Marxists believed in progressive taxation? Horrors! What you omit to mention in your little rant is that Marxism also called for a number of items--many of which we would consider critical for capitalism such as free, compulsory education, a responsibility to work, and a legal system that does not differentiate between classes, genders, etc.

It's a weak argument that cherry-picks some idea and claims we should abandon it because the commies, tree-huggers, Maoists also believed in it.

Wealthy people pay more in taxes because they use more of the services taxes pay for. Because I own a luxury auto, I expect to pay more in insurance, maintenance, and repair costs than someone who owns a Kia.

Jadegold,
With your permission, may I call you an idiot?
I hear Cuba has openings for for your kind of intellect. Oh, by the way, health there is free. And jobs are a dime a dozen. Oops sorry, that's the pay per hour.
Only Socialist's, of varying degrees of commitment to the cause could espouse such hogwash.

it's high time that America moved away from Karl Marx and Noam Chomsky and back toward Adam Smith and Milton Friedman.

Amen.

Dare I say that perhaps that quote should prominently be displayed at the top of the entire site. I think that is the mission statement of Willisms.

Jadegold,

Good to have you around here to troll. I would suggest a survey course in basic economic theory where you might encounter the writings of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman.

many of which we would consider critical for capitalism such as free, compulsory education

Obviously you have not been around too many free market capitalists or read any of their writings. Milton Friedman is perhaps my favorite economist of all time (Smith is close) and taught at the Hoover's Institute at Stanford for about 30 years. Do most capitalists want massive government run schools that are funded by taxpayers--especially rich ones because of the graduated progressive tax rates? Perhaps you should read some Milton Friedman sometime.

Let's see what Nobel Prize Winning Economist Milton Friedman thinks about free compulsary education (which I only assume that you mean vocational education in the Marxist sense):

This re-examination of the role of government in education suggests that the growth of governmental responsibility in this area has been unbalanced. Government has appropriately financed general education for citizenship, but in the process it has been led also to administer most of the schools that provide such education. Yet, as we have seen, the administration of schools is neither required by the financing of education, nor justifiable in its own right in a predominantly free enterprise society. Government has appropriately been concerned with widening the opportunity of young men and women to get professional and technical training, but it has sought to further this objective by the inappropriate means of subsidizing such education, largely in the form of making it available free or at a low price at governmentally operated schools.

Not that education is a bad thing, but that government subsidized education above and beyond the general education requirements is unnecessary and the government administration of the system as well as their monopoly on how they accomplish it needs to be undone. Hence why he was the original and strongest proponent of school choice and vouchers.

You ever read anything by Friedman or Smith?

Friedman in his waning years,sadly, became something of a crank and was badly used by those calling themselves 'libertarians.' As we both know, Friedman's expertise and what won him fame and the Nobel Prize was his work WRT monetary policy. In fact, Friedman never did much research WRT education and educational policy.

Of course, Marxists like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are strong advocates of free and compulsory education.

WRT Adam Smith, you really need to do a bit more homework. Marxian economics is largely based on Adam Smith's work, as refined by Ricardo and Malthus. Further, Smith was a strong advocate of free education for all, regardless of economic status.

1962's Capitalism and Freedom is perhaps the most insightful book on economic and social policies ever written. 1962. Sure, the Libertarians have tried to make his policies theirs of late, but the vouchers work and most of these things were written during the Kennedy administration or before.

Friedman didn't do much research WRT Education Policy? Maybe not academically published Economics Research, perhaps. But go back to 1955 and he was already pushing for vouchers. His research was on markets and education and drug legalization were huge parts of his Free to Choose seminars (that Rob Port at Sayanythingblog.com posted via youtube).

If you define "research" as publication of academic papers, technically you are correct. But his lasting impact was not on monetary policy, except for the limited scope of people that were affected and changed over from the Keynsian economics. I am not an economist and don't study monetary policy to that extent, but I do understand in a limited scope how strongly he diverged from the conventional wisdom of the time and how his theories have dramatically impacted economics.

He was a thinker and philosopher and it is not his monetary policy research that is of primary importance, but rather his philosophy and his advocacy of freedom. To label him simply as an economist who wrote about monetary freedom is to discount his lasting impact on the entire economic philosophy of the capitalist wing of the Republican Party. The very idea to look at freedom first in every respect and that if you do that, you will arrive at the right conclusions.

Friedman didn't do much research WRT Education Policy?

No, he didn't do much research. It should be noted Friedman's eductional voucher notion wasn't --as Friedman notes--to improve educational opportunities for the poor and less wealthy.

Again, Friedman declined badly in his last decades and he was badly used by 'libertarians' and the rightwing.

Jadegold, speaking of cherry-picked...

"Marxism also called for a number of items--many of which we would consider critical for capitalism such as free, compulsory education, a responsibility to work, and a legal system that does not differentiate between classes, genders, etc."

Yes, and Stalin was in favor of phys ed as well, which means we should relook at his whole program with fresh eyes, eh?