u/AdamSmithery

Hello, I am in need of an answer for this question, to see other explanations other than idiocracy.

If the free market is basically self evident to create massive growth, why don’t even tyrannical government enact it? If it creates so much abundance, wouldn’t someone who’s tyrannical let it work so they can take more? I’m essentially describing social democracy.

Those people have the slightest bit of education of the free market, so they let it work and then do things like creating a sovereign wealth fund, massive welfare programs, etc

Wouldn’t a countries leaders understand that it’s best to let private actors to dig up resources, then to just leave it there or let a bunch of kids slave away for it? I genuinely want to know the answer to this question maybe it’s a political question. But if the answer is take, take take by statists, why doesn’t the statist enact the one system that creates more to take?

Holy shit, I made the mistake of unfortunately Posting on a Democrat sub to see what they think of well, gutting all federal welfare plans and giving it back to the states to decide, please do not laugh at me for even attempting but just know that they acted morally high and mighty of taking other people’s money even though they explicitly didn’t want to do that just because “ I love them even if they hate me”.

Basically, acting high and mighty, but then all of a sudden I get a few comments that I keep seeing a bunch of times talking about systemic collapse, when I used to be left when I was an idiot I remember I felt this way too. So genuinely what is up with that?

Why does every little recommendation sound like systemic collapse them? Why do they see “ 2000 people a year dying due to no ACA” (not making this up) as a crisis?

These don’t sound like crisis to me,

Have you guys experienced the same thing?

Our founders literally gave us the answers, it’s called federalism and republicanism.

Essentially, we have multiple issues that we don’t talk about enough, btw I’m a classical liberal, adjacent to Ancap but a nationalist can only be so libertarian.

On behalf of healthcare; we have Bernie wanting universal healthcare for all, while libertarians and Republicans want to basically have a nonexistent unregulated individualized healthcare (WWW). This is a fundamental issue because either or forces half the population into doing something they don’t want.

So instead of arguing at the federal level, why don’t we do it at the state level? Bernie in Vermont can implement whatever healthcare he wants, while Republicans of libertarian do their own thing, and eventually let people vote with their feet and you tend to get a right answer on what’s best.

On behalf of Social Security:

Due to the old age security hypothesis, Social Security is about to deplete starting in 2032, why are we going to expand a failing system, and why are we gonna force multiple people to do that? Especially with the fertility issues it causes? Instead let the states do their own thing?

Let’s turn every single welfare program other than some CDC stuff, into tax cuts and then let the states decide. Let’s stop forcing things down people’s throat, what’s the issue with this?

Thoughts, questions, comments, concerns?

Republicanism, as in the fact that you have multiple different governments in one union, specifically the United States.

The tension is, do Georgists believe in a true nationalization of land? Or a state by state decision on to implement LVT? Quite frankly I would apply the same reasoning to a national sales tax, under Republican tradition such a tax is given to the state, wouldn’t it be a little bit weird and unfair if the federal government was taxing states land? I don’t even think that’s constitutional in the first place.

So do Georgists believe in land nationalization or land provincialization, haha what a funny word I just searched up, new word unlocked

View Poll

So, this guy asked a question that must be corrected and answered for future reference, because it’s a question people have not understanding that they are asking it wrong.

To start the biggest issue with this is that they are defining, “rational” as “successful” or whatever similar term, and as a result irrational means unsuccessful.

That is not how you look at it. It’s the issue with mainstream economics or neoclassical or whatever, of looking at things as a snapshot and not like a story. In the mainstream/neoclassical snapshot they see someone who has sea sickness tendencies and owns a yacht, to them that man who owns the yacht is irrational for making such an irrational decision, they say “only a irrational individual would spend millions of dollars on something that would get them sick”

But that’s not how Austrians and “sowellians” see it, they/we see it as a story with dynamics. When we look deeper we see into the yacht owners life, as a kid he grew up poor, he enjoyed watching Wolf of Wall Street and wanted a yacht just like Jordan Belfort. As a result he chased entrepreneur adventures and became successful, he finally had the money to buy the yacht he always wanted.

He bought it, but to his dismay, he found out he had sea sickness. He wasn’t acting irrational at all, it just happened that he was given a misfortunate realization of seasickness.

Or maybe he knew he got seasick, but he knew that with the yacht he could impress people, get more business partners, etc so he took the girl with the bad and got it anyway.

In short, just because something is unsuccessful doesn’t make it irrational, it’s very hard to find someone who is irrational and makes irrational decisions, those decisions that look irrational are simply unsuccessful.

Hope you enjoyed this information for future reference

So at the state level; not national, I was thinking of the best way to tax economically and was researching every tax, the LVT seems attractive to beginners until you learn all the issues of it and entitlement thought process, I mean seriously how does someone justifying in their head that people need to be compensated for simply gathering around in a place? Lmao, so I already knew that a head tax which is a lump sum payment with some tweaks is the best way to tax for a state, of course you gotta tweak it up so someone can actually pay it, but then i thought of a service based head tax, ie say, police firefighters, and other emergency services need to be funded critical for society, but then something separate, which is also critical for society is education, although privatized money would go to ESAs and voucher systems, these completely different but critical services give governments significant discretion, because a single lump sum tax or property tax gives the government significant discretion to allocate it the way they want to, so instead of a lump sum tax, why not have a “ emergency service head tax” and a “ educational service head tax”, basically a bunch of separate head taxes to serve the purpose of removing discretion.

I want to hear your thoughts, what are some taxes you would prefer, and your least worst way of taxation in your eyes, make sure to factor in state level versus federal level, no one wants a federal consumption tax lmao.

IM PISSED, it’s the something thousand time I’ve seen a lefty spouting about some greed BS as an explanation for things, but when will they understand that blaming greed is like blaming gravity for why a plane exploded? They have the intuition enough to know that it started in the pandemic, but they just can’t put their finger on exactly how it worked, even though the numbers match up perfectly. They believe it’s greedy Jeff Bezos explaining why things are 40% more expensive. NAUUUR!

RECAP: after the government enacted the worst pandemic policies of all time, which froze the entire economy for a freaking flu like virus? I’m pretty sure I caught it and it didn’t do anything, the education loss alone from kids being out of school was fucking insane, when you saw teachers online saying their kids can’t read, I hope they realize it’s their union’s fault for wanting to prolong pandemic virtual learning. Everything done was basically done the worst possible way when you look back.

But after the economy ceased to grow, the federal reserve increase the money supply by approximately 40.1% from January 2020 to January 2022. But yeah, what was the thing that they like to say a lot? People over profits? Well enjoy that in policy bitch don’t complain or blame someone else.

But the real question is how the fuck do we fix an increase of 40% in the money supply?