Baraka_Guru

So who enforces these rights then? Who empowers them? How do they accomplish this?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

The_Dunedan

Individuals, or groups of individuals who have agreed upon a course of non-violent corrective action (ie shunning or ostracism). If someone attempts to initiate the use of force against someone else, they should suffer for it: either they should suffer at the hands of their intended victim, or at the hands of a society that will have nothing to do with them. If they will not make restitution, let them die freezing in the dark. A person who initiates the use of force or fraud has forfeited their Rights to their intended victim.

At the most basic level, the world operates this way already, we're just arrogant enough in the well-developed nations of the world to forget this. If you are unwilling or unable to defend your Rights, they'll be violated, pure and simple. The idea is to shrink the Government to such an extent that the damage it can do is mitigated to the greatest possible degree; you can't have a plutocracy without a Government for the wealthy to use as a proxy and protect their Corporate interests, after all.

Yakk

Who should pay for the roads that let customers drive to a shop -- the shop owner, or the customers?

Who should pay for the roads that move goods to the shop -- the shop owner, or the customers?

Who should pay for the education that teaches people enough so they know how to make smart voting decisions?

Who should pay for the military might that enforces the open-door policy on other nations, and defends the overseas investments of American companies?

Who should pay for the military might that guards the trade lanes of the world?

If there is a river that takes 1000$ a year to maintain, and there are two mills on that river -- one is larger and the other smaller. The larger mill makes 10 million$ per year, the smaller 1 million $ per year, and each employs 10 employees who are paid 30,000$ per year each. Who should pay to maintain the river?

Which segment of the American population gets the lowest marginal dollar actual income gain from an additional dollar of income, right now?

What is the economic, social, happiness and security consequences of a steep local slope in the wealth curve?

If you take a bunch of simple trading AIs, a fair market with somewhat limited information, and start all of the AIs off equally, what kind of wealth distribution do you expect to get after a few trade cycles? (remember -- there is zero difference in the competence or starting position of the AIs, other than random asymmetric information advantages that change each cycle)

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

flstf

I agree, but probably not for the same reasons as you. Too many are using their connections to our government to profit at our expense. At the top the public and private sectors seem like a mutual admiration society.

Baraka_Guru

I think you would find that those with the means to enforce this protection of rights--if not a democratically elected government--will be the wealthy, nearly exclusively. That is if you want to avoid society descending into anarchy. In this set up, the wealthy will hold all the power over the means of production and the rules governing them because the rights and security of capital will be prioritized through capital itself. The regulators of rights will be those with the most capital (i.e. the most means of enforcing them and the most interest in protecting them). What you have here is fertile ground for plutocracy. This is mainly because your view of government is as some castrated and insignificant figurehead...maybe as the "assistant to the plutocrats," or at least the plutocratic system of governance, whether official or unofficial.

I can't see things going any other way. To think so is to be idealistic. Am I missing something out of your picture? Some detail about the role and empowerment of (an official) government despite its inability to enforce anything?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Sun Tzu

So are you saying the ones that had 100% intention to financially succeed despite their circumstances were just . . . . lucky?


What is it? If we were taking a test next week, but each of us knows that everyone is getting a C there really isnt a need to study is there?



What?




America has bounced back and forth for a very long time. The fluctuations in the degree people will have their income taxed has varied. I hear a lot of my peers (the area I live in) bashing the free market. Not surprising they are all Obama supporters. I’m not implying all Democrats look down upon capitalistic practices, but the general mindset appears to be moving further left each day.

I don’t understand how some people arrived to their conclusions. IMO individuals with developmental disabilities, mental illness, and similar conditions understandably should receive assistance. More power to the ones that overcome their disability and propel themselves beyond aid. The part I have difficulty in understanding is providing perpetual ongoing assistance to people that are not disabled. This really always seems to come down to a central mindset (I could be wrong) the level of a persons financial success should dictate how much they pay in taxes.

In many ways everyone, regardless of how much they have in the bank or how the accumulated, are in the same boat. We are taxed in every part of our lives. Everything we buy, including the food we eat is taxed. The fuel we use to propel the vehicles we were taxed when buying them is taxed. The utilities: water, electricity, possibly natural gas- taxed. Property tax, parking tax, city tax, state tax, it goes on and on. We all accept the taxes on top of the charges for services and products. The debate resides on what percentage of income made from the services and products.

For those that feel the percentage of people that have accumulated a large amount of financial wealth should pay more- I’m trying to view this with an open mind so I ask the following questions with sincerity; not sarcasm.

1. Is there a level that you feel everyone should be at?
2. Do you see it being wrong for one to have more than another?
3. Employers will obviously have a higher amount of wealth to employ others- should companies be run by the government and the driving force of entrepreneurship be disbanded?
4. Not referencing disabled individuals- Are you of the opinion there should not be a single homeless person on the streets?
5. If people don’t want to work are you OK with society covering their survival costs?
6. The way leadership and its philosophy change, respectfully every 4-12 years; which direction do you see innovation, creativity, and any other success coming from?
7. If America was to have a Democrat President and Congressional majority for the next 50 years straight where would you see us at?

Are there any liberals that think the “us vs. them” as it was put in another thread, is BS? I’m referring to the current monetary system based on the Federal Reserve and the electronic credits and paper notes with debt and interest already attached. Is it really conspiracy that America as a whole is under a system that perpetual debt is by design? If that is the reality, isn’t the constant energy placed on this ongoing social disagreement displaced?

Are there any Democrats that disagree with Socialism and Communism? If so, why?

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

guyy

The nihilism is definitely there in Malthus, and i think that nihilist streak is there in Ricardo and Smith, too. Ricardo & Smith had their competitors, and the abstraction of so-called classical economics functions to occlude the issues raised elsewhere. Classical and neo-classical economics are arid wastelands by design.

Baraka_Guru

I'll bite. Mind you, these answers are brief and don't reflect all aspects of each of these issues.

1. Is there a level that you feel everyone should be at?
A level of wealth or taxation? I don't feel there should be a level of wealth that everyone should be at, but I do feel that there should be a poverty line established and a movement towards bringing everyone to that line and above it. As far as taxation, I support a progressive tax system.

2. Do you see it being wrong for one to have more than another?
Not in and of itself. It only becomes wrong when it is acquired immorally. I also believe that a lot of good comes about by those who are generous with their wealth.

3. Employers will obviously have a higher amount of wealth to employ others- should companies be run by the government and the driving force of entrepreneurship be disbanded?
No. Government should act as regulators to uphold workers' rights and other labour laws. Entrepreneurship should be encouraged through social programs such as tax breaks and grants for business start-ups of all sizes, but this should be determined by need. I would imagine that much of this would need to go to small to medium businesses. Measures should be taken to protect and/or support local businesses when it comes to such things as free trade, etc.

4. Not referencing disabled individuals- Are you of the opinion there should not be a single homeless person on the streets?
If homelessness can be eliminated, it should be.

5. If people don’t want to work are you OK with society covering their survival costs?
There should be a program that ensures that everyone is at or above the poverty line regardless of their work status or the reason for it. In the very least, it will help fight child poverty and crime.

6. The way leadership and its philosophy change, respectfully every 4-12 years; which direction do you see innovation, creativity, and any other success coming from?
This is a very open question. I see it coming from working towards solutions to poverty, disease, environmental issues, and food security. I see it coming from medical and research technologies in general as well.

7. If America was to have a Democrat President and Congressional majority for the next 50 years straight where would you see us at?
Somewhere closer to where Canada is now. Close...but not quite.

I'm a social democrat. I don't agree with communism because it's far too authoritarian. But I do support socialism within a democratic and capitalistic context. You see this at work within Canada's political system.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Tusko

exactly my point. it lets me and my peergroup sit back and enjoy the fruits of everyone else's labour.
-----Added 15/10/2008 at 03 : 43 : 18-----
i guess i should have shown my opinion more. im not speaking in favour of this.

this is what i was getting at.

what have i and my white-fence bretheren done for anybody to earn huge kickbacks? oh yea. we're white. and our parents have money.


and this is where you are wrong.

there's no laziness created and facilitated by socialism? I didn't work a day in my life

until after my second year of university.

this is not an outlier.

i don't give a shit about medical costs. FREE MONEY.

all the money i earn from work goes towards hi-tech gadgets and liquor. talk about

privelege. (see; 95% of university students). there's paralells here to the debt crisis in

the US. people getting things they cannot afford.


or, see all the folks receiving welfare because they "don't want to work" (i can personalyl

name about 4... in similar economic and social upbringing as myself)

however, the suggestiong to "Get a job!" is unpatriotic, cruel, heartless... crass... yadda

yadda.



great. give more money to young mothers and let them know that screwing up and undertaking

child rearing when they are fiscally incapable is A-OK by me! Go ahead, take my money!



all my hippie friends scoff at me when we pass a 'homeless person' on the street (1 of the 5

that have been in the same place for years) and i don't give them change.

i'm not being unsympathetic. but this kind of thing just encourages it.

Hey! it's okay! You'll get by begging for change! That's all you'll ever do!

Granted there are some people who "have no bootstraps at all"

But my god. The idea of telling someone to "get a job" is the most charitable thing one can

do. Hey, what about that work placement program down the street I worked at for a summer

when I was out of money, in debt and a few days away from missing another rent payment. Get

paid that day! Work guaranteed! No barriers to work (hats and boots and uniforms included!)

yea.

i guess it's just easier to make people feel guilty and get paid for it.


Now prove, how in any way someone like my father has any debt to pay to anybody? Born in

the 50s when a great many people were and as a result, followed along similar

economic/social paths. Don't go blaming this on race or place of birth because that is

purely circumstantial. Luck of the draw is not basis for stealing.

Got a job when he was a teenager, supported himself the entire time and ended up saving up

to buy a house/raise a family. And the government has the right for some reason to go "NOPE,

THAT'S OURS HA HA HA"

the ability to have wealth?

broader social conditions?

social stability?

you talk in more rhetoric a first year text book.




i don't see the "pulverization" of libertarian thinking. because we haven't seen anything

even close to real libertarianism.

same for the free market. We've had echoes of a free market. Warped modulated "free"

markets. Talk about the dangers of market distortions and pseudo free markets, sure. Do not

make a judgement on that which has not occurred.




this should be the end of the thread.

it is simple.

taking my money does not help me.

and it does not help you.





excellent strawman in addressing


people are so afraid of being given choice, of risking the dangers of the real world that they demand the government coerce them.

Derwood

i love how anti-welfare people are all about throwing out the baby with the bath water

roachboy

rune:

there's little room to have a productive dialogue if positions are going to be argued from up inside such positions. a dialogue presupposes that you can relativize your positions enough to explain them. you don't seem to have the first idea how to do that.

you also don't seem to be able to read very well. when you bit the section from one of my posts that argued for sense of obligation (i could just as easily have said material interest) that falls on those who benefit from the functioning of a social system to contribute to system maintenance, you bit the response i would make to your odd little tirade about your father which followed from it.

generally speaking, it is good form to not proceed as though you only read one or two clauses from what someone wrote when you "respond" to it.

==========================================================

dunedan: capitalism was destroyed in the 1850s? why wasn't there a memo about that? why is it that no-one else seems to know about what you'd think would be a momentous event?
but capitalism did not include large-scale production? why wasn't there a memo about that one sent out? here we thought that large-scale industrial production kinda encapsulated the basic features of capitalism--you know the separation of ownership and production, standardization of tasks, the emergence of commodity markets...

so capitalism was really something that in our confusion we'd call small-scale local production?

geez, no wonder i'm so confused.
but why didn't that point make it into ANY of the hundreds of books i've read about the history of capitalism?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Tusko

so, you're just going to keep vomitting rhetoric?

roachboy

give me a fucking break.
i'm not interacting any further with you.
it is a waste of my time.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Tusko

typical of the forum tautologues. come in, babble a bunch of windy nothing and then don't bother to back it up.

Baraka_Guru

Wow. I just came in here to point this out about your post.

Your university student example is an example of a windy nothing. I have no idea what this has to do with socialism.

What? Getting rid of socialism will suddenly rid the world of lazy university students who waste their money?

You're kidding, right?

What's your alternative, then? You'd rather authoritarianism? Or maybe that plutocratic idea we've been throwing about.

There's no such thing as free money; not even within a social program.

You really don't understand what socialism is. You've yet to demonstrate as much, at least.

I apologize if I've misread your post. It's rather confusing and incoherent, not to mention logically unsound.

Let me know.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Tusko

how the hell do you people keep missing it.

we're insulated. weak. we love being told what to do. we love having the government in our pockets taking our money. but it doesn't matter to us lazy university students. we can just bounce around on our padded social-safety castles. the government takes money from me every time i buy something! The government takes money from everybody at every possible situation. We've got mommy and daddy's cars and money, who cares about banking savings for healthcare because everyone else will front the bill. My choices don't matter and that's the way i like it. I can walk around and do jack-all all day and still get by! What a world we live in. But of course my free time and leisure is really through no work of my own. I can go get a free cheque every month, and you all pay for it.
-----Added 15/10/2008 at 08 : 24 : 28-----
break a leg a few years down the road?! who cares! The liberals will pay for me!
have kids a few years down the road?! Who cares! The leftists will suckle it for me!
I've got an essay to write, step up NDP!
Of course, my only choice would be to write it on organic, fair trade, locally sourced paper- otherwise the feds might come for me.
Handjobs for all. But if you don't like handjobs, we'll stick you in jail.


may alternative is telling the government to gtfo of my bankbook. Stop taking my tax money to "pay for stuff" and let me "pay for stuff". nice. simple. transparent.

Baraka_Guru

What do you mean, you people?!

rune, your personal history and your myopic view plays little in the big picture.

It has become apparent to me that you aren't serious about the issues. Either that, or you've become too emotionally involved.

Either way, I have only a foggy idea of what you're getting at, if anything.

Well, I suppose your last paragraph tells me all I need to hear.

You're an anarcho-capitalist--one who believes in utopias.

I think we're done here.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Tusko

the fact that people require the government to tell them how to spend is disgusting.

the only thing that is worse is subscribing to the belief that this redistribution of money is helping anyone.

my view is experienced from both sides. Priveleged, entitled, and working for scraps.

People are lazy and stubborn. Any amount of free ride they can have, they will take- and keep taking for as long as possible.

Anyone who believes that my hard work should go towards someone as such is a lunatic. Enforcing this charitable donation is tyranny.

Being in charge of your own decisions, your own debts, transactions and donations is the way a society should orient itself.

This is what is being said time and time again.


The response from "you people" is as follows:

you don't know what you are talking about.
i don't understand
verbose mouth drivel
socialism is not tyranny it's awesome-o

no response. My money is my money. You can have some of it if i'm nice. And frankly, maybe we'll talk, if you have no bootstraps at all. Making a set for you means you can then help yourself and maybe look a little fashionable. But if you've got a perfectly good pair just sitting around- talk to some other sucker, i see no reason to lend you mine. Now who is the entitled individual that you can just waltz in here (with the government covering your back) and take mine?

the point is that sharesies is fun when it is spontaneous and voluntary.

Everytime the cookie gets cut, pieces fall into the mouths of the lazy-white-suburban-refused to work at mcdonald's type. And of course, young timmy who was smart and studious and keen to work didn't mind flipping burgers. And I am sure glad he does that so i don't have to.

But i guess you don't mind that I do that whatsoever. Lefties are so nice!

Sun Tzu

Baraka I have spent time in France, but my mindset was different in I really wasnt concerned with politics and if it felt good I did it. I also havent really had an opportunity to speak to anyone in depth of what it is like to live in socialistic system (even though the US keeps creeping along).

Do you have people at freeway intersections standing there with signs "Why lie I need money for beer" and "My blood alcohol level is dangeously low- Please help"?

How do elements such as innovation and free enterprise factor in that environment?

Are you pleased with the health care system?

The list could go on, and I probably should have asked you these questions a long time ago, because I am generally interested to hear. Have you spent time in the US or enough to make some general contrasts?

I'd appreciate hearing your views based on your personal experiences. Thanks

__________________
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit.- Stephen Hawking

Baraka_Guru

@rune:

Government doesn't tell people how to spend; government is a democratically elected body that is empowered by the public to manage public spending to ensure it can thrive.

Your view on the "redistribution of money" is personal. To say it hasn't helped anyone is a big stretch. You can believe this if you want, but you haven't been very convincing that it's even remotely true.

Your anecdotes are interesting, and I'd like to hear more details, but they haven't been very useful as supporting your views. Perhaps a different approach would help.

"People are lazy and stubborn" is an incredibly general statement. I'm sorry you think that. Personally, I think some people are lazy and stubborn, while others are industrious and energetic, and a list of many interesting characteristics.

"Being in charge of your own decisions, your own debts, transactions and donations is the way a society should orient itself." This without government is anarcho-capitalism and possibly plutocracy. I don't think this is sustainable for a thriving and just society.

"My money is my money. You can have some of it if i'm nice." Are you opposed to the idea of society?

I have not spend a great length of time in the U.S. I am generally pleased with the health-care system here, though I haven't used it as much as others, but I generally support it because a healthy public is a thriving public. From what I understand, however, it could use more funding and/or better efficiency. It's not perfect, but it works.

We do have poor and homeless. I can't think of many places that don't. Many of us want to do more to fight poverty, especially amongst children. As far as innovation and free enterprise is concerned, Canada has been home to much of it. I could provide examples, but I don't have much time at the moment. Canada has been a fair contributor in this respect, I can assure you.

Don't get me wrong, Canada isn't "socialist." We merely have some socialist policies and traditions, in addition to socialist members of parliament working to implement more. Socialism works here amongst liberalism and conservatism.

Feel free to ask more specific questions if you wish.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Amaras

Baraka, I commend you on your patience and tolerance.
This was quite a lively debate, with some intelligent discourse from all over the political spectrum.
I majored in Economics, minored in Philosophy, but didn't finish.
So I know that I don't know enough to state, with certitude, what the name of this or that style of system is.
My point of view is:
-Our schools, roads, defensive forces, hospitals/health care (I'm Canadian) were produced by pooling resources.
Those are beneficial to, and used by, nearly all of the Nation.
The degree to which we pool said resources, and who pays what, always is, and should be, discussed.
Adam Smith's main contribution to the modern economy, in The Wealth of Nations, was the idea of
specialization. I'll produce wool which you turn into spun yarn, which he turns into sweaters, or whatever.

I think that "invisible hand" of market forces thing has turned into a mantra, with a cult-ish devotion similar
to that of any of Marxism's one-liners.

Pure Capitalism is Darwinian, and brutal. Pure Communism is impossible, because human self interest is
too strong to allow those with access to the decision making process to be objective. Also, we humans do
like more pretty baubles for better performance than our peers, don't we?

So where do I reside between those two extremes? Somewhere to the left. I like the idea of a social net
to help out those who are in need. Does it become ingrained in some? Yes. But I'm willing to foot the
bill for what I believe, considering the whole, to be a fraction of those who use social assistance.

Simply put, I believe we are in this boat together, like it or not. I'll pull my oar, and help you with yours
if need be. Why? So someone might do the same for me when I'm in need.

We could try to define morality, as in "Does an objective (read: absolute) code of morality exist?"

The word imperative seems to engender a defensive reaction in some, as in, impelled morals will be
used to compel others.

Just some thoughts....

__________________
Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.
-Noam Chomsky
Love is a verb, not a noun.
-My Mom
The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later.
-Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

smooth

I haven't been in philosophy for a long time, but from what I remember Kant already asked and answered whether there is a universal morality, how to figure it out, and what kinds of acts count as morally good.

I'm pretty sure that's where this idea of moral imperative comes from. I mean, people could be using it in an everyday English language sort of meaning, but it has a technical use that if people were interested in that sort of thing would benefit from reading his views in the context of this thread.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Baraka_Guru

grolsch, thanks for the comments.

You've pointed out the challenge of this thread: There is no one right way to manage wealth, whether personally or through government. More importantly, you've pointed out that extreme viewpoints are dangerous, though some believe that collecting taxes in any capacity is a form of extremism. And then we look at how those taxes are spent.

What's been greatly missing out of the conversation is the moral side of things, which smooth has just pointed out. It's tough to relate the two because it's pointless to try to determine the motives of government policy. What we should measure, however, is the moral imperative of the society at large. Do people want to fight poverty? Do people want the sick out in the streets? Do we want people to have to work their fingers to the bone and still not have enough to live comfortably? Do we want access to education left only to the wealthy?

We then move on to ask: What do we do about it?

Some would say nothing. Others would say whatever we reasonably can. I'm inclined to say the latter. This is because I'm concerned with social cohesion. I want the society I live in to thrive. I don't want economic disparity to tear it apart at the seams.

And I'm willing to pay for it.

I think it's limiting to only look at the worst of society and make judgements based on that. Looking only at the welfare "free riders," the "irresponsible young mothers," etc., only to determine that socialism is bad is an erroneous view. This is because it overlooks everything else socialism has done to make societies better. The inverse would be to say capitalism is bad because it damages the environment and enslaves children in Asia. This too overlooks the good things that can come about within a system. The key is to work with the system to improve it. To let it run on its own as though it were one of God's creations would lead it to its own destruction.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Amaras

Smooth, I read you loud and clear.
Barack, I wrote this, went and played with daughter for a long time,
came back and posted. Hence it's disjointed nature.......
Gotta be honest with you, my point was to illustrate how differently folks might read ANY question.
I was trying to illustrate the idea so clearly espoused in your Walter Lippman quote.
Bring a little perspective to a heated debate that was alienating some of those I think bring a heavy amount
of education and intelligence to our debates here on TFP.
As to Kant, I do not think it can be said that any philosopher has ever definitely answered ANYTHING.
Similar to how most scientists will say they theories, not proofs.
Probably true, but not certainly.

I think in a debate like this, rather than throw quotes and cliches at one another, a statement of personal
values is important to shed light on where one is coming from.

So, for me, when I am strong ($ or whatever), it is to help my team (comprised in my case of my fellow
Canadians, I choose to live here). I believe it with increase my chances of living in a society more
towards my personal ideal. When I am weak, I hope that others feel the same way.

As to the rich tiny segment paying a majority of the taxes, well, they DO possess the majority of the
wealth as well. Wealth is concentrating in an ever decreasing few hands. It's obscene, in my
opinion.
They need us to produce more babies to buy the products from the companies they own so they
can in turn make more profits. Let's not forget to populate armies that are mostly used to protect
economiSo it's not a moral thing for them, but rather in their
best interest to ensure that the rest of the population does become so poor as to rise up (French
Revolution, anyone?).
Gotta go change the baby, more later.......

__________________
Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state.
-Noam Chomsky
Love is a verb, not a noun.
-My Mom
The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later.
-Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

Tusko

oh.. so all these idiotic carbon taxes.. sin taxes... are the government just managing public spending..

perfect.

and the industriour, energetic memebers of society should not have to care for the lazy.

no. not at all. society is wonderful. why is everyone (your) idea of society me giving away my money?

society is a group of people benefitting from each other. those benefits arise in numerous ways which do not include wealth redistribution.

and I'm from Canada. Our healthcare system is pretty poor. Oh hey, they built a giant new clinic but couldn't put anything in it! Hooray. It's not perfect but it works isn't really a reasonable excuse to me. A few branches and some twigs keeps the rain off your head but it sure isn't a roof.

good. up with people who (genuinely) care about stuff



the ultimate end point of this thread is a moral/personal issue.

some people are okay with the government sticking its head in everything you do.

others are strongly against this.

and frankly there is sufficient economic evidence to say eitherside works (sort of)... at achieving what they want.

it's difficult because both sides are arguing correct facts. It's like arguing what's cooler the Sun or Ferraris.

WELL THE SUN IS REALLY HOT AND BIG

WELL FERRARIS ARE FAST AND RED

BUT THE SUN IS FULL OF NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS

YEA SO WHAT FERRARIS MAKE A NEAT SOUND


the hardworker- regardless of how fruitful they are, should not be required (coerced) to compromise his work, illegitamize his labour- in order to support those who are lazy or make bad choices. I don't ask to get bailed out when i punch a whole through my window and the rain comes in.

Money gets lost in government pockets, wasted on red tape, wasted on useless projects. Burned spinning gears without a clutch.

If there was some convincing evidence (of which there is not) that every cent in taxes I pay went towards job creation, temporary employment insurance (even some cases of maternity leave) etc etc.. then I wouldn't be so indignant.

Hard work... hell, any work should be rewarded.

Use should be proportional with what you pay. Or... vice versa. I like cookies a whole lot more than my neighbour, so clearly, I'm going to take alot more from the jar. But that's okay under any sort of socialist thinking, even if i didn't bake a single cookie to contribute. It's the ultimate politics of entitlement. Everyone is allowed access to everything, regardless of their contribution.


Sharing is great. Collectivism is great. But it needs to arise spontaneously and voluntarily. If me and my fellow farmers from the area want to get together and share, trade, form some sort of collective- awesome. It will help with our marketing, magnify our profits, increase turnover, decrease transportation costs and share knowledge and labour to make our jobs easier. Sounds wonderful.

It is. It's fantastic.


But it's not if it's mister prime minister coming in telling us we have to.

You just can't force a good thing.


I'm not speaking in favour of anarcho-capitalism. I support a government. I think they are very important. I also think certain taxes are fine.

But when it comes to taking my money for the sake of.... potentially providing for someone else (regardless of need)

no thanks.
-----Added 16/10/2008 at 11 : 21 : 31-----

this is the exact mindset i used to subscribe to. For these exact reasons. I used to think "we're all in this together! I don't have a problem paying my dues"

But then i realized it's a fallacy.

We're not living in a tiny village. We are not working towards a greater collective good.

What a wonderful and utopian view the Global Village mentality is, but it just doesn't work.


some people want to fight poverty. Others feel guilty and then buy a Humvee. That's their right (unfortunately). Some people are embedded in foreign countries working hard at applying approriate technologies to supplant struggling economies and regenerate degraded ecosystems to encourage economic growth and protection from weather related disasters. That's their right.

Some people do work their asses off and get nothing. Other people don't work a day in their life and get by rather comfortably with government subsidies. Apparently they are the same in the eyes of the government? They are both allowed a chunk of someone else's money? (Including taking money from the overworked/underpaid). That's not very fair. Reward those who work. Priveleges need to be earned, not subsidized.

I never said anything about privitization of education.

roachboy

i'll try this again.

seems to me that the basic problem is that folk who like to repeat libertarian-style bromides imagine that some strange notion of "individual morality" should be the starting point.
folk who might be inclined to repeat social-democratic style bromides start from the assumption that individuals are part of a broader social system.

much of the thread is a talking-past each other based on disagreement or incomprehension of alternate starting points.


i think the idea of an unconditioned "individual" subject that stands outside the social is incoherent.
but i'd be interested to see arguments from the libertarian types that it makes sense.
maybe then we'd get somewhere.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Yakk

Yes. That level is nigh-unlimited physical goods. Approaching that level will be hard.

It can be wrong for one person to have more than another. It is not always wrong for one person to have more than another.

No.

People should be allowed to choose to be homeless. I'm not willing to make it illegal to be homeless.
Sure -- the bare survival costs of a person are dirt cheap. It seems far cheaper to include dirt cheap survival costs than to work out how to reliably determine if a given person deserves to have their survival costs paid for due to circumstances beyond their control.

I'm against that kind of kruft.
I disagree with the premises of your question.
I'd expect most of the political infighting would move to the primaries. And with the power for anyone to claim to be a member of the democratic party, the meaning of the party could change without the name changing.

In the short-to-medium term, I'd expect that the Republican party would go off the edge with Dominionists and white-supremest Racists (those two categories being the primary defining difference between the two parties at this point). It might even collapse after that long out of power, and a new party would come in.

With effective open primaries, the machinery of election might work well. If the primaries fail to be democratic, you'd end up with the usual problems with a self-perpetuating oligarchy, with power and resources concentrated in fewer and fewer hands as time progresses.

All cash is a promise that someone, somewhere will compensate you for the resources you gave away in exchange for the cash. The fact that every unit of cash is backed by a unit of debt that someone owes is important to that being credible -- someone out there needs that cash to pay back their debts, or they will have all of their worldly possessions taken from them (bankruptcy). And if the person who justified the cash with their debt fails to repay it, then the bank that owned the debt now is obligated to destroy an equal amount of cash, which shifts the justification of your cash to a valid debt.

It isn't that tricky.

(And no, interest doesn't cause this to break down.
Alice Bob and Charlie live on an island.

Alice is a banker, and Bob and Charlie aren't.

Bob has 110 coconuts, and Alice and Charlie have nothing. Bob deposits them with Alice in exchange for a 5% interest rate!

Alice has 110 coconuts
Bob has 110 coconut-tokens
Charlie has nothing

Bob has 110 coconut-tokens deposited with Alice.

Charlie wants to build a rock farm. So Charlie asks Alice for a loan of 100 coconut tokens. Alice says "sure, but you will owe me 110 coconut-tokens in a year!".

Charlie takes the 100 coconut-tokens to Bob, and says "I'll pay you 100 coconut tokens in exchange for some materials to build my rock-farm". Bob says "sure!", then deposits his tokens in the bank.

Current:
Bob has 210 coconut-tokens.
Charlie has 0 coconut-tokens, and a debt of 100 coconut-tokens, and a rock farm, and a year's worth of rocks.
Alice has 110 coconuts.

A year passes. Rocks grow.

Charlie needs to pay Alice back. So Charlie goes to Bob and says "I have rocks! Want to buy some for 110 coconut tokens?". These are good rocks, so Bob says "Yes!".

Bob has 105 coconut-tokens (he got 5% interest on his coconuts!)
Charlie has 110 coconut-tokens, and a debt of 110 coconut-tokens.
Alice has 110 coconuts, and Charlie owes her 110 coconut-tokens.

Charlie pays Alice back:
Bob has 105 coconut-tokens
Charlie has a rock farm.
Alice has 110 coconuts

Bob takes his 105 coconut-tokens to Alice, and asks for the coconuts back.

Alice gives Clarlie 105 coconuts.

Bob has 105 coconuts, and some nice rocks.
Charlie has a rock farm
Alice has 5 coconuts.

That is fractional reserve banking. We had interest going two ways, and despite this, the situation could be unrolled.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Baraka_Guru

rune, you have this habit of cherry-picking:

• carbon and sin taxes are not the sum of government fiscal policy;
• collecting taxes and using them for public spending isn't "giving" away your money;
• a single clinic with logistic and/or funding problems isn't representative of the entire system;
• you assume that your tax money is being used only for the lazy;

You only recently have come out in any strong commentary that what you actually oppose is government inefficiencies and/or corruption. And that you oppose the use of tax dollars to help those in need (regardless of the need). That's fine. You are entitled to oppose that.

What I have a problem with is your glossing over the realities of some of these things. The healthcare system helps the working class, who might not otherwise be able to afford healthcare. Welfare helps those who have struggled due to things beyond their control. The majority of welfare recipients aren't even dependent on it; they get off of it within a year or two. And as for single mothers who use it: they do so for various reasons. They aren't all simply irresponsible women who shouldn't have had children. They are also survivors of abuse and abandonment.

You aren't looking at the big picture. You're cherry-picking the worst of situations and overlooking all the other stuff that goes on in people's lives.

Don't you see the overall benefit of this kind of social spending? Remove it and you create a large class of poor. (All of whom would absolutely not be simply "lazy.") Do you know what the poor do when things get desperate? Society begins to crumble.

I'm still not sure what you want as an alternative. How would you deal with the poor? Please don't talk about the lazy. It's not very helpful here. Your "dealing" with the lazy would hurt those who aren't lazy, and they vastly outnumber them, I'm sure.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Tusko

this is the fundamental digression, yes.

Brotherhood, society, sharing, etc, for me extends to those who are willing to cooperate. If you want to make spears, cut furs, sew seeds, fantastic. If you want to sit and twiddle your thumbs under the acacia tree, you don't get any lion steaks. You are not part of society.


We have in some sense unwittingly signed some social contract, i don't disagree. I do not agree that we are "all in this together".

I was born somewhere through chance. Could have been anywhere.

I want to go do the things that i want to do. I don't see what i should have to contribute to "you going to do the things that you want to do". If we meet in the road and need to carve a path through the bush together, then so be it.

The only "team" that i feel i am a part of from day 1, is my closest peer group. Some dude in Whitehorse... well. not so much.






-----Added 16/10/2008 at 11 : 59 : 46-----
the problem is, i don't have my usual anarco-capitalist chronies here to back me up. i'm only arguing for the sake of arguing. i can't keep accelerating the discussion. i'm kind of running into walls. i don't really believe half the shit i say.

paradigm shift.

thanks internet.
-----Added 16/10/2008 at 12 : 00 : 09-----
tfpwned




anyway. I'm working on marine biology paper. Or rather, I should be.


The 'realest' thoughts i have, and the main tenets of my political questing of late:


everyone pays too much tax. Taxes get burned on nothing. Wasted.
Taxes mean i have less overall choice in just about anything.
Taxes reduce everyones wealth.

Social-assistance should be extremely highly (much more than it is) regulated. Focusing on short term recovery, job placement etc etc.

People need to be more responsible not only with their spending, but with their choices. The social safety net has made all of society too insulated.

People pay for things they do not use, and people use things they do not pay for.

Rich people are not bad.

Poor people are not bad.

i don't know anything.

guyy

I don't think the digression is really about altruism or teamwork vs. lone wolves etc., but about whether people recognise that they are already part of an immense cooperative effort.

Did you build your own dwelling? Grow the food you ate this morning? What about your tea or coffee? Do you have a flush toliet? How does the water get from wherever it is to your toliet? Do you generate your own electricity? Fabricate your own computer chips? Build and run your own global computer network?

There's an immense social infrastructure that supports our everyday lives. The question is whether we recognise it for what it is, or pretend that we are doing things on our own.

Tusko

yes, but i (potentially) paid for these services. The interaction is complete. More money in my pockets means more ability to pay for services. Transparency.

I bought a belt from an indian when i was in Vancouver. Our relationship is complete. Service->money.

I recognize the overarching, 'cooperative effort'. And it is supported everytime i pay my monthly phone bill, or for that Mars bar, or for that keg. It's direct, clean, simple. I don't agree with much more than that.

roachboy

those payments are for services provided in the context of existing infrastructure, not for the infrastructure itself.
same logic applies to education.
same logic applies to police, military, etc.
same logic applies to firms as well---the rely on extensive infrastructure in order to be able to operate. they don't create that infrastructure. infrsstructure at the levels of production and distribution.

this sort of thing is a big part of the explanation for the more-or-less simultaneous rise of capitalism and the modern nation-state.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Tusko

so, for whatever reason, i'm still paying for something that happened 50 years ago?

guyy

It needs to be reproduced. If you stop maintaining it, things fall apart -- literally -- like the I35 bridge in Minneapolis. Not only does the physical infrastructure need to be replaced, but people need to be replaced, trained & retrained.

smooth

I tried to be careful in how I worded Kant's relevance to the topic in order to avoid the response that his writings, along with those from other philosophers, might not really answer the question. Yes, we can conclude for ourselves whether we want to subscribe to such explanations of the basis of ethics/morality or not, but my overall point was to link this discussion of ethics, morality, and categorical imperatives to the person who made it the centerpiece of how he thought the universe operated.

Perhaps he was wrong, but then we can just toss the idea of moral imperatives out along with such a conclusion; so without grappling with his notions about the whole thing we just start spinning our wheels if we want to try and figure out the validity of such a thing as taxes as a moral imperative.

Because without that grounding, we do what is being done in this thread, and that is something that would arguably be a wrong thing to do, or as Kant might see it, not morally good. I mean the discussion is already framed for us that there is an assumed universal morality, that it can be reasoned towards, and that it can not depend on specific facts around us. We also can't judge an act by how much it might give back to us, personally or as a means to an end.

Or we just deny his whole discussion of categorical imperative and move from there, preferably onto a different discussion of what ethics are based upon. But to deny his contribution and then not really hinge whatever the discussion might then become on a different belief about how the universe works is not really doing anyone any favors when it comes to understanding what someone meant when they used a Kantian phrase.

I mean, if you take an ethics of law, or ethics of medicine, or any ethics of... course, then it will be either assumed or stated that an intro ethics/philosophy course is a prerequisite as a starting point for discussion because science is building blocks. We don't restart the conversation from ground zero as if no one has spent considerable amounts of time thinking and writing about such things to the extent that they have become part of the canon and need to at least be acknowledged.

Even if one disagrees with someone like this, it's important and relevant enough that any informed discussion would at least say, this is what has been said in the past, and this is why I believe it to not be true. At the very least, it would help people from talking past one another.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Tusko

i never said anything about privatizing roads or anything.

Yakk

First, yes, you are to a certain extent paying for that investment, still.

Second, examine the growth rate of the USA. Notice all of the new roads?

Third, notice that all of that infrastructure requires maintenance, both in terms of work, and training new people to do the work to maintain it.

Forth, society as a whole is investing in tomorrow in areas that cannot be easily captured by a private company.

Prove it?

How much are you willing to spend on regulating social assistance, out of curiosity? Do you have statistics about what percentage of social assistance wouldn't "qualify"?

Have you ever taken a basic microeconomic course? Heard of externalities by any chance?

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Derwood

so if one hates contributing to letting lazy people not work (pretending, for a moment, that we're ignoring that living on government checks is no kind of luxury), is the solution really to get rid of welfare entirely?

again, throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

FoolThemAll

As someone a couple rungs below such 'paupers', I'm undertaxed if anything. Perhaps I fall into the 'destitute' category. Pretty comfy, really, this destitution.

I suppose if you stretch words like 'poor' and 'screw' far enough, you can jump to 'massive con job' with a perfectly straight face. And then you get to scratch your head at Kansas and conclude that delusion is the only possible explanation. Who in their middle-class right mind, after all, could possible take issue with progressive taxation?

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

FlatLand Flyer

Thank you for taking the time to make this post. I am in agreement with you for the most part.

This thread is littered with people who think they know a lot because they took a few economics classes and can type big, obscure words. From that, it somehow has degraded into some posters that believe we can create a social utopia. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. At least not in the U.S.

Maybe we just have a higher percentage of lazy people down here than in Canada.

Our government has allowed the disease of laziness to snowball. We have entire generations of people now that only know that they get money from the govt and have no need to work. They have figured out that if they have more and more kids that the govt checks will get bigger. It is the way they were raised and it is the way they are going to raise their kids. There is no incentive to change it because the check still arrives every month. These are not productive members of society, thus they should not be allowed to benefit from social programs.

"Re-distribution of wealth" is a fucking joke.