Andrew79

I wouldn't: when I've explained my position to the best of my abilities once, I'm not going to keep repeating it or try to find new material if someone's simply going to say the same thing over and over again. I'm just going to move on. Don't waste your time with these people.

No idea, but the principle remains the same for any tax, it's nothing but extortion regardless of what it's called. "Anarchistic arguments" completely cover it, don't let anyone claim you're having to "resort" to something when you're simply being consistent and sticking to principles. Anyone claiming sales tax is voluntary is conflating the choice of purchasing or not with the compulsion of paying the tax. If sales tax truly was voluntary, when you make a purchase you would be asked if you wish to pay it or not. You aren't, so there's nothing voluntary about it.

Damn, lost my first reply, so this is going to be quite a bit shorter: His first argument, UK government debt wasn't the highest in the world when our glorious leaders claimed it was. *Shrug* politicians are liars, it's what they do. But regardless of the exact amount, it's still obscene. And he's not really making an argument here, just stating a claim. His second argument, the deficit was not caused by our previous masters' overspending is false by definition. You only run a deficit if you spend more than you earn (yeah, I know, none of it's earned). There's nothing complicated about it. His claim that "It's basic economics: when output falls the deficit increases" is only valid if you completely ignore spending. I'm incredibly suspicious of someone who says he's "an advocate of free market economics" putting rubbish like this forward. He backs up his first two arguments by claiming things were worse before the 2008 crash, but even if you take this at face value, it's got absolutely nothing to do with his arguments. His final argument, that the cost of borrowing is low because saving is high has been shown to be a lie by the recent downgrade because the government wasn't cutting spending fast enough. The article gets a more in-depth kicking here: http://brackenworld.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/did-ramesh-patel-get-paid-for-this.html

Why? He's a communist. His ideology hasn't just failed in theory, it's crashed and burned in practice, destroying millions of lives in the process. And his video is statism 101 - government has failed, therefore we need more government. No sense in giving him a platform for his repugnant views.

http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/t/35935.aspx?PageIndex=1 - Stefan's response. http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/35967/278341.aspx - David's reply to Stefan. http://board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/36084/279919.aspx - A more general Mises.org thread

Absolutely. But even then, looking at the bigger picture, there needs to be a free market for ways to live - not everyone would want to live in a commune. And keep in mind prices are the most efficient way to allocate resources, getting rid of them doesn't suddenly mean anyone can have everything, resources are still scarce, they'll still need to be rationed.

In the case of markets, free is an adjective, giving it a definition of "Not under the control or in the power of another." A free market is freedom, to think otherwise is just silly. If markets aren't free, people can't be. By definition.

It's a contract that lays out the relationship between you and the government. Essentially, the terms are: You will do whatever the government tells you to. And the government will do whatever it wants to. And that's pretty much it. The left-wing (never, ever do them the honour of calling them "liberals", because they most definitely are not) argument is that simply by living in a particular country you are consenting to this non-existant contract. You can see Stefan taking it to pieces here: And Tom Woods gives it a kicking here: (If you search YouTube there's plenty of others.)

Capitalism is the freedom to own capital, as opposed to it being state owned or in some sort of forced co-operative (but any co-op or other system can exist within the capitalist system). Freedom from work? Capitalism doesn't force you to work. Obviously if you don't want to starve or die of exposure or anything similar you'll have to do something. But that's nothing to do with capitalism.

Wealth isn't distributed, it's created. The government makes the rules. You'll have more opportunity, but that doesn't automatically mean those opportunities will be successful. It just means you have fewer opportunities. A loaf of bread is the same price for everyone (and, of course, in countries where that loaf is supplied through more capitalist means it is always far cheaper than where it's supplied through any other means). The government runs the health system. The government runs the education system. For skillless manual labour, not for much else. Clueless jealousy and hatred of people who've succeeded in life. The previous rule must've riled him up a bit. No, the poor pay for every mistake made by the government (which might include bailing the rich out or deciding a spot of genocide against the darkies might be a laugh). Governments start wars (and have no problem forcing poor people to fight). The first part - so what? (and it's probably a lie). The second part, government education and regulation makes it far harder than it should be for "normal" people to succeed. Poor people stay poor through low quality government education, government regulation, and taxing what they do earn. He's got nothing worth even a second glance.