loki

well, then according the supremecy clause some people like to quote, if it's national, every vehicle would have to be taxed, state, federal, local. think of all the money coming out of cities/states for important services like police, firetrucks, ambulances(so hospitals), community "taxis". if they are excluded, that only creates a market for getting a vehicle that will be exempt from this tax...people rushing to get a gov job. and for people that volunteer to help those in areas where taxis and other options aren't readily available, puts more hardship on them over paying for the gas and regular maintenance costs. this would hurt "charitable" rides for these people, yes?

maybe they made one good one out of the.....many? they made. this is the un-lemon. lol

and look who's responding to dwight's threads. in this case it's a new member...

excess stock is a bad thing, but they can't raise their prices by lowering inventory, they have competition you know....

camino, i would think some feedback from you would help further explore this "experiment"....or we just wait for Z......... anyone else thinking of responding?

Fap. that's way too simple i think... considering all the subsidies, taxes, minimum wage law......from wiki: "There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism." there is way to much intervention to call our system capitalism. but this is getting away from just trying to think of what would change in this "scenario". nice post Z. dont' forget about the intellectual power the islamic world had during the "dark ages" in europe. your "The rules have (democracy vs. king's law) but the ideology has not. However, democracy has given "opportunity" to be a feudal lord." here's a good quote to add to that for clarification "Democracy - and its implied assertion that ruling each other is a human right intrinsic to the human experience - can be dangerous to the mind and spirit." - from a mises.org link on FB.

well, then lets take education. "everyone" is going to college because of loans that are available, which also pushes the price up. in your example, prices might be where they were at for, say, my parents. at the local college per hour it's about$250, i think. during thier time it maxed out at less than $200 for the whole semester, if i remember correctly. or it is/was w/i 100 of those numbers. *college would be less ubiquitous in the population*. good example?

how do you define capitalist system? if you think the US is right now, you'd be right, but we're not a capitalist system, it's typically called mixed.

ok, gotcha. these are way over my head....way to complex, and i might have to add that anyone that thinks they know a good ansswer to this is either bull$h!ting you or is God. because... 1. earlier you were asking governmental questions, and now your example questions say nothing about it. 2. assuming even a gov that upheld contract law and other things perfectly, or close to it, is a freemarketer's dream(w/o mention of the interest main point) if these 2 statements are even close to correct, and a quite freemarket could exist, i don't think we could imagine what it would look like....something like sci-fi in a good way...cause we have good examples of the other end(not free markets/people) of the spectrum throughout our whole history.

no, you pay that for the fuel, not for driving, because otherwise the tax should be for mileage and not the amount of gas bought. this is like the difference between the income tax and a consumption tax. because you earn it, you should pay tax on it compared to because you buy it you should pay tax on it. one is a tax because you drive, the other is a tax because you buy fuel. if the income tax was 100% you'd not keep any income. if the consumption tax(sales tax) was 100% you'd just cut back on consumption, still have means to buy things, where as the income tax would mean you're a slave, because you get no rewards from your production to keep. the car is a tool. rental companies charge you per mile, or used to, because they owned the car. if the gov does the same thing, it means they own the car, not you. if you pay a toll you're paying for use of the road, not the vehicle you're using to use the road. too many examples? property taxes, you can't own the land/house unless you keep up your payments to the state if it has property taxes. paying taxes on the power you use in your house doesn't mean the gov owns your house.

well, the fdic was just an example, not sure there are programs like it in other countries,....? cause i'm thinking of the things we do wrong compared to your example. full reserve requirements keep banks from lawsuits good or bad, if there's a run on the bank. banks that would make bad investments and their members knew about it, could want to move their money to a better bank, screwing the ones that were slow out of their money, if the bank didn't use full reserve practices. with the fdic the bad money that was loaned out was lost, but it had to come from somewhere and if the bank fails, that money has to be created to refund the one's that lost money. can you try to set up an example and we'll try to work through it, one at a time?

but like i stated earlier, this would ....well, actually wouldn't this mean the gov owned your car? use tax...imagine this for anything else....this isn't naivety, this is further destruction of private production ownership.

dont' forget that this doesn't include jets, the rich fly everywhere!!!

Croc, he gave you examples of people/jobs that can't replace their vehicle with other modes of travel,carpool, or use public transit.

well, would you get rid of FDIC?

so this would create a DOT/IRS like merger? doesn't that alone frighten everyone? hahah

mmmmmmmmmmm rootbeer and cream soda haha I think the car's specs would determine which one. if it's 3200+, lets say, pushrod, under that, DOHC. but since under 3200lbs is rare, generally, pushrod.

can't have interest rates if you don't use money.

a central bank would only come about by the gov making it, since it's a monopoly. issue currency, depends, fiat or sound? depends if the gov ever wants to espouse militarism or welfareism... depends... yes, but to simplify it, just take the 2 extremes. that's how everyone else does it.

i recently got a small pamphlet that describes a basic of Austrian views compared to other "schools". and a highlighted comment in there is how entrepreneurs should predict the future and not economists (basically). it does make sense because economists don't have their "skin" in the game in everyday things, the ones that are out in the business world pay attention to trends that would wreck havoc if left unnoticed and taken into account.

and since they create central banks(if it's not multi-national)...have an indefinite time to pay it back, potentially.

well... if the system is close to what we have now a central bank with actually .25% interest (practically zero) either money creation (and destruction) would be rampant and could lead to a bartering for day to day things (maybe not big purchases if many people were "rich"), or money creation would have to be held tighter (practically 0) interest is basically a time preference tool, yes? lets look at what it means if it a tool for consumption(investment) decisions and it is taken away, this would lead to less entrepreneurship, or poorer quality... this would lead to lower productivity and generally make the society poorer than it might otherwise be. what think you? oh and just so you know, the Libyan rebels, if they hold to a 0% interest rate... they supposedly started their own central bank a few weeks ago, atleast... saw a news report of that for information reasons.

not if you run on biodiesel made in your "garage". and actually this would include non-roads. no the gas tax is the power source just like electricity is for almost everything else. you can have a house that doesn't have electricy, and you can have vehicles that don't use roads or gasoline, so it' snot the same. indeed and the patriot act was put together long before 9/11... and what did it take to get it into law? this might be alittle harder to justify, but we do have a huge problem on our hands that lots in this country thinks can be solved by more taxes. it's the same mentality/philosophy, which only requires a few things to become law. Camino is right about this, if it has no chance of getting passed, why is it even being talked about? and travel is what this is about, remember the >$600 buys requiring paperwork sent to the gov that was in "obamacare". truly crappy legislation has it's doors to enter through, don't pass this off like it's a non-threat.

is the 2 valves on the dohc a typo?

a per mile tax is just like tolls, except it's federal and not local...yes it's simplified, but now who says the private sector couldn't do that, being- maintain roads and charge a toll? edit: this is also a toll for all non interstate roads, effectively meaning that if you have to pay the feds to drive on those, they are federal roads. Yay centralization! /sarcasm ...the proposed continued destruction of federalism.