Thanks

I think an optimum level of socialism would enable a State to have no personal income taxes. Such a State could would generate its own revenue from some form of means of production. Only general taxes (or access fees) would need to be employed for cost recovery, revenue stability, and infrastructure development.

As with all things, the optimal level of socialism in a FREE society is that which is determined by the market. In otherwords, whatever level is VOLUNTARILY chosen by people execising their freedom.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

[IMG]http://images1.snapfish.com/346%3C8%3B2%3C%3B%7Ffp344%3Enu%3D3275%3E696%3E9%3A6%3EWSNRCG%3D32337%3B7255573nu0mrj[/IMG]

How would you be able to quantify your position, in terms of economics? Currently, socialism is an externality, meaning that there is no market recognizable price information. How would people voluntarily purchase an optimum amount of socialism if such a product is not available on the market?

I would agree with your position if we could purchase the level of socialism we wanted on the open market.

You are confused that economics and markets are concerned only with things that are "purchased" or "sold" in formal markets. It is not, it is the study of individual and societal choices (both what, why, and how) and the costs and benefits associated with those choices.


Socialism isn't a commodity, it is a series of ongoing choices. I guarantee you, if you are series about wanting to live under its principles, all you need do is find one other person who feels the same way, and you can begin to do it.

What you CANNOT do, is to impose that choice on other people.

I have very dear friends who are communists by practice (although each and every one of them votes Republican). They all live in a communal society (they are Monks living in a monastic community.) They understand the distinction between their voluntary choice to live in that manner and imposing that choice on others by limiting their personal freedom and choice.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

[IMG]http://images1.snapfish.com/346%3C8%3B2%3C%3B%7Ffp344%3Enu%3D3275%3E696%3E9%3A6%3EWSNRCG%3D32337%3B7255573nu0mrj[/IMG]

I am not sure you are discussing economics when you state your premise in that manner. It sounds more like sociology. I agree with you that the science of economics deals with market recognizable social transactions.

In any event, my discussion of this topic is from a theoretical point of view.

From my understanding of political science, in our (US) form of government (representative democracy), choices are imposed on us by the tyrants in the majority all the time. It is up to the informed electorate to evaluate those choices at the ballot box.

Economics IS one of the social sciences, there is a recognizable market for these things, but don't confuse a recognizable market with a formal one.

__________________
"It's a good feeling to shoot a bad guy. Something you democrats would never understand. Americans are homesteaders, we want a safe home, keep the money we make, and shoot bad guys!"

[IMG]http://images1.snapfish.com/346%3C8%3B2%3C%3B%7Ffp344%3Enu%3D3275%3E696%3E9%3A6%3EWSNRCG%3D32337%3B7255573nu0mrj[/IMG]