>>Unfree Americans may be wealthier than serfs but it does not follow that
>>the wealth is a consequence of our lack of freedom. Do you really think
>>that slavery produces wealth?
>
>I never said that wealth is a consequence of "our" lack of freedom. (I
>say "our" because freedom is really a state of mind; you can achieve it
>yourself if you seriously want to). If you had read what I wrote
>carefully, I said: "people are willing to give up more freedom, if it
>means they can be more wealthy".
>
Nah, not really.
There has never been a case where LESS freedom meant MORE prospoerity.
IF there was, then socialism would work.
In this universe, as it happens, socialism does not work, and laissez
faireism does.
Quite simply every single time in any millieu that taxes are cut,
prosperity increases. And every single time that taxes are raised,
prosperity goes down.
>In other words, people who can have what people in the 16th, 17th, etc
>and even the beginning of the 20th century didn't have, are willing to
>give away more of their freedom for it. For example, cars. Around 200
>years ago, there were no cars in the sense we know them today. Now,
>everyone and their brother has a car. They all have a slave plate on
>them. The average Joe American doesn't really care about his freedom,
>when it comes down to matters of convenience.
>
Well the basic situation is, America was fucked. Reagan slashed the
taxes to 28%. And since then there has been a spectacular, utterly
amazing boom which continues to this day.
As you mention, cars -- there was no fuel under Carter, taxes and
regulations had reached a peak on the world-freedom-versus-time
charts.
>Tristan
>
>
>---
>You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Great ventures create great mottos."
---
You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
