Um, how about spending as a percent of GDP? Here is a link.

If a robot takes care of all of your needs, why do you need a job in the first place?

You might reply, "But I don't have a robot." Okay, so go to to one of the employable people (scientists, artists, etc.) and say, "I notice that you happen to have an army of robots. Could you do me a small favor, and have one of your robots build me a robot? I will then take that robot and have it build robots for all of my friends, and anyone else who wants one. You can raise us all out of poverty, and you won't even have to a lift a single finger!" Given the large number of people who will have robots, I'm sure you will be able to find at least one person willing to do such a small, trivial favor for you.

In a world of robots, only a small fraction of wealth is needed to meet the needs of the unemployable. There is no need for socialism.

There is no such thing as peaceful taxation.

The government owns the roads, which means it controls who can dig up the roads in order to run cable. Local governments use their road monopoly to stifle ISP competition. Local governments justify this stifling by using your "natural monopoly" theory. In other words, the natural monopoly theory is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You control your property. You should decide what makes sense and what doesn't. Perhaps if we never had "right-of-way" laws (which usurp individual property rights), people would insist on owning the cable running through their properties. And even if people were content to allow cable companies to own the actual cable, cable companies would still be more inclined to be more competitive in such a scenario, because of the constant threat that individual property owners could choose to run a second line at any time (Oh no, two cables in the ground! The horror! Who would have thought that competition involved duplication?)

There is nothing natural about the way our infrastructure has evolved.

First off, it doesn't hurt anyone to be able to trade quickly. I'm not saying it is necessary, but it doesn't hurt anything. Think of the stock market like an auction. At an auction, does it matter if someone is able to bid quickly? No. Let them make their bid as quickly as they want. You can respond by making an even higher bid.

That being said, the current latency war is indeed unnecessary. It is caused by SEC Rule 612, also known as the Sub-Penny Rule. This rule prevents market makers from competing on price, so they are forced to compete on speed. For more information, see Part 1 and Part 2 of "A High Frequency Trader's Apology".

Okay, suppose these newcomers build some plants before they are driven into bankruptcy by the oligarchs. The plants would still be in existence after the bankruptcy, and could be picked up for a song at an auction by more newcomers. Eventually, the oligarchs will be driven into bankruptcy, or they will have to raise their prices. Why should the newcomers stop coming, when they can pick up capital at firesale prices and they know the practices of the oligarchs are unsustainable? The "scorched earth" metaphor fails, because the companies are not literally at war with each other; there is no literal destruction. Capital doesn't disappear into the night, it simply changes hands.

At least, until the monopoly or duopoly raises prices and then it becomes economical again for new competitors to enter. And so, virtual competition regulates the market: The monopolist is forced to keep their prices low, lest they invite new competition.

Now, you might argue that's a bad thing, because a monopoly means there are few choices. But that assumes that more choice is always a good thing, no matter what it costs. The reality is that, every time you have multiple competitors in a market, you have duplication of resources. Thus, the fact that the market discourages competition, until it is actually needed, is a good thing, because it discourages the unnecessary duplication of resources that competition brings (i.e. the market puts up with a certain amount of crap from the monopolist, but eventually consumers get so fed up they actively seek out new competition).

Amen to that. What the submitter is asking is similar to asking, "How can I get this girl to like me?" The answer is, don't bother. You won't change her opinion, and trying to only builds resentment. Just move on to better opportunities.

It doesn't matter if executives/owners/investors can "afford" to give up profits or not. As long as their profits came through voluntary trade, they are morally entitled to those profits.

Also, sometimes owners and investors lose money. Suppose that a business owner paid you a nice pay check for several months, but eventually his business failed due to lack of sales. Do you feel obligated to give him some of your earnings, because you can "afford" to do so? No? Well, then if the business turned out to be successful instead, why should the owner pay you any more than what the market can bare? Talk about double standards...

The fact that neo-nazi groups actively attacked minorities does not prove we need multiple standards of justice. Also, since members of "group A" face harsher sentencing when they target someone from "group B", but members of "group B" do not, it is fair to say that membership in "group A" is one of the defining factors that results in a harsher sentence. My original point stands.

But rights are a zero-sum game. If you wish to give members of group B special rights to make their life safer, then you must take rights away from group A. And this is exactly what "hate crime" legislation has done: Instead of a single standard of justice, we now have different standards of justice, depending on which groups the perpetrator and victim belong to. If I belong to group A, my crime will be judged harsher, simply because I belong to the "wrong" group. I fail to see the fairness in that.

I don't see the difference between B and C. In both cases, the criminal clearly intended to kill the victim. Assuming that both crimes were planned, then the intent was the same, and both crimes qualify as murder in the first degree.

What you seem to be advocating is a system where justice is not blind. After all, if some classes are protected, then by definition, some classes must not be. If my aggressor hates me because of my haircut, as opposed to my skin color, then that is a lesser crime, under the "hate crime" system.

You could argue that some groups are indeed special, but I could never follow you down that road, because I believe everyone should be treated equally under the law. Once I start breaking people into groups, with only certain groups being protected, I will have abandoned that sacred principle.

Limited liability is an implied contract between shareholders and creditors. When the creditors loan money to the shareholders, the creditors do so with the understanding that the shareholders are only willing to risk the company's money. The shareholders also agree that an individual shareholder can't simply take his money out of the company at any time. But that does not imply non-ownership. If I rent my house out to a tenant, I agree that I can't just enter my house whenever I feel like it. Does that mean I no longer own my house? No. Similarly, limited liability is just a type of contract; it has nothing to do with ownership.

The shareholders own the company. Everyone in the company, including directors, are merely agents acting on behalf of the shareholders. Therefore, all of the company's expenses are actually the shareholders' expenses.

So, we not only have double taxation, but triple taxation: The company pays an income tax. Then that money is taxed again when it is distributed to shareholders as dividends. A shareholder may opt to sell his shares instead of collecting future dividends, but the corporate income tax and dividend tax will cause his shares to be worth less. Why? Because all company revenue is taxed twice before any individual shareholder can actually spend it. Thus, any tax on the money made from the sale of stocks (i.e. the capital gains tax) is a triple tax.

Yes, but the dollar should only be taxed once per change in ownership. If the dollar has been taxed twice before the owner has changed, then that is double taxation. You could argue that a company is a type of owner, but a company does not act; only people do. Directors and CEOs act, but only on the behalf of the shareholders, and they can be replaced by shareholders. The shareholder is the only one who can not simply be replaced, because the shareholder is the owner.

Constantly full waiting rooms are not an unavoidable fact of life, but a product of a "priceless" supply system. Here is an excellent article on the subject: http://mises.org/daily/4719