Yes they dont have problems with that at all. Anders Breivik confirms.
and EDIT: there are several countries without income tax and many which have it for only less then 10% of people (only with highest income)

Edited 5/8/2016 02:26:17

I am going to help you on this before leaving Sultan, found a map with states having an income taxation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax#/media/File:Individual_taxation_systems.png

According to this map the only nations with no income taxation are: Somalia, Western Sahara, Oman and Fiscal paradises... Sultan it is time for you to leave this "socialistic" world of hell! Go to Somalia, before they find you! Better dead than red!

I hate income tax. My money shouldn't be the government's. They have no right to it. Feck off

That map is manipulated, there are many countries like Arabic ones or Hong Kong where it exists only in theory.

And using your stupid argument (people use that when they are not right), I mean the one leave the country if you dont like it, You dont like the TTIP agreement between US and EU then leave Europe or Us and never come back Koala - just using your train of thoughts

Edited 5/8/2016 02:38:26

Yet they have a right to your other property? Stop being a inconsistent prick.

Fun fact: Al-Shabab and Mogadishu aren't libertarian. The only close faction is Somililand and they're most likely the best place in Somalia as it is.

04:42 here so i am going sleap, if anyone want to discuss something with me PM me please. GN.

With the day DD-MM-RRRR all customs are abolished. The problem is politics and big companies fight for privileges and money.

I mostly agree with Kosmitów. Tariffs are a newer thing in the past, they definitely were about in the 1800s, in Europe, but in the 1700s, they were rare, and before that, hardly seen.

All I hear is that "it's secretly bad" - but what is it that is bad? "It's a secret?". I still have not heard one argument that it is bad, other than "it's bad".

Tariffs are a newer thing in the past, they definitely were about in the 1800s

I would agree too if it wasn't random stuff not supported by any historical facts. You said I was vague, I guess I can say the same thing about you here.
Customs and taxes always existed. I will take as an example France, since it is my country and as I know better its history.
During the Middle age in France, there were customs and tariffs known as "traites" not only in international borders but also for each region and city having their own particular fiscal policies (we had to wait the French revolution to end this heavily sophisticated fiscal custom system). Back then, you had hundred of different taxes for basically everything, such as droit de rêve or droit de Haut-Passage.
Even during the Roman Empire, customs and taxes existed, you had the "Octavia" taxing imported goods around 12,5% of its value, and this tax had to be paid not only in external borders, but internally for each fiscal circumscription in "Portoria" or custom offices.

We had actually to wait the early modern economists such as Ricardo or Adam Smith (around the 17-18th century) to see modern international trade and free trade being implemented between nations. This hardly existed before.

I still have not heard one argument that it is bad, other than "it's bad".

Did you only read every intervention and comments of this thread? Me and Sultan gave you at least one good reason to say it's bad economically speaking: endangering small scale producers and businesses against transnational and huge corporations colluding with states and eroding further democracy since these huge corporations could attack individuals and societies in these secretive and undemocratic 'justice' proceedings that will be taken directly from the taxpayers' pockets. Gosh we are talking about the biggest economical treaty ever, between the 2 biggest economic zones, the least they can do is have some transparency.

Everyone here for once agree the current treaty is bad excepted you: liberals, socialists, libertarians, nationalists or conservatives from the US and Europe reacted badly about it, and for good reasons.

Did you only read every intervention and comments of this thread? Me and Sultan gave you at least one good reason to say it's bad economically speaking: endangering small scale producers and businesses against transnational and huge corporations colluding with states and eroding further democracy since these huge corporations could attack individuals and societies in these secretive and undemocratic 'justice' proceedings that will be taken directly from the taxpayers' pockets. Gosh we are talking about the biggest economical treaty ever, between the 2 biggest economic zones, the least they can do is have some transparency.

So the only thing you have to say is that it's a bit secretive and is free-trade? I think it should be fine, but that's quite a bit to expect, most things like this are pretty secretive in their "inception".

Everyone here for once agree the current treaty is bad excepted you: liberals, socialists, libertarians, nationalists or conservatives from the US and Europe reacted badly about it, and for good reasons.

Leftists don't like it since it's greatening a free market zone. Libertarians...like it (as the only libertarian here, I say), and nationalists and conserves are afraid of this making their country worse, "stealing" jobs.

This sounds pretty good, we just need to get rid of lots of regulations and wage laws, then we can suck jobs from Europe and Asia ^_^

So the only thing you have to say is that it's a bit secretive and is free-trade? I think it should be fine, but that's quite a bit to expect, most things like this are pretty secretive in their "inception".

Juq and his 'selective mind'. Reasons have already been given, sadly you seem unable to read posts properly.

This sounds pretty good, we just need to get rid of lots of regulations and wage laws, then we can suck jobs from Europe and Asia

True libertarians are against it, but Major isn't a true Libertarian, I already said it earlier he is nationalist, and protectionism goes against Libertarian values, it reflects more conservative-nationalist or even sometimes socialistic values.

Edited 5/8/2016 18:00:32

I am against nationalism and I am against protectionism. I am for more jobs here because I want more good for the economy around these parts. I am quite literally against the concept of a state. Stop being stupid.

Panda is a Anarcho-Communist because I want to insult him that way.

Edited 5/8/2016 18:16:31

Edit: Damn, didn't realise how large this was!

Prepare yourself for a wall of text.

Free trade is well established in Europe, among Europeans. We are actually the region of the world with the biggest achievements and advancements in terms of free trade (people from the EU are free to move and make their own business with almost no restriction in any EU state).

Keyword: among europeans. It's not free if there are barriers to everyone else.

Free trade is ok, unfair and imposed free trade without any transparency isn't.

"unfair and imposed free trade"? If it's free, it's not unfair and imposed, unless one country specifically INVADES or ATTACKS another until he opens up. See colonial China and pre-meiji Japan. Did the US bomb Paris? Occupy London? Invade Madrid? Destroy buildings in Berlin? No, therefore it's not "imposed".

The thing is most of the nations' leaders are making their deal in total secrecy without telling the people about what is going on and what is being discussed, do you really believe this is the right method Zeph?

I don't. I was criticizing the European Union for doing basically the same within it's own borders and then complaining when America does it to them. Look at Greece, or Portugal. They get shet on daily by "unfair and imposed" "free" trade in Europe where a larger economic power rules their economy. France, Germany and the UK have been doing that for ages and nobody complains about it; now America does it to them and America is an imperialist devil. What the hell, Europe.

I thought you condemned this kind of behavior, unless you are a real Dilma supporter since she also uses the same awful stratagems;

LOL.

Dilma's policy RESTRICTS all sorts of free trade, be it free trade or "unfair and imposed" free trade. She doesn't "impose free trade" to her neighbors (rather, she restricts them even further and then literally leave the money with them all the time for them to build overpriced ports with more quality than our own), nor does she get involved in any truly developed trade agreement (just the MERCOSUR which is a joke composed of terrible leaders everywhere like Maduro and Morales).

duping and swaying the Brazilians exactly the same way.

Won't deny she does that often, but there's a big gap between giving all your money away and dealing economics with megacorporations.

The only thing in common is that both are done mostly in secrecy and without consulting the population's thoughts, but that's about it, lol. Dealing with megacorps is not swaying unless the deals are about cartel forming. Which they probably are, but I rest my case about the EU's policy.

P.S. I am not a democrat so it is nice something destroys democracy :)
Law is more important then the will of the majority.

I wouldn't say law, but the will of the majority truly normally is bad for the greater good. The average guy is far less intelligent than he could be.

And saying EU is socialist is a total absurdity since most of the European states are led by liberals or conservatives, this is just showing how little you know about European politics.

Socialist might be too much, but the EU definetely leans brutally left because... Merkel. And right-wing governments pay the price for that.

To be replaced by what? the (current) EU is bad and evil I think we can both agree on this, but it could be reformed.

Please don't. Just let it fall along with the Schengen area. Western Europe is a beautiful cultural center, but that's about it. Instead, you're eroding your own culture. It's not working the way it should work. As for the economic power that the Union projects, hopefully it'll go away too. Maybe that'll stop your "free trade embargos" on Russia?

Without EU, nationalisms would be strengthened, and you know what happens next?

Definetely not Basque independence. Hell, it's funny to hear this from a nationalist... :P

wars. Remake of the word wars.

Welcome to the 21st century, where if you attack someone, you're a cunt of a nation and get embargo'd until your economy is sh*t! See Russia. Market dependancy is a stronger peacekeeper than open borders.

Not forgetting also that with the EU, free trade finally came to reality in Europe, for better or for worse: see your comrades the Poles, millions of them have access to Western European work market, and trust me about this when I tell you that Nationalists all across Western Europe are not happy to see the "Plombiers Polonais" (nickname given tot he Poles in France looking for low salary jobs) stealing their jobs due to the liberalized market.

Duh, if the frenchies can't outdo a pole who can just barely understand french, they are failing themselves. :P

This just strenghtens my case about the EU's hypocrisy.

I think I read somewhere that the UK was currently making new laws against EU labour free trade, trying to stop Eastern Europeans to settle in their country.

That's because the UK knows what they are doing, lul. The EU was supposed to be a free trade agreement, not a (I really don't want to use such cucky, overused sentence, but I got no replacements) "spread liberal propaganda" agreement. Let's face it; Merkel pushes it. That's why nations in the Visegrad group, Austria and some others are having conservative/nationalist dips - they are being damaged by the union.

You wanted the end of the EU Sultan? It will happen sooner than you would expect, do not worry.

Thanks, we appreaciate it.

With love,

Actual free trade agreement, the BRICS.

I must agree they do everything agains people's will but then they get elected again :) that is how your democracy works.

^ BRUTAL.

The point gets across; you don't like 'em, so why reelect them?

That's the biggest flaw of democracy and exactly why we had Dilma again. :I

Classical free market was theorized by Adam Smith (if I remember my economic classes well), so not until the 18th century. And by the time it started to really come to existence we had to wait 200 years more. Wrong, wrong and wrong Sultan.

Yeah, and gravity didn't exist until Newton theorized it in 1684. I remember how cool stuff was in 1683 - we could float around the the years never passed.

Edited 5/8/2016 18:12:25

Quite reasonably Zeph.
Catch a 'like' from me :)

I am against nationalism and I am against protectionism. I am for more jobs here because I want more good for the economy around these parts. I am quite literally against the concept of a state. Stop being stupid.

Panda is a Anarcho-Communist because I want to insult him that way.

According to many of your statements, this is to me highly questionnable at best. You say you aren't nationalist, but at the meantime in the last comment you made, you defend a treaty that is protectionist mostly for Americans (hence the ambivalence), as the current treaty defended by the current American administration is wanting to hold fast to their ‘Buy American’ idea. We can’t accept that. They don’t want to open their public tenders to European companies (‘Buy American’ is shorthand for “the Buy American Act” originally passed in the U.S. Congress in 1933, requiring the U.S. government to give preference to U.S.-made products during procurement processes).

Imho, that goes against free trade, and that is highly condemnable because it defends states and major corporations against normal businesses. You are just contradicting yourself here, if you are really against the state and against lobbyists and corporatists colluding with politicians, you should be against the current form of this treaty.

As I said earlier I am totally in favor of free trade, when it is REAL free trade, not a mere disguised way for some politicians and major corporations to take advantage from a market and at the meantime not giving any efforts and not relinquishing any protectionist policies.

(answering to Zephão later, you turn will come soon enough ;) )

Hello

Socialist might be too much, but the EU definetely leans brutally left because... Merkel. And right-wing governments pay the price for that.

What is meant to be inside the '...'?

When comparing the current German government to the USA then Germany is far left and when comparing the current German government to past German governments then Germany is also quite far left. Currently Germany and quite some parts of Europe are taking the opposite direction and are moving to the right (my knowledge about some European country parties is limited though). The reason for this new right shift in Germany is the bail out of Greece, the bail out of of banks and muslim migration.

Edited 5/8/2016 19:03:52

It's the least nationalist thing you can do, to lessen national differentiations of any kind, economic to border patrol. If anyone is nationalist, if it you, for pan-Europeanism.

Juq and his 'selective mind'. Reasons have already been given, sadly you seem unable to read posts properly.

Ok, how about you lay it out very easily for me, pretend as if I am very dumb: what problems are there for this besides it being a bit secretive, and it being free trade?

True libertarians are against it, but Major isn't a true Libertarian, I already said it earlier he is nationalist, and protectionism goes against Libertarian values, it reflects more conservative-nationalist or even sometimes socialistic values.

I am a "true libertarian" - I think most countries today spend too much on social programmes, generally, and they are too powerful in other programmes, generally, and Smedley is anarchic libertarian, in which nationalism doesn't necessarily cancel out.

@ Жұқтыру
The concept is good but eurosocialists could destroy even that, they are negociating privileges for big companies for two years now. It won't have anything in common with free market, believe me.

(I am libertarian conservatist)