Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Duck and cover
User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Paul Anthony » Sun Jul 10, 2016 6:48 pm

Jesus was non-violent.

Oh, wait...that got him killed. :twisted:
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Jul 10, 2016 8:15 pm

I am quite flexible, Bobbo.
SO far your ideas have been unconvincing.

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Flash » Sun Jul 10, 2016 11:07 pm

Paul Anthony wrote:
Jesus was non-violent.

Oh, wait...that got him killed. :twisted:

If Jesus had a gun...Wait, what do they say about a good guy with a gun?
And if he had a kalashnikov the history of the world would be different. Historians today would ponder the first ever massacre with a gun in Palestine in the year 0032.

And the Christians today would not worship a cross but a machine gun...But already Americans have got more guns than crosses. Leave the cross where it belongs, in the Southern states government offices and hail the blessed machine gun.
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Paul Anthony » Sun Jul 10, 2016 11:24 pm

Flash wrote:Paul Anthony wrote:

And the Christians today would not worship a cross but a machine gun...But already Americans have got more guns than crosses. Leave the cross where it belongs, in the Southern states government offices and hail the blessed machine gun.


Christians are funny...They get upset when told they can't display the Ten Commandments in public, but very few churches display them in their churches. Especially Catholic churches. They display statues of saints. Which would make an interesting contrast to the commandment that says "Thou shall not worship graven images". :)

Christians worship the cross, a symbol of violent death.
Hollywood worships guns, a symbol of....

Make sense, not war.

I know, it's supposed to be "Make love, not war" but if you make love you might get an STD, which would make you very CROSS, and you might want to get a GUN.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Jul 11, 2016 12:35 am

Christianity was probably a very good religion until the emperor Constantine saw a vision in the clouds of Christ waving a sword and telling him to use that means of converting people.

Of course, the world would be a better place without any of those nut cases.

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Paul Anthony » Mon Jul 11, 2016 12:40 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Christianity was probably a very good religion until the emperor Constantine saw a vision in the clouds of Christ waving a sword and telling him to use that means of converting people.



I guess Mohammad saw the same vision.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14864
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jul 11, 2016 3:16 am

Paul Anthony wrote:Make sense, not war.

I know, it's supposed to be "Make love, not war" but if you make love you might get an STD, which would make you very CROSS, and you might want to get a GUN.


You are explaining your word play to us PA? A comedian who does not respect his audience....... never does well.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14864
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jul 11, 2016 3:20 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:I am quite flexible, Bobbo.
SO far your ideas have been unconvincing.

I apologize for playing tit for tat....but I can't resist:

I am quite flexible, Bobbo. /// No Lance, you have not presented any growth/modification from your first posting of this theme. EVEN AFTER recognizing the subject is more complex than you present it as calling any subtlety and growth in your understanding as "Dangerous." Thats what inflexible people think of ideas that are different from their own. You said it. Spend some more time thinking about what your own brain is telling you. Don't simple dismiss this cognitive dissonance: as said: learn from it and develop a stronger position.

SO far your ideas have been unconvincing. /// Yes............and who is that on?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Jul 11, 2016 5:10 am

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2 ... esistance/

Bobbo

You think this is my own idea?
It is not. It comes from an academic report covering all attempts at overthrowing tyranny from within a nation, over the past fifty years. The study actually quotes statistics. The thing is that everything I have seen on the topic supports the study's conclusion, and nothing shows it to be wrong. Sure, there are always more factors than one. But this one appears to be sufficiently important that it generates a rule.

User avatar
Flash
Has More Than 6K Posts
Posts: 6001
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:09 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Flash » Mon Jul 11, 2016 5:56 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Christianity was probably a very good religion until the emperor Constantine saw a vision in the clouds of Christ waving a sword and telling him to use that means of converting people.


Paul Anthony wrote:
I guess Mohammad saw the same vision.


It had to be something they ate...like a funny mushroom from the desert.
When I feel like exercising, I just lie down until the feeling goes away. Paul Terry

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14864
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Mon Jul 11, 2016 6:52 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2014/07/24/the-proven-superiority-of-nonviolent-resistance/

Bobbo

You think this is my own idea?
It is not. It comes from an academic report covering all attempts at overthrowing tyranny from within a nation, over the past fifty years. The study actually quotes statistics. The thing is that everything I have seen on the topic supports the study's conclusion, and nothing shows it to be wrong. Sure, there are always more factors than one. But this one appears to be sufficiently important that it generates a rule.

I almost didn't even read the article given the Forbes cover page provided "Quote of the Day

"If you work hard, you can break barriers."

Kim Kardashian

But the lead quote by Gandhi is much approved: "“There are many causes that I am prepared to die for, but no causes that I am prepared to kill for.”

- Mahatma Gandhi

A very good article....thanks for the find and the link. "Their conclusion was that nonviolent movements were twice as likely to succeed as violent movements, and that nonviolent movements often significantly increased the chances of a more peaceful and democratic government emerging in the aftermath." As early stated: lets see the numbers.....and I accept the conclusion here.

I would love to see these authors with their expertise and data field try to conclude on why the violent protests failed? How many violent protests succeeded. ................................... BUT HEY!!!!===> I didn't read what the definition of a non-violent protest was, or contra, what a violent one was? How was a peaceful protest that turned violent characterized in that study? If its peaceful all the way....then peaceful has a 100% success rate. More contentious: if you are pretty certain that peaceful won't cut it, do you go violent...or not at all???

Words you know. The devil's playthings.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Jul 11, 2016 8:23 pm

Peaceful may not succeed quickly. Nor does violent. In both cases, any chance of success has to depend on continuing the effort. But peaceful does not carry the burden of death, maimings, economic collapse, loss of homes etc. Peaceful does not mean no cost, and peaceful movements have their martyrs. But if you compare a movement like Mahatma Gandhi's with Syria today and count the bodies, then you will see the major difference. Syria so far has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, several million refugees, and millions of people losing their homes, their livelihoods and so on.

But the study into the difference showed peaceful is twice as effective in attaining the goals. This is where American rednecks are idiots. They think they need guns to oppose tyranny. What they fail to understand, in their moronic state, is that having all those guns guarantees that any attempt to oppose tyranny will result in megadeaths and megamisery, and probably failure. If you want an American example, look at Martin Luther King, who won.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22159
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Mon Jul 11, 2016 10:43 pm

Violence solved the passenger pigeons.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Mon Jul 11, 2016 11:14 pm

Well Gawd, perhaps you could tell me in what way the passenger pigeons were tyrants, and who they were tyrannizing.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22159
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Jul 12, 2016 12:00 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Well Gawd, perhaps you could tell me in what way the passenger pigeons were tyrants, and who they were tyrannizing.
Why would I do that?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Jul 12, 2016 1:42 am

Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Why would I do that?


Because the theme of this thread is nonviolent or violent ways of destroying tyranny.

No one, and definitely not myself, will deny that violence creates change. But non violence as a tool for downthrowing a tyrant is superior.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28930
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Matthew Ellard » Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:04 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Peaceful may not succeed quickly. Nor does violent. In both cases, any chance of success has to depend on continuing the effort.


This is a bit of a stretch, but I am simply thinking aloud........

In economics, Coase theory states that any two parties will reach a mutually beneficial economic equilibrium regardless of their status ( King & peasant) (Communist dictator and serf) because this allows both parties to maximise their production and consumption.

That suggests non-violent reforms will eventually secure the best maximum benefit through mutual goals.

In warfare, Clausewitz separates "Total War" (the destruction of the enemy for no gain) from "War" (anticipate a gain from forcing the enemy to obey). This suggests that non-violence, (minimised destruction) will produce the better result.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:35 am

Thank you, Matt.
That is well thought out.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22159
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Jul 12, 2016 2:50 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Gawdzilla Sama wrote:Why would I do that?


Because the theme of this thread is nonviolent or violent ways of destroying tyranny.

No one, and definitely not myself, will deny that violence creates change. But non violence as a tool for downthrowing a tyrant is superior.

The point I cited was made by Heinlein.
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Jul 12, 2016 3:58 am

Gawd

I read that also.
Heinlein was a very good writer, but he was also a total arsehole redneck who believed in violence as a solution to a wide range of problems. He was a throwback to a previous and more violent era.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14864
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Jul 12, 2016 6:29 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:In economics, Coase theory states that any two parties will reach a mutually beneficial economic equilibrium regardless of their status ( King & peasant) (Communist dictator and serf) because this allows both parties to maximise their production and consumption. [/color]

Coase theory, assuming you have it correct in the detail presented, follows most other theories on economics in being total BS. The King and the Peasant have "maximized their production (maybe) but consumption?...as in peasants getting only enough to avoid starvation? I don't think so.

I post because other than Keynesian economic theory....every other theory I am aware of: stinks. Its "theory" that benefits in the main the AlreadyTooRich class that is meant to divert the working classes' attention from the general THEFT that is going on.

Just................look.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4386
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by ElectricMonk » Tue Jul 12, 2016 10:50 am

Most economic theories are simplifications that regard any non-economic activities of the agents involved.
But if you neglect power-imbalances and natural monopolies, you will never reflect the actual situation.

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Real Skeptic
Posts: 22159
Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2008 2:11 am
Custom Title: Deadly but evil.

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Tue Jul 12, 2016 11:32 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:Gawd

I read that also.
Heinlein was a very good writer, but he was also a total arsehole redneck who believed in violence as a solution to a wide range of problems. He was a throwback to a previous and more violent era.

Which Heinlein did you read?
Chachacha wrote:"Oh, thweet mythtery of wife, at waft I've found you!"
WWII Resources. Primary sources.
The Myths of Pearl Harbor. Demythologizing the attack.
Hyperwar. Hypertext history of the Second World War.
The greatest place to work in the entire United States.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 11703
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Jul 12, 2016 8:25 pm

I have read almost all Heinlen's SF books. I enjoy them, because he was a good writer. I am a bit put off by some of his comments that were based on some nastiness.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28930
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 13, 2016 1:30 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: Coase theory, assuming you have it correct in the detail presented, follows most other theories on economics in being total BS.
It's not bull-shit Bobbo. My paper was on Coase theory and Roman tax farmers.

Read this basic article and tell me, what you think are the problems with the theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coase_theorem


bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote: The King and the Peasant have "maximized their production (maybe) but consumption?...as in peasants getting only enough to avoid starvation? I don't think so.

If the king charges 100% tax, the peasants will not work and there will be no tax to collect.

If the kings charges 75% tax some peasants will work and pay some tax.

If the king charges "X"% tax, that will be the equilibrium where the peasants will work hardest and earn the most that the king will tax and maximise his return, despite being a dictator.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14864
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:23 am

Indeed peasants may work harder under various degrees of tyranny BUT they work HARDEST when they are free to keep their own production paying only free market rates for required inputs. THATS why the coase theory is BS. It operates only within parameters that give the illusion it works. What works---is OUTSIDE the theory.

Same with every other (economic) theory: they all break down. And thats why when you run into a Economic Purest be they free market, or Libertarian, or capitalist, or socialist, or communist you can only borrow WHAT WORKS from their mania and combine it with WHAT WORKS from the other theories to provide for the maximum good.

There are NO EXCEPTIONS.

Now....I'll go look at your link to confirm my name sake.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14864
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jul 13, 2016 3:55 am

Smart Matt: At your link, I stopped reading when my position was clearly supported: " In practice, obstacles to bargaining or poorly defined property rights can prevent Coasian bargaining." You see: ITS A THEORY. ie: Its pure application not seen outside an ivory tower.

Hint: Life in the Real World ALWAYS presents obstacles. David Attenborough shows this in nearly every episode he presents ON FILM demonstrating why economic theory doesn't work.

Just Look.
Last edited by bobbo_the_Pragmatist on Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4386
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:09 am

Of course the peasants will work at 100% tax - until they die- because men with swords tell them so.
Forced labor used to be the norm. The only reason why most peasants didn't starve was because the king did not have the means to collect everything.
But remember times of war when armies would take absolutely everything, leaving no food and no seeds, because the short-term victory was more important than future disaster.

You assume that the king thinks long-term under stable, peaceful conditions. You also assume that he will treat everyone the same.
These are gross simplifications that don't hold in the real world.
Last edited by ElectricMonk on Wed Jul 13, 2016 5:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14864
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:14 am

HEY!!!!! Thats better than my argument. It did cross my mind....but I didn't focus on it.

I'm thinking I know what Smart Matt's response will be. Hint: he never backs down.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28930
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:19 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:Indeed peasants may work harder under various degrees of tyranny BUT they work HARDEST when they are free to keep their own production paying only free market rates for required inputs.

Bobbo, the market rates are defined by their output, which the King owns. You have a unsolvable loop in your argument.

The reason some land in Kingdoms is called "the commons" is because the King allows the peasants to grow their own stuff there. All other land is the king's land. The king owns production. The king owns the peasants. They are "his" subjects.

Oddly Coase taxation economics is exactly what Ronald Reagan used ("a laffer curve") to reduce tax and thus reap more tax revenue from increased GDP. It works in the real world. The problem is that nowadays people have remembered the tax cuts and forgotten that the equilibrium has to be calculated by economists.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14864
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:20 am

EM===see?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4386
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed Jul 13, 2016 6:00 am

Matthew

The Laffer-curve has been utterly debunked, both academically and in real life.
States that have followed the idea are bankrupt, those who tax progressively thrive.

Taxation has never been an obstacle to commerce as long as it is applied to everyone.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28930
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 13, 2016 6:13 am

ElectricMonk wrote:Matthew, The Laffer-curve has been utterly debunked, both academically and in real life.
No it hasn't. :D
ElectricMonk wrote:States that have followed the idea are bankrupt, those who tax progressively thrive.
It's not "an idea". It is a very complex calculation performed by treasury economists, using econometrics, that has become a buzz-word with idiotic politicians, who use it as an excuse to lower taxation, with no calculations at all.

The classic, current example is taxing cigarettes.
:D

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14864
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jul 13, 2016 6:20 am

On balance---I think the Laffer curve is correct....its just that as Matt says, it is used as an excuse to ALWAYS argue for lower taxes whereas the whole idea of Laffer and of Coase is that for maximum societal benefit.... maybe the taxes need to be higher.

Its much like Keynesian economics claimed to never work...............BUT ITS NEVER BEEN FOLLOWED. The theory: gubment takes on debt in bad times (when the economy does not produce enough jobs) ...BUT...pay the debt off in Good Times. Both R&D's only follow the first part, and never the second part.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28930
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by Matthew Ellard » Wed Jul 13, 2016 6:32 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:On balance---I think the Laffer curve is correct....its just that as Matt says, it is used as an excuse to ALWAYS argue for lower taxes whereas the whole idea of Laffer and of Coase is that for maximum societal benefit.... maybe the taxes need to be higher.


Exactly ! It's a calculation that can go either way to reach equilibrium, yet no politician is going to say "I'm raising tax a bit to maximise government taxation returns while maintaining the highest GDP as a trade-off"

When I was studying economics at UNSW we observed a lovely cross over point for cigarettes. (Remember that Australia is socialist)

If you taxed cigarettes at a low rate, enough people would die early, to make a saving on ongoing government pensions. When government medical costs treating smokers become to expensive and more self funded pensions arose, it suddenly became a saving in reducing all smokers needing government health. Thus the tax on cigarettes leaped in Australia!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4i6kADXfxE
1970's 40 cents a packet.
2016 $27.00 a packet.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14864
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jul 13, 2016 6:50 am

My parents told all us kiddies smoking was a bad habit and not to start...but we were free to do whatever we wanted to...... we just had to buy our own.

Bastard Father: knew I was too cheap to spend my money that way............and I never have.

Sooooooo expensive now......only an addict would smoke. Why does it still "look" cool? Weird. ///// Something/anything "to do" rather than do nothing and look stupid with nothing to say?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4386
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed Jul 13, 2016 6:57 am

@Matt

As for your example with cigarettes: that is not a Laffer curve case, because the goal is not to optimize Tobacco tax revenue.

in a purely theoretical sense, the Laffer curve exists because all it says that there is an a balance between the number of taxpayers and the individual tax rate which has an optimal value - which is just trivially obvious: lots of people paying little amounts to the same than few paying lots, and any mix in between.

In practice that optimal point can not be calculated if you have more than one type of revenue: the interactions between different forms of taxation and the ability of the actors to switch types of income make it impossible to pin down an point of maximum state revenue.
The Laffer curve also is wrong in that it assumes that all the taxes saved are directly reinvested in the place were the taxes were supposed to be paid, something that in practice just does not happen.
In short,it's is an offspring of supply-side economics which itself just does not capture enough of the real economy to be accurate.


The Bush tax cuts are exactly the result of your "complex calculations", and they have not led to more investment or more tax revenues - quite the opposite. They will mean the loss of trillions if they are extended.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14864
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jul 13, 2016 7:00 am

ElectricMonk wrote:The Laffer curve also is wrong in that it assumes that all the taxes saved are directly reinvested in the place were the taxes were supposed to be paid, something that in practice just does not happen..


What does that mean?
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4386
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by ElectricMonk » Wed Jul 13, 2016 8:04 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
ElectricMonk wrote:The Laffer curve also is wrong in that it assumes that all the taxes saved are directly reinvested in the place were the taxes were supposed to be paid, something that in practice just does not happen..


What does that mean?


The basic idea is that by reducing taxes, people will spend the saved money instead, creating more business which in turn will create more taxpayer and taxable goods.
It is obvious that there are strongly diminishing returns on this: as you net earn more, you are going to save more, as there are limits to the amount of things you can consume.
But unlike simple economic theory claims, saved money is not equal to invested money, at least not equal to productively invested money. Investors want to maximize returns, so they invest wherever they get the most for their money, domestically or abroad, via exploiting tax-loopholes, tax havens or government subsidies, by speculating on goods or patent trolling - anything that will give high short-term returns.
So the more money is saved, the less is invested where you live, since with your wealth you ambitious for exotic goods and your ability to invest globally grows. Lower top tax rates drain money from the local economy.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 14864
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: bobbo da existential pragmatist

Re: Violent versus Non Violent Resistance to Tyranny

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Jul 13, 2016 8:44 am

Well EM...I think you are wrong. Not strongly....as who knows economics....except posers? The savings are not invested but are spent, creating demand, creating jobs, creating multiple cycles of cash circulation and trickle up economics all resulting in higher tax revenues for the gubment? Thats the theory....and it makes sense..... as a theory. It breaks down, again---in reality, because no one follows it or applies it correctly and everyone uses the theory as a dogwhistle to those attracted to same. In a vacuum....we'd put Smart Matt to work to approximate Max Efficiency, get it wrong, and tinker with it each year to find the sweet spot.

Silly hoomans will never do that......so we build ivory towers to keep the eggheads from devising any more economic theories.
Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?