of a desire for an all-powerful, all-owning government to control everything supposedly in order to make everything right, because free markets only produce the richest people on earth; and that's not good enough for you. No, we don't have as free markets as we should in the West today. But you _openly_ advocate more government control and less free markets.

The only way in which you support free markets is that, theoretically, in your idealized world where 100% of labor is performed by robots--where everybody has literally everything they want and nobody has to work--you would support free markets _once we reached this point_. Seeing as your desired goal which we would have to reach [through communism] before you supported free markets is a fairy tale, this makes you a communist who despises free markets in the real world.

You're playing with words and talking nonsense.

Do you support free markets and argue for them [prior to nonexistent robo-utopia]? No. Do you support complete government control of wealth, ownership, and income distribution and argue for it? Yes. That makes you a communist. Your argument is with dictionaries and the English language, not with me.

I think Communism is evil, as it subverts human freedom and has consistently been shown academically to result in a lower standard of living--even for the poor. I think everyone who supports it is naive. That said, I can respect people who hold this preference. Naive people aren't necessarily stupid or ignorant [at least not on everything ]. I'm not "calling" you a communist. I'm not "accusing" you of being a communist.

I've just pointed out that all of the things you post here are accurately described as communist ideals and communist positions. I'm confused as to why you object to this term so strongly when your objections are ridiculous and it's really beyond debate that communist very accurately describes your political and philosophical ideals.

Edit: You can't hijack Einstein's threads. Even he refuses to discuss the topic.

"I mean consider if an advanced, space-faring alien civilization..."

And you had to ask why nobody cares to talk to you. lol

In xeno's head, "free market" means government mandated wages and profits taxed 99% in the name of "social justice," ie communism. By using his own definitions for words, he can state that he agrees 100% with your statements, while he disagrees 100% with their meaning. Socrates called this "stupid."

lol @ thirdrock. Nice avatar and tag, btw. I've only been here since the last or second to last beta. I hasn't earned one yet.

It's only logical.