Give war a chance II

[Canajew]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
It will shift the lines a lot. The Jordan valley border is relatively much easier to monitor. Furthermore, large numbers of forces would be freed up, as they will no longer be needed in Judea and Samaria.

They would be under Jordanian control and have less freedom to attack than they do now. Hussie Jr. is no more fond of Arafat and the PLO than was his father, Alav Haknobel.

Please not that while I favor population transfer, I disassociate myself from AlexBM's words "killing huge numbers of Palis in one day", which I find as abhorrent as Arabs shouting they want to slaughter the Jews all the time.

I have no desire to kill anyone unless they're out to harm me.

I agree with you that militarily this will make Israel more secure (at least in the short to medium term). It will make borders more defensible and thus decrease the impact of the conflict, but the aggression of the Palestinians against Jews would still continue unabated or with addtional impetus. Further, as you must be aware, this conflict is being fought just as much in the realm of international public relations as it is on the ground, and expelling millions of people into Arab countries which would undoubtedly use them as pawns and keep them in limbo just like they did with the 48 refugees and the 67 refugees would cause massive damage to isarel's image abroad, which is genuinely important.

What needs to be done first and foremost is that the Palestinians' international offensive against truth and their giant propaganda effrots are neutralized. I have no idea how, it would probably take years of concerted effort, but the negativer views the world has agaisnt israel are a major constrictor of practical Israeli policy.

I have said for a long time that the only way to get the Plaestinians to stop fighting is to convince them that they lost, and that they cannot win. With world support on their side, they will never reach this point. Even right now they believe they are in a relative postion of strength based on the condemnation of the security fence out of the west, based on the ongoing demonization of Sharon in the press (based, in part in the current round, on the Plaestinians fictitious (quasi)endorsement of the geneva accords) and based on the continual pressure of the worlds' 'progresive leftists' agaisnt the evil zionist-imperialist conspiracy (and all that BS).

In this respect, the front lines in this conflict are more in the realm of public opinion than on the battlefield. And on this axis, the palestinians have no reason to stop fighting, and have not given up the dream of destroying Israel. So no matter where you put them, whether in the west bank or in Jordan, they will not stop.

Of course the rabid anti-semitism tought in their schools and which permiates their culture (both Palestinians and the rest of the Arabs) is also a big problem, and also perpetuates the conflict. but I have no idea at all how to deal with that.

[Oh Jerusalem]

I think I should clarify that, while I advocate transfer, It should only be done for those that refuse to live here in cooperation with the Jewish State.

I think I've said it before here. I advocate granting, after a trial period, citizenship to all non-Jewish residents of Israel. This citizenship would have to grant them equal rights and opportunities in civil life and limited political opportunities.

For example, I don't believe Arabs should have any say in matters such as security and Jewish matters in Israel.

If you ask me, the way things are going here, this is going to happen one way or the other. Either we take the initiative soon and reseize Judea and Samaria (I'm for returning Gaza but not unilaterally) or we will be forced to fall back to pre-67 borders, from where the Arabs will continue with a final attack in their age old attempt tp annihilate us.

Those are my predictions of what's going to happen here.

[L@mplighterM]

I don’t understand how an individual can be granted limited citizenship.
Would the Supreme Court uphold such a law? I don’t think it would be in Israelis interest to open the floodgates and grant citizenship to Arabs.

The difficulty in allowing such a move would stem from the fact that 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc generation Arabs could turn out to be Jew killers even if the original immigrants were peaceful.

In any event if you have a pair of white rabbits that produce two offspring’s that produce two more and so on versus a pair of black rabbits that continuously have six or seven babies and so on, eventually the place would be overrun by black rabbits. Arabs have more children!

It appears to me that the bottom line is that Islam wont rest until Israel and the territories are eradicated of Jews, Arabs wont rest until that becomes a reality

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
I don’t understand how an individual can be granted limited citizenship.

You establish the laws to enact it.

Would the Supreme Court uphold such a law?

Indeed Israel's supreme court is a hinderence to resolving many a problem here.

I don’t think it would be in Israelis interest to open the floodgates and grant citizenship to Arabs.

Citizenship should not be taken for granted. I recommend a lengthy trial period. I also recommend clear laws for stripping non-Jews of their Israeli citzenship under appropriate circumstances.

The difficulty in allowing such a move would stem from the fact that 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc generation Arabs could turn out to be Jew killers even if the original immigrants were peaceful.

A one-way ticket out for them then.

Things could turn out very well for both sides if you punish the offenders harshly and reward the adherents with almost all of the everyday opportunities, liberties and freedoms granted to Israeli citizens.

For those that don't like it, there's plenty of water to drink in Gaza.

In any event if you have a pair of white rabbits that produce two offspring’s that produce two more and so on versus a pair of black rabbits that continuously have six or seven babies and so on, eventually the place would be overrun by black rabbits. Arabs have more children!

As I said, this requires a 2nd class citizenship with political limitations.

It appears to me that the bottom line is that Islam wont rest until Israel and the territories are eradicated of Jews, Arabs wont rest until that becomes a reality

Definitely a possibility or even a probability. That's why I don't reject population transfer as an option.

As for the title of this thread, read Answering Ehud Olmert, by Michael Freund, in today's Jerusalem Post.

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem
You establish the laws to enact it.

Indeed Israel's supreme court is a hinderence to resolving many a problem here.

Citizenship should not be taken for granted. I recommend a lengthy trial period. I also recommend clear laws for stripping non-Jews of their Israeli citzenship under appropriate circumstances.

A one-way ticket out for them then.

Things could turn out very well for both sides if you punish the offenders harshly and reward the adherents with almost all of the everyday opportunities, liberties and freedoms granted to Israeli citizens.

For those that don't like it, there's plenty of water to drink in Gaza.


As I said, this requires a 2nd class citizenship with political limitations.

Definitely a possibility or even a probability. That's why I don't reject population transfer as an option.

As for the title of this thread, read Answering Ehud Olmert, by Michael Freund, in today's Jerusalem Post.

There are countless incidents where up to 4th generation Muslims living in the west that support the destruction of Israel. Muslims/Arabs never accepted the creation of the State of Israel and they never will.

Second class citizens that pay first class taxes?

If I were an Arab I’d tell Israel to stick it! Why settle for that if you believe you’ll get the whole pie one day? If I were indoctrinated to think I’d get it all I wouldn’t settle for less.

Some believe that Israel has been victorious since 1948 because of divine intervention. I don’t!

In 1967 it was intellectual military superiority and the preemptive strike that temporarily ended the conflict after six days. The 1983 conflict demonstrated quite clearly to me that a ragtag collection of terrorists is not that easy to defeat and I would say that battle ended in a stalemate.

Times are changing!

I think it was General Custer that said, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian”. I don’t agree with that statement but I certainly believe that the 70% +/- of Palestinians that support suicide bombings are an obstacle to a ceasefire and should be eliminated.

For starters build the Great Wall of Israel at least it’ll give future generations something to look at. Shoot any Muslim that tries to scale the wall or dig under it.

Arabs/Muslims are Arabs/Muslims and they wont change, they cant if they want to be true to their religion.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
Some believe that Israel has been victorious since 1948 because of divine intervention. I don’t!

This is indeed one of the biggest causes for many of our sorrows throughout history and how much more so now.

But this is not the Religion forum, so I'll end my discussion of this point here.

[MGB8]

You counter their propaganda on two fronts - (1) what is the end-result of "anti-Zionism"/the end of Israel, and how is that different from Nazi goals? (2) the use of historical facts, from the fact that there was no Palestinian state (or Jordan ie. East Palestine, or Lebanon or Iraq or, to a lesser extend, Egypt - that in fact all these names mean nothing, the west drew up lines which crossed Arab tribal borders; the mass immigration to the WB post 67 by Pal's; the fact that Jordan ruled the WB pre-67, etc. etc. etc.)

As for the second problem, that's the demographic problem, and is more difficult. One idea would be to turn Israel into a semi-democratic Monarchy or even Theocracy. That way elections would be less important, ala all the Arab nations, where no Arab has a real vote.

However, that's not realistic.

The more long term, and difficult, but possible solution is to simply take some draconian steps to reduce the Arab presence in Israel, including the expulsion of Arab criminals who do anything related to terrorism, including joining terror parties (including Fatah -which means "conquest", if you didn't know). A Pal-Arab terror state is part of that equation, too, unfortunately.

[CanDo]

Originally posted by L@mplighterM
I think it was General Custer that said, “The only good Indian is a dead Indian”. I don’t agree with that statement but I certainly believe that the 70% +/- of Palestinians that support suicide bombings are an obstacle to a ceasefire and should be eliminated.
[/B]

It is sad. For decades, the majority of Arabs, worldwide, have shown that they do not want a peaceful coexistence with non-Arabs, especially Jews.

For a lasting peace, Israel has got to find a way to "export" all Arabs someplace else. If that "someplace else" is Gaza, so be it.

Then the world could say that the Arabs don't want Jews and the Jews don't want Arabs. An equitable arrangement.

And, if the Arabs only want to be among Arabs, then let them have a few million more!

[ibrodsky]

Krauthammer knows the score:

Aftershocks of war Charles Krauthammer

December 26, 2003 | Print | Send

``Libya Vows to Give Up Banned Weapons; Two Decades of Sanctions, Isolation Wore Down Gaddafi''
-- Washington Post headline, front-page news analysis, Dec. 20.

WASHINGTON -- Yeah, sure. After 18 years of American sanctions, Gaddafi randomly picks Dec. 19, 2003, as the day for his surrender. By amazing coincidence, Gaddafi's first message to Britain -- principal U.S. war ally and conduit to White House war councils -- occurs just days before the invasion of Iraq. And his final capitulation to U.S.-British terms occurs just five days after Saddam is fished out of a rat hole.


As Jay Leno would say, what are the odds? The nine months of negotiations with Libya perfectly frame the war on Iraq and the fall of Saddam. How is it possible to ignore the most blindingly obvious collateral benefits?

Imagine this kind of thinking 50 years ago: ``Japan Surrenders --Years of War Deprivation Proved Too Much.''

Dateline Tokyo, Aug. 14, 1945. Japan capitulated yesterday to the allies, worn down by the accumulation of hardships from the war begun with the sudden outbreak of violence in Hawaii in December 1941. The housing shortage in Tokyo had become particularly acute, especially since the nights of March 9 and 10. And there also has appeared to be an abrupt downturn in recent economic activity in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Sen. John Kerry was equally ridiculous in his explanation of the Libya deal: ``An administration that scorns multilateralism and boasts about a rigid doctrine of military pre-emption has almost in spite of itself demonstrated the enormous potential for improving our national security through diplomacy.''

Unlike Howard Dean, Kerry is not a foreign policy ignoramus. Does he really believe that the Libyan surrender is a triumph of multilateralism? Does he really think that Libya's capitulation -- coinciding precisely with a pre-emptive war that destroyed Saddam Hussein -- is a contradiction of the ``rigid doctrine of military pre-emption''?

What kind of naif thinks that this is a triumph for ``diplomacy,'' as if, say, Bill Clinton had sent Warren Christopher to Tripoli and he chatted Gaddafi into surrendering his WMDs?

The Democrats seem congenitally incapable of understanding that force has not just the effect of disarming the immediate enemy, but has a deterrent effect on others similarly situated. Iraq was not attacked randomly. It was attacked as part of a clearly enunciated policy -- now known as the Bush Doctrine -- of targeting, by pre-emptive war if necessary, hostile regimes engaged in terror and/or refusing to come clean on WMDs.

Mullah Omar did not get the message and is now hiding in a cave somewhere. Saddam did not get the message and ended up in a hole. Gaddafi got the message.

Diplomacy is fine. But we are dealing not with Canada but with gangster regimes. In rogue states, the only diplomacy that ever works is diplomacy at the point of a bayonet. Why, even the hapless Hans Blix went out on a limb to speculate that ``I would imagine that Gaddafi could have been scared by what he saw in Iraq.''

Ashton Carter, co-director of the Harvard-Stanford Preventive Defense Project, agreed that ``what we did in Iraq put countries like Libya on notice that we're really serious about countering proliferation.'' To be sure, Carter prefaced this obvious truth with the Blixian phrase ``one certainly hopes that.'' But that is to be expected from an adviser to Howard Dean.

Do the Democrats really not see the larger picture, or do they pretend not to because it is an election year? The domino effects of the Iraq campaign are already in clear view. It is no accident that Iran has agreed to surprise nuclear inspections. Mind you, I do not hold much hope for this; it will take far more to disarm the mullahs, possibly U.S. airstrikes during a second Bush administration. But for now, Bush's willfulness and determination in Iraq have persuaded Iran to grab a European plan for inspections rather than face the wrath of the United States.

Elsewhere in the Middle East, Hezbollah has been quiet since the war. Syria has made its first peace overture in years. Libya has now confessed and capitulated on WMDs.

And that's not counting Iraq, which with Saddam captured has finally turned a historic corner and may be on its way to establishing the first pluralistic, representative pro-Western Arab polity in the region.

These are not triumphs of diplomacy. These are the aftershocks of war.

[MGB8]

Its embarassing to be a Democrat at these times - thank g-d for Lieberman.

Dems, IMO, have a lot of great things for them.

For example, a national health care subsidy system (done correctly to foster competition between doctors and consumers still bearing many use determining costs) would take financial pressure off business who have to bear the costs of health care right now - making life much simpler for employers! yay. It would also have positive benefits for worker's comp, since much of the medical costs would be within that framework.

Progressive taxes help the economy work by correcting the standard market failures that heavily favor those who start with money over those who don't, outside of performance and talent and skill (the more money you have, the more power you have to essentially "cheat the system" and the better information you have as well as ability to jump barriers). Such redistributed moneys go right back into the consumption cycle and back up the chain - "trickle UP economics".

Standardless "Free" trade forces the US not to compete on productivity (Qtty/qlty of product per manhour) but instead against essentially slave labor that destroys environments, a DIS-INCENTIVE to productivity advancements (why should you do something a better way when you have slave labor to do it?) This lowers the US standard of living and does little to help the newly "opened" nations.

On social issues Democrats favor toleranace, which is generally (though not always) the right place to be.

Now...that's not to say that Dems don't tend to want to overregulate everything and put too much money into government, where it can be lost to friends of politicians instead of put into efficient use - but that happens on both parties too (see, ie Connecticut, the omnibus budget bill).

And That's not to say that some go too far towards socialism, forgetting that they failure of socialism is that it doesn't reward hard work, creativity and productivty, where as capitalism does (if market failures are addressed).

But there are areas where Democrats need to have open and honest debate, to stand up to Republicans who too often seem to be the party of Social Darwanism, where who cares if people are abusing the system (ie. monopolies/ENRON/etc.) if our friends are doing well...

BUt then, they come out en masse and support the uber-left, discrediting themselves so much....

Thank g-d for Joe Lieberman. Even Tom Daschle and Schumer - more left, but not anti-US power lefties, just people with policy differences from the right.

Originally posted by ibrodsky
Krauthammer knows the score:

[Noam]

Good one.

America is BLESSED to have thinkers like Krauthammer on its side.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by MGB8
Its embarassing to be a Democrat at these times...

Understatement of the last fifty years.

Dems, IMO, have a lot of great things for them.

For example, a national health care subsidy system (done correctly to foster competition between doctors and consumers still bearing many use determining costs) would take financial pressure off business who have to bear the costs of health care right now - making life much simpler for employers! yay. It would also have positive benefits for worker's comp, since much of the medical costs would be within that framework.

Actually, government programs are the reason healthcare is now so expensive, bureaucratic, and (increasingly) incompetent. Contrary to what Dems and other assorted Socialists think, in a free market sellers must deliver services at prices buyers can afford. The myth is that technology has driven up healthcare costs. The reality is that paperwork, price controls, and tort law have driven up prices.

In other industries, technology drives costs down and efficiency up. It's no coincidence that the same people who think a line-up that includes Howard Dean, Al Sharpton, Carol Mosley-Braun et al believe that under a free market sellers would price themselves out of business.

The worst part is barely mentioned. Increasingly, market forces and the important signals they send are being taken out of the equation. Consumers are taught to believe the bulk of healthcare costs will be paid by others. Meanwhile, choices are eliminated in misguided attempt to reduce costs. In my own family, we face the prospect of not being able to choose the most qualified healthcare providers even at lower cost--because they are outside "the network."

A national healthcare plan would be a disaster. Contrary to the propaganda of ideologues and people who have only casual experience, every national program has been a failure. In the UK, people are told "there is nothing medical science can do for you" not because there are no therapies but for budgetary reasons. Thus, the bureaucrats purposely mislead people into thinking they are not treatable when the reality is that at their age they are simply not covered at that cost level. In Canada, people wait months for life-saving surgeries while morons with colds and flu keep emergency rooms clogged as they seek "free" healthcare.

Progressive taxes help the economy work by correcting the standard market failures that heavily favor those who start with money over those who don't, outside of performance and talent and skill (the more money you have, the more power you have to essentially "cheat the system" and the better information you have as well as ability to jump barriers). Such redistributed moneys go right back into the consumption cycle and back up the chain - "trickle UP economics".

Nonsense. Besides being immoral, progressive taxes discourage work, innovation, and even rule of law. An entire industry has been created just to help those willing and able to spend a few hundred dollars to navigate the system. In many cases, the result of progressive taxation is that rich people pay no taxes at all.

The first problem is that the Federal and most State governments have turned into monsters so addicted to revenue growth that they have expropriated organized crime and taken over the gambling industry. So we have the spectacle of government agencies running lotteries and persuading local communities to host riverboat casinos.

A reasonable flat tax with greatly streamlined tax law would guarantee that the poor pay little and the rich pay the most. But this idea is too 'extreme' for the accountants, lawyers, and IRS personnel who make their living off voluminous and confusing tax law.

Standardless "Free" trade forces the US not to compete on productivity (Qtty/qlty of product per manhour) but instead against essentially slave labor that destroys environments, a DIS-INCENTIVE to productivity advancements (why should you do something a better way when you have slave labor to do it?) This lowers the US standard of living and does little to help the newly "opened" nations.

The free market is what made this country great. The anti-capitalist view is cut from the same cloth as the anti-American view. No amount of US law is going to force other countries to change their behavior. However, free markets ensure that the best products at the best prices win. Slave labor is perhaps good for making teddy bears and t-shirts, but not computers and automobiles.

On social issues Democrats favor toleranace, which is generally (though not always) the right place to be.

Uh huh. Like tolerance for Palestinian mass murders.

Now...that's not to say that Dems don't tend to want to overregulate everything and put too much money into government, where it can be lost to friends of politicians instead of put into efficient use - but that happens on both parties too (see, ie Connecticut, the omnibus budget bill).

Nor is it to say the Dems don't engage in vote fraud in nearly every major city...

And That's not to say that some go too far towards socialism, forgetting that they failure of socialism is that it doesn't reward hard work, creativity and productivty, where as capitalism does (if market failures are addressed).

So instead you advocate a sort of half-socialism, which you hope will only deliver half failures?

But there are areas where Democrats need to have open and honest debate, to stand up to Republicans who too often seem to be the party of Social Darwanism, where who cares if people are abusing the system (ie. monopolies/ENRON/etc.) if our friends are doing well...

Actually, the only monopolies are government-created: Amtrak, the USPS, the old Bell System, etc. In a free market, there are no monopolies, because large companies naturally lose the ability to innovate quickly and have too much overhead to serve niche markets that often grow into mass markets.

Notice that in the relatively unregulated area of electronics that products have become more powerful while prices are constantly reduced. Heck, the migration from videotapes to DVDs hardly started when DVD players were available for as little as $20.

Meanwhile, in healthcare a single aspirin taken in hospital can cost more than $20!

BUt then, they come out en masse and support the uber-left, discrediting themselves so much....

Thank g-d for Joe Lieberman. Even Tom Daschle and Schumer - more left, but not anti-US power lefties, just people with policy differences from the right.

Connect the dots. The Dems and the Left go together. Unfortunately, most Jews have been programmed from birth to be Dems and can't shake their obsolete views. The Republicans are far from perfect, but they are certainly better than the alternatives presented by the party of political correctness, socialism, appeasement.

[IsraelAdvocate]

Originally posted by alexbmn
lol i knew that if I didnt paste the line from its original source there will be a misunderstanding. What I meant is that Israelis could end the conflict by killing huge numbers of Palis in one day and throwing out the rest but will not do so,while the Palestinians desperately want to do that but dont have the ability.

Now I understand. I was wondering what was wrong here.

[MGB8]

Ibrodsky, this is a different line of argument, so maybe doesn't belong here.

In response though, you are wrong on many of the facts.

For example, the administrative costs of medicare are about 2% of the program, compared to between 15-25% of private insurers.

In terms of tort laws - the relative costs of litigation in the US HAS NOT CHANGED since the 1970's - not the amount of suits, the average judgment or settlement amount - nothing (adjusted for population growth and inflation.)

What has changed is insurer profit margins, pure and simple.

As for your assault on progressive taxes - they do not cause the very wealthy to not pay taxes nor are they a disincentinve to innovation or hard work. You pay taxes on the margin, so when you enter a new tax bracket, its only every NEW dollar that you make that is taxed at a higher rate - so even if you only take back 60 cents on the dollar, that 60 additional cents is still incentive to earn. In fact, by making it HARDER to be richer, it is a GREATER incentive for the most talented to work harder (thus make more money).

The Rich who don't pay taxes ARE essentially COMMUNIST SUPPORTERS, who are looking to avoind paying to support for the country and system that keeps them free and secure. People who, even legally, can afford to pay taxes and yet hide money off-shore or expense personal goods as business expenses - are stealing money from the government - they are no better than petty theives.

Your statement that there are only state created monopolies is a falsehood, also. Barriers to entry and unfair competition practices (ie. buying out competitors before they can compete ala Standard Oil and US Steel, dumping, etc.) all happen on a day to day basis. Also, oligopoly poses certain risks, as well.

You are right that slave labor in general can only do simple manufacturing, but with technology improving, the capability of slave or slave level labor is improving every day. Standardless trade hurts the US because it doesn't rewarrd productivity per manhour, which is what should matter.

You need to go back and look at the late 1800's, which is where we are heading policy wise. The US was most productive in the 50's and 60's, which had a much more "socialist" aspect to it, and much more wealth redistribution and circulation. That distribution to middle income peoples, who spend and invest almost all of their money (as opposed to the very wealthy) improves corporate earning and the economy as a whole.

Instead, the poverty rate and the uninsured in the US have been increasing every year (especially since the rate has not kept up with inflation in real terms.)

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by MGB8


For example, the administrative costs of medicare are about 2% of the program, compared to between 15-25% of private insurers.

That is a ridiculus claim. Government programs such as Medicare are notoriously bureaucratic and inefficient.

You are also ignoring the fact that under medicare much of the administrative cost is born by healthcare providers. This is why doctors in individual private practice have been driven out of business.

Businesses competing in free markets are always more efficient than government programs, because government programs are staffed by people who seek job security over excellence.

In terms of tort laws - the relative costs of litigation in the US HAS NOT CHANGED since the 1970's - not the amount of suits, the average judgment or settlement amount - nothing (adjusted for population growth and inflation.)

What has changed is insurer profit margins, pure and simple.

I won't argue with your claim about the 1970s, because that is roughly when things got out of control.

I haven't studied insurance company profit margins, but I don't see many people buying stocks in that sector. However, government programs tend to have the opposite effect of what was intended. Thus, programs designed to offer a low-cost alternative drive small companies out of business, leaving just a few big companies that know how to play ball with politicians.

Of course, your analysis is totally oblivious to the ill effects of government programs on important factors such as quality of healthcare and consumer choice.

As for your assault on progressive taxes - they do not cause the very wealthy to not pay taxes nor are they a disincentinve to innovation or hard work. You pay taxes on the margin, so when you enter a new tax bracket, its only every NEW dollar that you make that is taxed at a higher rate - so even if you only take back 60 cents on the dollar, that 60 additional cents is still incentive to earn. In fact, by making it HARDER to be richer, it is a GREATER incentive for the most talented to work harder (thus make more money).

The Rich who don't pay taxes ARE essentially COMMUNIST SUPPORTERS, who are looking to avoind paying to support for the country and system that keeps them free and secure. People who, even legally, can afford to pay taxes and yet hide money off-shore or expense personal goods as business expenses - are stealing money from the government - they are no better than petty theives.

That is your emotional analysis. It only requires a little logic to see that progressive taxes are unfair and are based on the socialist dream of redistributing wealth.

Under a flat tax you pay taxes in proportion to what you earn. Those who make little pay little in taxes. Those who earn more pay more.

Your claim that making it harder for people to get rich is an "incentive" is laughable.

The reality, which you ignore, is that progressive taxes were devised by politicians seeking votes. They promised the majority of people, who are not rich, that they would make the rich minority pay a disproportionate share of taxes. (This is the Democrats greatest contribution to our political life: they promise favors to every interest group in exchange for votes.) However, since Democrat politiains are themselves rich, they also devised a way for themselves and their friends to avoid progressive taxes. Thus, they created a byzantine system of exemptions, tax shelters, and loopholes. Thus, the Kennedys can keep the money they made in bootlegging while they cook up legislation to persecute the Bill Gates.

Your statement that there are only state created monopolies is a falsehood, also. Barriers to entry and unfair competition practices (ie. buying out competitors before they can compete ala Standard Oil and US Steel, dumping, etc.) all happen on a day to day basis. Also, oligopoly poses certain risks, as well.

No, the only real monopolies are state-created. The USPS, the Bell System, Amtrak, etc.

In a free market, investors are free to continually start new companies. Though big companies can buy small companies, they will only do so selectively, as they must balance that strategy against their desire to increase profits--which requires cost containment.

In contrast, when the government sets up a monopoly it can simply pass legislation to outlaw competition in that business, which it often does.

Thanks to modern technology, far more people can invest in companies, and there is more information enabling new companies to find and capture niche markets.

Thus, the computer industry is a wonderful example that--contrary to the claims of socialists--while some companies are driven out of business by competition new companies are continually being formed. The net result is increasingly powerful/useful products and lower prices for consumers.

If healthcare were allowed to operate as a free market, we would see a blossoming of new diagnostic, therapeutic, and preventative products and services. Prices would gravitate to levels that consumers could afford. It is only due to government interference and bureaucracy that an aspirin administered in hospital costs $20 per dose!

You are right that slave labor in general can only do simple manufacturing, but with technology improving, the capability of slave or slave level labor is improving every day. Standardless trade hurts the US because it doesn't rewarrd productivity per manhour, which is what should matter.

Nonsense. As technology improves, it enables automation. Thus, there is less need for unskilled labor. The idea that a bunch of government policy wonks should determine how/when productivity should be rewarded is laughable. The market is far more capable of recognizing and rewarding superior value.

If superior value is derived by providing tens of millions of dirt-poor Chinese low-paying jobs, who are you to decide they should be unemployed instead? What we should seek is to ensure their political freedom through displomatic and military pressure, which will ensure they have opportunities to seek education, emigrate, and so forth. Throwing them out of work is a foolish way to protect US jobs that can and should be done by robots.

You need to go back and look at the late 1800's, which is where we are heading policy wise. The US was most productive in the 50's and 60's, which had a much more "socialist" aspect to it, and much more wealth redistribution and circulation. That distribution to middle income peoples, who spend and invest almost all of their money (as opposed to the very wealthy) improves corporate earning and the economy as a whole.

Nonsense. First, this isn't the late 1800s. As I've described, technology enables more people to invest and provides investors with more and better information. It's no longer possible for a handful of big companies to keep emerging markets their private secret. Nor can they stop new companies armed with new technologies.

Contrary to your claim, the 50s were not "more socialist." The era of huge government programs began in the 60s. Still, these programs were intended to be affordable. It was in the 70s that we discovered that once you create "entitlements" you have to pay for them no matter how huge and out of control they become.

Instead, the poverty rate and the uninsured in the US have been increasing every year (especially since the rate has not kept up with inflation in real terms.)

This is propaganda. In the U.S., people who own their own home, a car, and other modern conveniences are routinely counted as "poor." Why? Because such rigged counting helps politcians seeking to justify ever more government programs.

Really, between the opportunities and government programs in this country, you have to go out of your way to be what would be considered "poor" in most of the world. I believe most of the uninsured are uninsured by choice: they know that there are major hospitals in every city that cannot turn away someone who is in need of treatment.

The dirty little secret is that major hospitals already receive massive federal aid so they can treat the "uninsured." So in reality, nobody in this country is uninsured. Many uninsured are young people who are betting they won't get sick. Others simply know that if they do, someone else--the government or a charity--will foot the bill.

I prefer the Jewish philosophy that says the moral solution is to help those in need with loans--not gifts. Let them know that they are expected to pay for the help they received once they get back on their feet. The Democrats have created a society of arrogant people who think others owe them something for nothing.