Panama Papers: The Secret of Dirty Money (2.6TB of info leaked)

[Alflives]

6 minutes ago, falcon45ca said:

Sure, but a fully privatized system is more expensive than a partially socialized system. People would be paying more than their current taxes for the same services, probably dispersed with even less effectiveness than they are now. Also, what you describe would mean our national defence would have to be privatized, and that's terrifying.

 

 

In some places (parts of India for example) privatization in the medical field results in some real abuse.  The pharmacy does not sell what we get over the counter here.  A person needs a prescription - from a doctor - to buy many things.  The doctors make a great deal of cash this way.  The system is supper corrupt.  Like you say.  TERRIFYING. 

[RUPERTKBD]

1 hour ago, Alflives said:

In some places (parts of India for example) privatization in the medical field results in some real abuse.  The pharmacy does not sell what we get over the counter here.  A person needs a prescription - from a doctor - to buy many things.  The doctors make a great deal of cash this way.  The system is supper corrupt.  Like you say.  TERRIFYING. 

The privatization of a lot of things could lead to problems. We already see it on our highways. When we get a record year for snowfall, the private contractors charged with plowing the roads tend do a less than thorough job. This can and does result in accidents and fatalities.

 

That is just one example. What if schools were run by for-profit companies? How many struggling students would be left behind when the operators decide that extra attention for a kid trending between D and C- is not worth the investment in time and money?

[CBH1926]

On April 9, 2016 at 10:28 AM, CanadianLoonie said:

Err...I did.

Where did you go to?

[CanadianLoonie]

13 hours ago, CBH1926 said:

Where did you go to?

Latin America, where the criteria for immigration, residency, and citizenship is easy, cheap, and quick, depending upon the country.

[Hugor Hill]

On April 10, 2016 at 11:37 AM, falcon45ca said:

Sure, but a fully privatized system is more expensive than a partially socialized system. People would be paying more than their current taxes for the same services, probably dispersed with even less effectiveness than they are now. Also, what you describe would mean our national defence would have to be privatized, and that's terrifying.

 

 

 

On April 10, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Alflives said:

In some places (parts of India for example) privatization in the medical field results in some real abuse.  The pharmacy does not sell what we get over the counter here.  A person needs a prescription - from a doctor - to buy many things.  The doctors make a great deal of cash this way.  The system is supper corrupt.  Like you say.  TERRIFYING. 

 

22 hours ago, RUPERTKBD said:

The privatization of a lot of things could lead to problems. We already see it on our highways. When we get a record year for snowfall, the private contractors charged with plowing the roads tend do a less than thorough job. This can and does result in accidents and fatalities.

 

That is just one example. What if schools were run by for-profit companies? How many struggling students would be left behind when the operators decide that extra attention for a kid trending between D and C- is not worth the investment in time and money?

Common sense wins.

 

 

[CanadianLoonie]

On 4/10/2016 at 8:49 AM, Alflives said:

In some places (parts of India for example) privatization in the medical field results in some real abuse.  The pharmacy does not sell what we get over the counter here.  A person needs a prescription - from a doctor - to buy many things.  The doctors make a great deal of cash this way.  The system is supper corrupt.  Like you say.  TERRIFYING. 

How is this privatization?!

 

I would call that regulation...and as an example of a lack of regulations making things better for individuals, in Mexico one DOES NOT require a doctor's prescription to procure anti-biotics, which can be purchase OTC.

 

And speaking of doctors, in Mexico physicians still perform house-calls for patients...when was the last time your family doctor offered to come to your house in this "free" system?

[Alflives]

5 minutes ago, CanadianLoonie said:

How is this privatization?!

 

I would call that regulation...and as an example of a lack of regulations making things better for individuals, in Mexico one DOES NOT require a doctor's prescription to procure anti-biotics, which can be purchase OTC.

 

And speaking of doctors, in Mexico physicians still perform house-calls for patients...when was the last time your family doctor offered to come to your house in this "free" system?

Wow!  You are a very upset Loonie.  Humans are not nice.  The Loonie, is a beautiful bird, with a lovely song.  Alf likes the bird.  Alf does not like private companies taking advantage of people.  Alf thinks allowing people to control a marketplace will only lead to bad people behaving badly.  

[CanadianLoonie]

2 minutes ago, Alflives said:

Wow!  You are a very upset Loonie.  Humans are not nice.  The Loonie, is a beautiful bird, with a lovely song.  Alf likes the bird.  Alf does not like private companies taking advantage of people.  Alf thinks allowing people to control a marketplace will only lead to bad people behaving badly.  

No, sir...the Loonie is not upset at you at all.

 

Does Alf like governments taking advantage of people? 

 

The Loonie thinks allowing people to control a government will only lead to bad people behaving badly, as history has already shown.

 

As for the marketplace, there are both bad humans and nice humans there, and over time consumers can usually identify who is nice and who is bad, and act/re-act accordingly.

[Gurn]

Irony- a Loonie talking to a guy pretending? to be an alien- or is symmetry the word I'm looking for?

[CanadianLoonie]

On 4/10/2016 at 8:37 AM, falcon45ca said:

Sure, but a fully privatized system is more expensive than a partially socialized system. People would be paying more than their current taxes for the same services, probably dispersed with even less effectiveness than they are now.

That is speculation, but let's assume that is the case for now...

 

In that situation, the higher cost would be justified by the higher ethical and moral standard of those services being provided without the use of COERCION that taxation requires.

 

In fact, using existing standards you can slap this label on those violence-free services...

 

 

 

On 4/10/2016 at 8:37 AM, falcon45ca said:

Also, what you describe would mean our national defence would have to be privatized, and that's terrifying.

If public services are all fully privatized, chances are the existing Westphalian nation-state system would be long-gone, so there would be no 'nation-state' to defend.

 

But, assuming that the current political boundaries still exist, if you believe that this nation is worth defending, you would begin by training and arming yourself...but then that is encroaching upon the state's monopoly and I don't think they would appreciate that.

[Kragar]

On 4/9/2016 at 9:20 PM, CanadianLoonie said:

The US is immune from the effects so long as the petrodollar system is in play...which mean the USD is de facto backed by the House of Saud and their oil.

 

Yes, you are absolutely correct about the loss of purchasing power from currency debasement by increasing the supply of currency units.

 

Now, you know how I say taxation is theft/extortion/armed robbery?

 

Because it is your property taken away from your possession with the threat of the use of force for non-compliance, agree?

 

Well, I would support the use of "printing" to fund government expenditures as it is a form of taxation...that is NON-VIOLENT.

 

The government does not have to "point a gun" to take anything. In fact, nothing is taken from you...physically.

 

"Printing" will devalue every existing unit of that nations' currency equally...held by the rich or poor, foreign or domestic, there is no avoidance, evasion, or escape from it. Nothing could be more fair and equal!

 

It also highly economical as well, as there are no need for tax collectors, no need for enforcement of tax laws, and the government could reap large amounts of value from seigniorage.

 

All it depends upon is for the government to be responsible and exercise self-discipline with the printer...and government can be entrusted to do so, right?

 

 

Interesting viewpoint on your support for printing.  I never thought of it being fair, but as far as the impact on one's income, it's pretty much the same as a perfectly flat income tax.  Which of course, is not fair in the opinion of many others on here, but that's beside the point.

 

I'll assume that the rhetorical question you wrapped up with is well laced with sarcasm.

 

I would expect for this system to work and keep hyperinflation in check, it would require a significant reduction in free public services, since without taxes, there is no way for the printed money to get back to the government.  IIRC, that was mentioned in Daz' link.

[CanadianLoonie]

On 4/9/2016 at 6:50 AM, Hugor Hill said:

Don't call 911, don't see doctors or use hospitals, don't allow firemen to help you in a car wreck or a fire. Hell, don't walk on the streets. Don't take out your trash either.

 

On 4/9/2016 at 7:14 AM, Hugor Hill said:

You have no response for a common sense real world statement. Tax money is used to benefit you and us. Simple as that.

 

On 4/9/2016 at 8:20 AM, Hugor Hill said:

It's not stealing when it is consented. You live here, you pay tax here. Everyone knows that. Simple as that. It is the same with every functional country. If you don't like it you can leave and go to Somalia or some place that doesn't have a functional government.

Using Hugor Logic...

 

If I decided to clean your residence without your explicit permission, then proceed to take some of your food in your fridge and pantry as "payment", it is NOT theft because if you didn't pay me for cleaning your home by letting me take your food, YOU would be the one stealing from me.

 

In addition, you implicitly consented to me cleaning your residence because you didn't move out of the neighborhood which I have arbitrarily declared my "territory" subject to my monopoly of providing cleaning services in exchange for food.

 

[SaintPatrick33]

On 4/11/2016 at 9:51 AM, CanadianLoonie said:

That is speculation, but let's assume that is the case for now...

 

In that situation, the higher cost would be justified by the higher ethical and moral standard of those services being provided without the use of COERCION that taxation requires.

 

In fact, using existing standards you can slap this label on those violence-free services...

 

 

 

If public services are all fully privatized, chances are the existing Westphalian nation-state system would be long-gone, so there would be no 'nation-state' to defend.

 

But, assuming that the current political boundaries still exist, if you believe that this nation is worth defending, you would begin by training and arming yourself...but then that is encroaching upon the state's monopoly and I don't think they would appreciate that.

 

I can +1 nearly every post of yours lol.....I do not know why these other guys are even arguing with you, although it gives me great entertainment to read your replies to some of the more narrow-minded statements. 

[CanadianLoonie]

22 minutes ago, SaintPatrick33 said:

I can +1 nearly every post of yours lol.....

Thanks...

 

23 minutes ago, SaintPatrick33 said:

I do not know why these other guys are even arguing with you, although it gives me great entertainment to read your replies to some of the more narrow-minded statements. 

Well, because there was a point in time when I used to believe in the institution of government as much as these guys are right now, so it easy for me to know what they are going to say, as I used to say the same things myself.

[taxi]

On 05/04/2016 at 7:07 AM, Warhippy said:

Nm... This new quote system is awful.

[taxi]

So let me get this straight. Loonie wants no currency and no taxes? So we'd all be hiding gold without any police to protect us.

[Jimayo]

16 minutes ago, taxi said:

So let me get this straight. Loonie wants no currency and no taxes? So we'd all be hiding gold without any police to protect us.

 

You're a peasant.  You'd have copper, maybe some silver.

[Bocivus]

10 minutes ago, taxi said:

So let me get this straight. Loonie wants no currency and no taxes? So we'd all be hiding gold without any police to protect us.

What happened to personal responsibility?  You and YOU alone are responsible for your self-protection.  It boggles my mind how people support being robbed for the sake of "protection" (I put that in quotes because the vast majority of the time the police don't protect anyone.  They show up after the crime was committed to draw a chalk line around the helpless victims who chose to abdicate their responsibility of protection to someone else).   So, in essence, you support your rights being violated (taxes), to have people (police) protect you from other people (Mr. Bad Guy) who will violate your rights.  

[inane]

1 hour ago, Bocivus said:

What happened to personal responsibility?  You and YOU alone are responsible for your self-protection.  It boggles my mind how people support being robbed for the sake of "protection" (I put that in quotes because the vast majority of the time the police don't protect anyone.  They show up after the crime was committed to draw a chalk line around the helpless victims who chose to abdicate their responsibility of protection to someone else).   So, in essence, you support your rights being violated (taxes), to have people (police) protect you from other people (Mr. Bad Guy) who will violate your rights.  

Groups of people form societies with rules they generally agree on to avoid this everyone for themself mentality. It's been that way since the stone age. Why do you think that is? 

[Bocivus]

27 minutes ago, inane said:

Groups of people form societies with rules they generally agree on to avoid this everyone for themself mentality. It's been that way since the stone age. Why do you think that is? 

You can have private security or even have your own voluntary groups to protect your communities if you desire, without being extorted and handing over not only your personal responsibility, but the monopolization of the use of force. 

And to generally agree means the minority gets the shaft.  Just because there is no State acting as daddy doesn't necessarily mean that the "everyone for themselves" mentality will prevail in the aspect that you're insinuating.  Groups of people/communities come together all the time and accomplish a variety of different things.  This would be no different.