aceventura3

Yes. Tax policy should be directly related to real costs to society. Government has a role in measuring those costs and collecting payment through tax policy, including tariffs. When government goes beyond that and goes beyond doing what they do best (i.e. - national defense), there is a net harm or cost to society in my view.

Capitalism is not laissez-faire. Laissez-faire in my view is anarchy. Captialism is a system with a structure.

Communism and socialism has had problems with the people in charge of those systems as opposed to the systems themselves. Using nature as an example, where we can take the leadership problem out of the equation, we can clearly see where communal based systems thrive. Mixed economies will favor the few at the expense of the many. Free market capitalism favors efficiency at the expense of the inefficient. With that said, I do support social programs for children, the elderly and the disabled. From a morality point of view, I guess I am not a true purist, however, the mixed systems as you discuss them go far beyond that.

Yes. Government was used to allow favoritism and protection. Using railroads as an example, what was the true value of the land used by the railroad barrons compared to the price they actually paid? Why were they allowed to exploit land usage? Government policy is the answer, the free market had no voice. At the time government thought they were doing good by granting land rights, they were, however, they did not get the real true value of the land in exchange. That is just one example.

Yes. The military. When the US used its military to protect corporate interests, as it had done in the past on occasion, those costs where incurred by everyone, but benefited a few. For example the US Civil war was fought for a few reasons, one being the institution of slavery and its relationship with the cotton industry in the South. If not for the cotton industry the war would not have been fought and slavery would have ended sooner as it had in many European nations and Canada - no wars on the issue - no single big industry to protect.

I know, the Canadian economy is diverse. However, the economy without the oil/mineral resources is not sustainable - hence the "one thing they have". That is what will save Canada's ability to continue their social spending. Perhaps my point is too subtle, I can't say it any clearer.

If it takes me 100 hours to do X, but I can reduce that time to 50 hours. I now have 50 hours to either do nothing leisure (no profit involved) or use that time to do more work (profit involved). Either way, the quality of life improved, standard of living improved.

I don't have the words to make my points clearer. I really don't know what more to say. From my point of view, you are taking very simple statements and concepts and distorting them, even if it is by a small amount, to be argumentative.

For example I thought I made clear that creating wealth and generating profits are different - or that it is not clear what is meant by "profit" when you use the term. There are financial profits as measured by fiat currency and there are general profits as measured by personal well being. I don't know which you refer to, but I tried to explain that in my view there is a difference.

At this point in the discussion two things are clear. One of us is correct and one either wrong or not understanding the other, or two, neither of us will be moved by any point made by the other. Stalemate. All I am doing is re-stating my views in different ways.

__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."