But in the end people will need their nation’s currency to pay their taxes. That’s the ultimate reason none of these currencies can ever replace “fiat” money worldwide. Because the government, where ever you live, is never going to allow people to pay taxes in bitcoin or libra or whatever. So there will always be a…
efcdons
efcdons
Eastland was a Democrat his entire career! It’s not even making a point about bi-partisan compromise or party polarization. It’s really a mind-boggling choice.
Both of those particular social programs are literally examples of socialism. Both have the government owning and directing “capital”. Both have (well, Medicare less so since Part D under GW Bush) replaced formerly market based, private sector activities with centrally planned government control.
state level republicans saying they can’t do a Medicaid expansion because the republicans at the federal level might axe the funding is just mindblowing chutzpah. They are basically saying we can’t expand Medicaid because the politicians we support and want you to vote for might do something we want them to do.
I think it’s difficult to make comparisons and take lessons from the experience of right wing populist parties in Europe running on anti-Muslim immigrant sentiment vs. American versions running on anti-Black/anti-Latino sentiment.
And? In another world people could just live where they want without paying anything to anyone because there would be no government to force them to do so. That might mean there are fewer unused houses that in our world are rented out. But then demand for land would also go down as no one would be trying to claim land…
It’s not just “paying for” stuff. They also don’t recognize that people who don’t own property are giving up something “valuable” by implicitly agreeing to respect the idea that someone can “own” something the owner can’t/doesn’t use or control. In a true “natural” state without a society people would be able to…
What? Are you trying to ask me about automation but in a really weird way? Automation is great. It increases productivity which increases the wealth of society. As productivity increases less people need to work (work is bad. We should be forced to do only a bare minimum) and we can distribute that increase in…
Yes. Idiots do seem to love the idea of free everything. The rich and property owners seem to love the idea of free private property protection, free use of government violence to enforce their claims of “ownership” over something they couldn’t control through their own will, free social and physical infrastructure to…
A tribal mentality? You mean “society”? Those people who are “obliged” to give money to other people are so “obliged” because we live in a society with mass franchise and a legal system crafted through representative democracy. If business owners don’t want to follow the laws we have all collectively enacted then they…
That already exists. It’s called state and local minimum wage. The federal minimum wage is an absolute floor and not a ceiling. Libby kind of directly addresses this issue in the article.
These people who are against the bill aren’t “thinking of what policies will most benefit the poor”. They are “worried” about the effects on business owners’ profits. That’s why they quoted business owner associations and not, say, union officials or NGOs that focus on the working poor.
SORRY. I FORGOT TO WRITE IN ALL CAPS. IF YOU JUST IMAGINE WHAT I SAID BUT IN ALL CAPS DOES IT MAKE MORE SENSE?
No it isn’t. It’s enforcing what consensual parties agree to within the ambit of the law. Consensual parties can’t agree to something illegal and the courts won’t enforce those agreements. For example, when gambling was illegal the courts would not enforce a gambling debt even if the parties agreed to the terms of the…
You should call the whambulance. Maybe they’ll be able to find someone who gives a fuck.
That’s the whole point. They think the only legitimate use of state violence is doing whatever it is they want done. If state violence is used to help someone else then it's apparently a violation of natural law or some other stupid bullshit.
Do you have a basic ability to comprehend English? That’s the opposite of what I’m saying. It’s the right wing nut job who is claiming the government can’t change the law of contract and property to make it, for example, illegal to rent out privately owned residential property to another person for money. I'm saying…
Uh, no. I’m arguing there is a functioning legal system created by the government. Which means if the government says you can’t own a non-primary residence and rent it out to other people (nobody is actually arguing for that proposal except in right wing crack pots’ imaginary world. But let’s just assume....) then…
Fuck. What is it with right wingers and their love of an inchoate, imaginary version of “common law”? Do you mean the law as found in England before the colonies were founded? That law, like all law, was predicated on an agreed upon “enforcer”. The sovereign. Just like in 2019 our laws governing essentially all…
Yes, upending the current system of privately owned housing by providing a strong and vibrant social housing option. Which would create competition for private landlords thereby forcing them to be less shitty. Totally congruent with the content of the linked article.