You won't just get back less than you payed in. When it collapses, you'll get back nothing! woohoo!

lol @ troll

They never do anything political or legislative (except maybe in small areas dominated by nuts) in the USA. You hear about when nuts try in the USA because the backlash against anything remotely connected to religion--even when legal--is 10x stronger than the nuts proposing it.

"Without referring to Jesus, the Founding Fathers, Better Homes & Gardens, or Doctor Phil, please explain why that's OK, but running a opium den with slave concubines guarded by teenage soldiers is somehow "out there".  "

The point was that we can effectively police and combat the slaves and teenage soldiers. We clearly cannot effectively police the opium and hookers. I was clear on this point, but it seems you're choosing to pretend we're no more capable of combating slaves and teenage soldiers. That's just ignorant fantasy. If that's what you want to believe, in the face of all evidence, there's no point in discussing it here.

My point was that they're not remotely analogous. Claiming there's a parallel is fail and makes no point. I made this clear. Come on, you're just trolling.

"You are enforcing your middle class counterculture values.  You are the spiritual brother to the little old lady who throws the unfit people off the church bake sale committee."

I'm not a fan of prostitution. I've obviously never employed one and I have no personal or professional respect for the profession or women who do it. My point is that it happens anyway. You're arguing that America was safer under prohibition and people were saved from the evils of alcohol--Regardless of the facts that they drank anyway, prices rose, and violence reigned, as the entire business became a crime. That's a tough one to make.

Edit: Do we have a problem with opium dens with slave concubines guarded by teenage soldiers? I'd want professional adult soldiers, but shit, I want in on this business. I've always wanted an opium den with slave concubines.

I already linked to information on and explained why your claims of traffic fatalities are false. If you want to remain ignorant, that's your choice. But you should probably stop reminding us all here.

That some idiot did other stuff after pot is not evidence of causality. I've already discussed this at length and linked more material.

"You have not even counted me, nor gotten close."

Now you're just trolling. I've won this debate. I'm done responding to your trolling. Try to give me a challenge next time.

The numbers are nowhere close. The point is that slavery can be combated effectively: And we don't give the agencies that police it the authority or resources they need. We're too concerned about leaving our borders open to police illegals and the slaves they traffic. Yet we dump money and human life after drugs and make the problem worse, enriching drug gangs and driving users to crime by driving up prices.

Anyone who thinks slavery is as rampant as prostitution is literally intellectually challenged.

I love how you look to China for ideas in combating personal freedom. Because if I have a joint once or twice a month, on a warm weekend night with some Sam Adams on my porch, you really have any right to involve yourself in my life. Stopping me from this horrible crime is certainly worth billions, dead law enforcement officers, and dead farmers of this horrible, horrible plant.

You do realize that people have been smoking it for thousands of years? The Hebews, aka Jesus and company, commonly burned it as incense. Obviously they breathed some of that in.

Lulz. You'd have killed Jesus for less than the Jewish authorities/Romans did!

You really hate people's freedoms. God forbid they live their lives without you having a say in it. The nerve!

Slavery, forced labor, and child armies can effectively be policed against.

Drugs and hookers, not so much.

Poor analogy.

Ignore evidence? I'm still waiting for you to respond to a single argument I've made or position I've stated. it's been more than three weeks.

I'm ignoring an idiot kid worried that he'll have withdrawal symptoms because he's smoked pot a few times over a few days. He won't. It's a fact. I'm ignoring some idiot complaining he has stomach pains as a result of nonexistent THC withdrawal. He won't. It's a fact. You're talking about the dumbest people the internet can bring together complaining about things which have absolutely nothing to do with pot. I explained this. Yet you're comparing this to me liking Hitler and accepting Nazi death camps? Are you high?

You're just embarrassing yourself.

"What you and others don't recognize is that this is not a "free" market system because the interplay of both supply and demand of goods and services is manipulated by the a system influenced primarily by the elite and for the purposes of primarily benefiting the elite...."

Vague statement lacking any specific factual value. Where's the how?

"for the purposes of growing wealth and maintaining political power of the elite AT THE EXPENSE OF THE MAJORITY...."

Again lacking any specific factual value. Where's the how?

"and what you fail to recognize is that both political power and influence of supply and demand SHOULD rest with the MAJORITY and NOT the elite if there is ever to be anything even remotely similar to your "free market" system."

Again lacking any specific factual value. Where's the how?

Here we have your typical rhetoric: a series of very vague generalizations without any real value. You didn't commit to anything. At all. Just vague condemnations of current society without stating absolutely anything about where the problem lies. Something about the elite have power. That's all you gave us.

No mention of how the elite unjustly "manipulate" the system (and they certainly do). No mention of how they do this at the expense of the majority (and they certainly do).

Political power does rest with the majority. I did the math, and, as it turns out, the majority has the most votes. At least, that's how it's supposed to work anyway.

There's no "should" about supply and demand. Free markets are free markets. Introducing government controls to regulate prices or whatever you think it would take to manipulate "influence of supply and demand" would result in something other than free markets. I really, really like the standard of living afforded me by a relatively free market. I think I'd prefer a free market to whatever alternative you're suggesting vaguely but not identifying.

Do you have a problem with corruption in politics? Why not argue that? Your vague condemnations of success are just bizarre; and you're not even condemning anything specific, just leveling broad accusations without any backing. "the MAJORITY" "SHOULD" blah blah blah and "NOT the elite" blah blah blah. Corruption in politics resulting in crony capitalism hurting a society isn't a matter of THE MAJORITY and THE ELITE, it's a matter of crappy laws and law enforcement. Ignorant and apathetic people vote for crappy candidates.

Vague accusations won't result in reform. People promise reform all the time and then continue the status quo, because ignorant and apathetic voters just don't care very much. THE MAJORITY can't win some sort of vague battle with THE ELITE. Whoever won would just enrich themselves and whoever bought them off. Swapping the players doesn't change the game.

Arguing for reform requires naming and attacking actual problems. Vague class warfare is just handing more power to control and regulate to the elite. They're who will make those decisions if you give them the power. The elite who I think we mostly agree are the problem are leading the charge of "THE MAJORITY' vs "THE ELITE," because what they want is more power. Dumb enough people will give the elite even MORE power if they ask for it in the name of "THE MAJORITY."

The problem is consolidation of power in DC. Corruption will always happen. And it will always happen more and worse where more power is consolidated. No increase in power to regulate incomes or redistribute wealth will decrease corruption. That'll make the situation worse.

Unless, of course, you won't referring to corrupt politicians and the big-money organizations which order them around. It's hard to tell, seeing as you don't really refer to anything specific or state any specific positions on anything.

I'm pointing out that taxes are inherently harmful to the standard of living in a society. You're responding as if I made silly anarchist claims of no government and no taxes. Straw man defeated.

"My final answer is that as tax increases on business then tax decreases on people, thus the net effect is 0 or close too."

You're just guessing that maybe it's close. That's not exactly a strong argument. Higher taxes on businesses are still just taxes passed on to regular people. All people.

"In your example of Microsoft being taxed more, Windows price increases, now there is an opportunity for a smaller software company to plug their OS and advertise it, and being a smaller company will have less profit and thus less tax"

Because you can decide better than the market who should succeed and who should fail? That sounds a little arrogant and very harmful. That's anti-freedom.

The smaller company still has a disadvantage in regard to efficiency. And their continued operation is a matter of their margins.

You can pretend that a different tax rate for smaller business will help them enough. But why should government be influencing the market any more than it has to to provide basic functions? It shouldn't. Why should government pick winners and losers? It shouldn't. How is taxing the most successful companies (with the best products) more, reducing the revenue they have with which to develop and innovate, reducing their value to investors (reducing investor motivations to invest in the biggest and best) beneficial to society? It's not.

I have solved your debt crisis, xeno syndicated. By following my instructions precisely, you can free yourself from debt and slavery to evil corporations!

My instructions:

Stop buying shit you cannot afford.

Problem solved.

"What was the point of the revolutions past: the French Revolution, the American Revolution, what was the point in the Enlightenment, what is the point in overthrowing this:"

And you show a picture of shit-hole Mumbai. Those things you mentioned didn't happen in Mumbai, jackass. Most poor people in America, thanks to its revolution and epic Constitution, have air conditioning, cell phones, and cable TV.

You_Fool, you're talking about more taxes as if they'll be used to pay down debt. Or reduce taxes elsewhere. You muse that prices "shouldn't" go up "that much." If you increase taxes, people pay more for things. It's as simple as that, and there's no way around it. You can't tax Microsoft for being evil and profitable without making my OS more expensive. You can't tax evil gasoline makers without making my tank cost more to fill. Punishing success is anti free-market. Punishing success is anti standard-of-living. Punishing success begets less success, begets less innovation, begets less production (higher prices).

And them some fitting fantasy-land speak which we're supposed to pretend supports the fantasy-land ideology of "say a bunch of vague, lofty nonsense!" Raging about the elite withholding alien robot technology, etc. Let's discuss when you come down off of LSD.

I love how xeno, who linked the wiki page or whatever for economies of scale (so let's presume he has a vague idea what that concept is), now posts as if big businesses will be hurt more by higher tax rates.

"Higher taxes" = "Free market"

You can't make this shit up.