Wealth Redistribution and a Moral Imperative
 

I see many posts (on a more Conservative forum) complaining about the redistribution of wealth to the welfare class, but this is an interesting commentary on the Liberal tax plan at the $250,000 threshold. This was originally posted in response to Obama's "share the wealth" comment over the weekend.

I'd be interested to hear Liberal responses to this aspect. My own point of view is that you reap what you sow, and don't ask me for part of my share to make up for your lack of ambition. This is closely related to my belief in equal opportunity, not guarantees of equal outcome.

Quote:

Butt Scratching and Bass Fishing
by Dave Ramsey

A couple of weeks ago, I worked late like I sometimes need to do to run my business. It was a nice Tennessee summer evening, and I was enjoying the drive home. About 7:30, as I pulled to a stop light a few blocks from my office, I noticed a light on in the corner office of a friend’s office building. Through the twilight I could make out my friend’s silhouette as he bent over his desk. Being a fellow entrepreneur, I knew what he was doing. He was pouring over some receivables. Some turkey hadn’t paid him, and he was trying to make his accounts balance so he would have the cash to make it another day. In that instant, I had a flashback to some of the ridiculous statements I’ve been hearing on the talking-head news channels and from some individuals during this political year. And I’ll be honest—I instantly felt the heat of anger flow
through my body.

Let me tell you why. You see, my friend who I saw working late—we’ll call him Henry—is a great guy.
He’s what you want your son to grow up to be. He loves God, his country, his wife, and his kids. He didn’t have the academic advantage of attending a big-name university. Instead, he started installing heating and air systems as a grunt laborer after he graduated from high school. He was and is a very hard and
diligent worker, and before long, the boss taught him the trade. But when he was 24, after 6 years of service, the company he was working for got into financial trouble and laid him off.
Henry still had his tools, so he bought an old pickup to haul around his materials and tools, and suddenly he was in business. He knew about heating and air-conditioning, but not about business, so he made a lot of mistakes.

He persisted. He took accounting and management at the community college to learn about business.
He started reading books on business, HVAC, marriage, kids, God, and anything else someone he
respected recommended. Today he is one of the best-read men I know. Soon, because of his fabulous service and fair prices, he developed a great reputation, and his little business began to grow. Henry started 15 years ago, and now he has 17 employees whose families are fed because he does a great job. He is in church on Sunday and seldom misses his kids’ Little League games. Sometimes he has to miss a game because some poor soul has their AC go out in the 96-degree Tennessee summer heat, but Henry makes sure they are served. He is, by all standards, a good man. He is, by all standards, what makes America great.
Henry and I are friends, and so he asked me some financial questions last year. I learned in the process that his personal taxable income last year was $328,000. I smiled with pride for this 70-hour a week guy because he is living the dream.
At the stop light that evening, I also thought of another guy I know—and that is where the anger flash came from. We will call him John. While John does not have the same drive Henry has, I can say that he, too, is a good man.
John also graduated from high school and did not attend a big-name university. He went to work at a local factory 15 years ago. When 5:00pm comes around, John has probably already made it to his car in the parking lot. He comes in 5 minutes late, takes frequent breaks, and leaves 5 minutes early. However, to his credit, he is steady and works hard.

Over the years, due to his steadiness and seniority, he has worked his way up to about $75,000 per year in that same factory. He seldom misses his kid’s ballgames, but most nights you will find him in front of the TV where he has become an expert on “American Idol,” “The Biggest Loser,” and who got thrown off the island. When he is not in front of the TV, he spends a LOT of time and money bass fishing on our local lake. He never works over 40 hours a week and hasn’t read a non-fiction book since high school.

This is America, and there is nothing wrong with either set of choices. Nothing wrong, that is, until the politicians and socialists get involved.
I have seen several elitist people on the talking-head channels make the statement lately that people making over $250,000 per year have a “moral imperative” to pay more in taxes to take care of the country’s problems. This is not only infuriating—it is economically, spiritually, and morally crazy!

Where in the world do these twits get off saying that Henry should be punished for his diligence? If you are John, where do you get off trying to take Henry’s hard-earned money away from him in the name of your misguided “fairness”? If you want to sit on the lake, drink beer, scratch your butt, and bass fish, that is perfectly fine with me. I am not against any of those activities and have engaged in some of them myself at one time or another. But you HAVE NO RIGHT to talk about “moral imperatives” about what other people have earned due to their diligence. That money is not yours! You want some money? Go earn some! Get up, leave the cave, kill something, and drag it home.

We are in a dangerous place in our country today. A segment of our population has decided that it is the government’s job to provide all of their protection, provision, and prosperity. This segment has figured out that government doesn’t have the money to give them everything they want, so somebody else has to pay for it. That is how the “politics of envy” was born. “Tax the rich” has become the mantra of the left, and this political season it has been falsely dubbed a “moral imperative.”

Ninety percent of America’s millionaires are first-generation rich. They are Henry. To tax them because you think it is a “moral imperative” is legalizing governmental theft from our brightest, most charitable, and most productive citizens. If I can get a law passed that says you must surrender all your cars to the government because it is the “moral imperative” of anyone who owns cars to support the latest governmental program, that would be a violation of private property rights and simply morally wrong. This new “moral imperative” to redistribute wealth is no different from that. It’s the SAME THING!

Please, America, re-think the politics of envy! You are sowing the seeds of our destruction when you punish the Henrys of our culture. If you think taxing the populace to support government programs is the best way—and I don’t—then at
least tax every single person the same! There are very few Henrys out here who would squawk much
about paying a set percentage of their income—if everyone else did, too. But this idea of some buttscratching bass fisherman saying government should tax his neighbor and not him—just because his neighbor has succeeded—must stop.

So the next time an elitist media talking-head starts telling you it is the moral imperative of our culture to tax my friend Henry, change the channel. The next time you see someone wealthy who feels guilty and is preaching the politics of envy, change the channel. The next time you see some celebrity who feels guilt over their income preaching socialism, change the channel.

And the next time you run into a misguided, butt-scratching bass fisherman who says the evil rich people in our culture should have their private property confiscated because that is fair… well just shake your head walk away—and make sure to vote against his candidate. If he and his type win, God help America.

This is an interesting topic, but I'm uncertain about how you've framed it.

Here you have a op-ed piece with anecdotal support, and a misguiding perspective.

It assumes that those in the welfare class inherently have a "lack of ambition." It assumes that those on welfare landed there because they don't want to work, and perhaps it also means that they don't "[love] God, [their] country, [their spouses], and [their] kids."

If you are going to critique a class of people, you should at least present a stronger case. Do you know the demographics of the welfare class? Do you know why people end up there? Do you know how long they stay there?

My own view? I think the wealthy have a social responsibility to help provide for those in need. Within capitalism, not everyone can be rich. There are causalities of wealth, and it can be brutal. And the conservative view would keep it that way.

I'm not for that.

There's got to be a middle ground.

"I earned every penny of my fortune and fuck anyone who wants me to help someone with less" is a pretty poor foundation for a civilized society

That doesn't invalidate the point the article makes, though :\.

like baraka guru said, this is an interesting topic, but the framing in this particular thread is so screwy that it kinda sucks the life out of it--even at the level of the title--which makes a distinction between the redistribution of wealth and a moral imperative---we'd have to fight through a thicket of assumptions which only begin to make sense in the inverted world of conservative ideology.

at this point, i see no reason to take that ideology seriously except as a sociological question--why do these curious arguments appeal to a particular limited social group?

it follows then that if you want a discussion, mcgeedo, it's incumbent on you to do a little work to make it happen.
step one is to translate your premises out of the cloud of rightwing gobble-de-gook that they currently framed in, and pose on that basis questions that are worth the trouble of addressing.

I'm not going to respond directly to that lovely narrative of an op-ed, as it's basically a single anecdotal, emotional data point and can't be sensibly used to draw policy conclusions from.

My assessment of the wealth disparity in this country is that it's rarely a matter of ambition or hard work, outside the conservative world-fantasy. Some of the poorest people I know work multiple jobs to make ends meet. I know immigrants (yes, some of them illegal) who work harder than you or I can probably imagine.

The issue isn't laziness, it's opportunity. Most of the wealth in this country (and by most, I don't mean 51%) is concentrated at the very tippy top. Lots of people think of themselves as privileged, doing well, upper class, but the fact is, compared to the holders of like 90% of the wealth in this country, they're paupers. One of the real problems with middle-class conservatives is, they think they're the rich ones who conservative policies will take care of, when they're really the poor ones that conservative policies will screw. It's a massive con-job perpetrated from the top socio-economic strata.

With the vast wealth imbalance, certain people from certain classes can be, say, President of the United States of America, and it doesn't take smarts or a background of success or raw talent. It takes a daddy who did that. Whereas my friend Jerman, whose parents are from Venezuela, couldn't ever rise to that level no matter how skilled and brilliant he is (and he IS). Part of that is racial, but the much bigger part (as Obama is currently demonstrating) is socio-economic. I'm not convinced the two can be separated as American culture is currently constituted.

The failure of trickle-down economics should be obvious. How the wealthy GOT wealthy in the first place was by NOT letting their wealth trickle down. And when I say wealthy, I'm talking about the top 5%. And (with some anecdotal exceptions, I'm sure) most of that is legacy wealth. Money that's been around for multiple generations, growing in banks and in the market, without any particular effort or ambition on the part of its owners. Paris Hilton is vastly more typical than Bill Gates.

So, these perambulations aside: I'm not sure we have a moral imperative to redistribute the wealth per se. I'm not real interested in that. I'm REAL interested in making sure people are taken care of and have everything they need. And if money to make that happen has to come from the cash that somebody was going to spend on their eighth house, I'm not going to cry too hard about it.

My question for you, mcgeedo, is: do you believe that "equal opportunity", as you claim to believe in, currently exists? If not, what do you think ought to be done about that?

An additional distinction I'd like to make is the difference between those rich who engage in "value-added" activities,
like the gentlemen in the article who employs others, provides a material service, and speculators.
I think a lot of the dislike of the rich occurs when speculation gets out hand, the market overheats and melts
down (like now), and everyone suffers.
No, I'm not suggesting we eliminate the markets as they exist now. It's just that implicitly I, for one, do not
respect Wall Street millionaires. I do respect those who build brick and mortar businesses.

there's so much wrapped up in that article, it's hard to bite off a piece and start to chew on it.

the argument, at least as far as I can tell, is that someone has to pay taxes and a line has to be drawn somewhere.
I can't remember exactly, but I suspect that 250,000 is some kind of quintile or must be linked to some kind of study...unless it's just a number pulled out of a hat but Obama doesn't strike me as the type to advance that kind of hokey-pokey.

Yeah, I understand some small businesses will feel a bit crunched by extra taxes, but according to the plan it merely rolls the rates back to Reagan era rates which plenty of people were satisfied and even prospered under. It's even better in the sense that if that money is put toward health care for all workers than it reduces costs for many, allows others to be competitive with large companies that can offer health benefits, and reduces problems associated with sick workers including improving productivity.

the moral imperative as I understood it was that paying taxes is patriotic and it's morally correct to pay one's fair share to participate in the pie of US commerce. This argument is promoted as opposed to getting a free ride or using dodgy tax shelters, I never saw anyone argue how the pie should be sliced as a moral mandate.

The only way that I've ever seen the conservative mind-set where it's "redistribution of wealth" and not "helping the needy" is when the person can thoroughly convince themselves that the poor deserve their situation, either through apathy, laziness, or poor choices.

If you find it possible (despite the cognitive dissonance) that people are genuinely poor out of circumstance - fatherless home, poorly educated parents, poor schools, crime-ridden neighborhood, poor job markets, abusive relationships, then this conservative ideology necessarily falls apart.

When you believe that "it's 2008! The world should be color blind! And sexism does not exist! Women have broken the glass ceiling!", the mindset works. When you honestly believe that everyone has the same 'opportunity' as you, and the ONLY reason you're as successful as you are is because of your ingenuity or your drive, then you're ignoring the privilege you had as a child. There are plenty of people with ingenuity and drive who will never even reach the starting salary of a more privileged person. No matter how many times a conservative harps on the point that everyone can 'pull themselves up by their boostraps', it doesn't make it any more true. And as Obama said so nicely, you can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you DON'T HAVE BOOTS.

I hardly think that a few percentage point change for those making over $250,000 will unfairly burden them, particularly when considering the potential benefits. Wealth disparity is a GENERATIONAL thing, and it takes a long time to repair. If your parents are poor, and can't afford to give you a stable home in a good neighborhood with good schools, your chances of providing those for YOUR children diminish. That's not to say it's impossible, but the 'potential', the 'opportunity', isn't the same.

The really damning part of this op-ed is that someone thinks that a minor increase in the taxes of those making $250,000 or more is socialism, communism, or wealth distribution.

And finally; "He’s what you want your son to grow up to be. He loves God, his country, his wife, and his kids." Sorry, that is not what I want my son to grow up to be. Thanks, though, Dave Ramsey. Your characterizations of the 'talking heads' is bemusing, made particularly so by the fact that you too are a talking head.

i agree entirely that any kind of redistribution of funds is wrong. forced charity has become a pervasive and evil part of modern society.

however, if there ARE going to be various robbery taxes, i don't think a flat tax is where it should be.

a very good libertarian friend of mine helped me with this.

if you're poor, you can't pay.
applying the same tax throughout means that it must be low enough for the lowest income bracket to pay.
one can, in effect, slide it up along the spectrum- and still ensure everyone pays.

One of the most interesting comments to my original post is that a tax increase of "just a few percentage points" on the more productive members of our society isn't Socialism. So, is there a magic number? Is a 5.9 percent increase just "helping those in need," while 6 percent is rampant wealth redistribution? Isn't there a principle involved, rather than a threshold?

"If you are going to critique a class of people, you should at least present a stronger case." Why? Do you seriously think that a few well turned phrases will convert the various Liberals on this forum from the error of their ways? My intent is to incite a lively discussion and get a variety of opinions. In spite of what you might think, I enjoy hearing the opinions of others and I occassionally learn something, even from Liberals.

Actually, its the best foundation.

Capitalism rewards productive achievement.

Socialism rewards sitting on your hands.

How can society function when those who produce the least(help society the most), earn just as much as those who work?

If you don't pull your social weight, get fucked.

There is not a number. Increasing a tax rate in a democratic republic run largely by regulated capitalism has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with socialism. It's simple red-baiting.

And sorry, I refuse to participate further in a thread which so reeks of arrogance. Learning, "even if from liberals" and "teach us the error of our ways", indeed.

It is interesting to note that proponents of free market capitalism are also proponents of wealth redistribution as moral imperative; they just prefer the market instead of the government as the main conduit of redistribution.

In any case, wealth redistribution to me isn't a matter of morals (at least not primarily), but a matter of social stability. Obviously, it would be great if everyone could be a prototypical Horatio Alger. But that's impossible. Sometimes, the cost of doing business is making sure that the people you got over on have enough so that they don't feel compelled to take your shit directly. If you think you feel bad looking at the taxes taken out of your paycheck, imagine how positively down you'd feel if the mass of poor folks in this country actually revolted.

There is much more to picking one's self up by one's bootstraps (besides an ironic violation of the laws of physics). Luck is just as important as effort when fate decides who is going to be rich and who isn't. Hard work can only get you so far. I think that people who subscribe to the idea of the noble bootstrapper are caught up in some sort of self serving fantasy about a just market. The market isn't just. Wealth redistribution at its best attempts to correct for market shortcomings.

well, first of all i have no faith at all that any conservative actually knows what socialism is. generally, it is an empty category around which various nitwit projections get clustered. the defining features of socialism--democratic socialism anyway--have nothing to do with tax rates, particularly not taken in isolation. so there's nothing interesting about the question of whether there is some magic number or not---except that you don't really have an idea of what you're talking about.

one of the main features of a democratic socialist system is a political orientation toward full employment.
how anyone gets from that to any of these conservative cliche's about "sitting on your hands" is beyond me--except if you factor in not knowing what the fuck you're talking about--in which case anything's possible.
wealth redistribution is generally oriented by this sort of system-level or macro-policy goal. in that contexts, it's really just a transfer of wealth from one place to another--nothing moral about it---a political consensus is what matters.
the discourse of morality is another conservative non-sequitor.

generally the rationale is that the ability of a firm to extract profit is a function of system maintenance---which means the economy cannot be understood as floating in a separate space, but rather as part of the broader society. so firms (and individuals who benefit from their activity) owe it back to the system to contribute towards its maintenance.

there's more to this, but i'll stop
it's pretty simple.
and it makes a hell of a lot more sense than neoliberal assumptions do.

whether you *like* taxes or not is irrelevant.
the "effects" on the "welfare class" is in another matter, another conservative fever dream.
it is a mystery to me why people choose to believe it---easier to blame the excluded in a class society than to think about why the social class system is as it is. this is another area in which neoliberalism is worth nothing at all.

So wait a minute...are you saying that the liberal viewpoint on this issue is erroneous? But I thought you wanted a lively discussion? A discussion of what? How "wrong" liberals are about a conservative view of taxation?

I would comment more, offering a well-thought-out opinion except I don't see a way of doing so constructively based on the OP. If anything, I would rather critique the piece you've provided as support material, but I don't think that was your intent. Actually, I'm still uncertain of your intent. Do you want us to discuss, in a more general sense, the distribution of wealth within the context of governmental morality? If this is the case, maybe I'll think about it some and provide my own backgrounder. As it is, I can't discuss it based on this op-ed piece you've posted. It's not conducive to an open discussion on the matter. There are many problems with the piece, even internally.

If, however, your intent is to have us discuss this from the viewpoint of the op-ed piece, then we have a different discussion altogether.

What is it you want?

i agree with this.

look at me, and 100000 of my peer group.

priveleged, subruban folk.

never had to work in high school.

don't need to worry about paying tuition.

don't need to worry about healthcare costs.

nice and insulated.

Ah ignorance.

I'm not privileged.

I worked throughout HS.
I'm very much in debt for my student loans.
Went for over a year without health insurance despite having asthma.

I simply understand that capitalism is the only moral form of economics.

It rewards those who help society, by helping themselves.

And that's how it should be.

I just wanted to point out how important this is to the thread so far.

Democratic socialism also seeks fair work practices, including the support for fair wages and responsible workplaces.

To think that socialism encourages laziness is as fallacious as assuming that the logical conclusion of conservatism is fascism.

To think that socialism doesn't or cannot exist within capitalism is as fallacious as assuming that conservatism is inherently capitalistic. (Both socialists and conservatives were critics of capitalism in the 19th century.)

Leaving the meta-discussion aside for a moment:

mcgeedo, I'd like you to respond to the question I asked at the bottom of my post above. Do you or don't you believe that the current state of the world (or, country, I suppose) provides equal opportunity for all? If not, what would you propose to do to address that?

I actually agree with you entirely--if everyone really honestly were given equal opportunities to make of them what they will, we'd have a very workable society; the bright, eager, hard workers would rise to the top, and the loafers would sweep their floors, and few could argue that things aren't tidily as they should be. Obviously that "if" implies I don't think that's how it is right now.

that's nice in your hypothetical socialism construct where all wealth is distributed evenly. but no one is proposing such a thing, so why use it as your example?

Excellent question, rat. No, I don't think that there is equal opportunity for all right now in this country. I think that that should be our goal, for moral reasons. And surprisingly enough, I think that there are those who need help directly, in addition to opportunity. These include children of those who don't take advantage of the opportunity provided.

So, how to go about achieving that goal? There are a lot of things, like improving the educational system, motivating kids to stay in school, job training, child care and so on. There are a million programs to improve opportunity for those who want to take advantage of it.

But the key is to reward effort, not failure. One only has to look at the USSR of old to see what a dismal failure it is to give no incentive to hard work.

And regarding the "arrogance" comment, that gave me a smile :-) If you could read the Liberal posts with my eyes :-)

What's interesting is that these, for the most part, are featured prominently on the social democratic platform of Canada's NDP party.

So you support these socialist initiatives? (Mind you, some of these are more socialist than others, depending on the approach.) Or do you mean to have these things privatized and paid for completely out of the users' pockets? (As opposed to their being fully or partially funded by the government.)

Well, I agree with you entirely this far. Problem is, all these actions--noble actions, actions we should be taking--produce results a generation off or longer, and so are never going to appeal to a community that's up for re-election every few years. I think there's got to be something that can be done now to address what's going on now.

And here's where we part company. The failure of the USSR was political and social, not economic per se. Not that the Soviet economy was anything to shout about, at the end, but it was a side-effect, not a root cause. This is the same basic system that beat us into space, remember. Nothing changed about the system after that, just the people working it.

I'm sure. :)

I think it is safe to say at least in my eyes, which would be a more conservative view point, is, it is not enough to merely to make this system of equal opportunity a reality.

The people have to want if for themselves, and I know that will piss many of you off, as you'll no doubt assume I'm saying that all of them "don't want it for themselves", that is really not the case.

I work in a liquor store, not necessarily what would be the hood, but as Minnesota is mostly wonder bread it is a more "colorful" part of town. Bottom line is I have to interact with the dregs of society on a daily basis. It infuriates me when I see these many homeless or those at the bottom of the economic ladder coming into the store with their Barry Obomba pins and t-shirts, trying to use their food stamp/EBT cards to buy liquor. When your Black Messiah is elected President, they think the US is going to do a complete 180, and they'll be on top because there is a "black" president.

And that is my point for these types of people, there is no incentive to work harder, they don't do it now, and they think they're getting the key to the candy store when Barack takes over with his policies. I'm not so stupid to broadly use these clowns as an example, being that my area of study doesn't use a great many sociological words, I hope I am correct in saying is I'm sure these people only serve as a microcosm of the populace.

I hope you guys don't throw this out as a threadjack, I spoke of Barack in here as it is his policies that speak of this redistribution, and these assholes are the ones that it will affect. I guess it will affect me too, as the store doesn't pay me a great amount of money I get pissed when I see that roughly 20-25% of my check gets ripped from me every two weeks, but who knows, maybe Barack will ease that burden on me, and maybe that's the point of all of this.

On the general question of morality and re-distribution of wealth, I look at it this way. It is not immoral to be wealthy. It is immoral to steal. Taking a persons wealth to keep or to give to someone else is stealing. People do not volunteer to be taxed for the purpose of re-distribution, it happens under the threat of the loss of freedom (jail time) or at gun point (confiscation of property by authorities). People will volunteer to pay taxes for schools/training, short-term welfare needs and other measures to help people succeed. I have a very libertarian view on this issue and I don't think it is complicated.

well, ace, i would counter that with a simple claim: your ability to have wealth is contingent on a broader social system which enabled you to acquire the dispositions and background required to get to that place, and your ability to enjoy that wealth is contingent on a minimal level of social stability and so you woe much to that system and what manages to keep it operational. so if there's a stealing involved, it'd follow from your relation to the redistribution of wealth.

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

other things that a democratic socialist system geared around full employment, for example, would offer: job retraining. high wages. relatively tightly regulated work conditions. profit sharing. shared control over the management of the workplace with employees (through proxies typically on the order of facility committees--personally, i'm in favor of a more radical form of direct-democratic control over the workplace, but that's another matter.)

to orient job retraining, for example, there'd have to be accurate and reliable information about the actual state of the system as a whole--so the entire reagan period idea that one can treat statistics as a simple extension of ideology would go out the window.

parallel points could be made about each of the features above.

because the state is involved more extensively and explicitly in the shaping of system parameters, those parameters become political. this makes them MORE responsive to democratic control. the american model of disappearing state functions behind an illusion of "free markets" is about REDUCING responsiveness to democratic pressure and LIMITING the ability of people to impact upon how the system operates.

i don't know why that's desirable.

you certainly cannot confuse sitting in front of your television watching the world happen as if everything about it is given in advance with anything remotely like democracy.

I have no problem if a person works hard or invents some new product and makes a lot of money. And, I think their taxes should be low. But if the son of the HVAC guy comes in and does nothing but get an MBA and manage employees from the golf course, I would think he should take a pay cut.

The problem comes when you try to tax companies. If you try and raise their taxes, they all will just raise their prices or lay off employees. That is why I support a higher tax rate on the people making above $250,000 and aren't inventors or founders. Usually in that case, they haven't setup a big company selling a needed product and are just picking salary numbers out of the air.

Now, if they started or founded the company, I have no problems (Steve Jobs, Bill Gates,...) with them having low taxes, but if they are descendants or hired replacements, I say tax them at 80% (Wal-Mart, GE, Kodak, Financial companies)

As for the poor getting hand-outs, there are some that would be ok (emergency health care), charitable donations, public works,... But others I'm not a fan of.

And I find it odd that this administration is going to leave us with a socialized banking industry. I can just imagine what the right-wing media would be saying if Gore or Kerry were the President right now.

Rewarding effort is a good goal but too often the rewards are given to those whose efforts are geared to obtaining wealth via political connections, corruption and insider information. I believe that in our current system much of the wealth is obtained this way and there are more of them than the John Galts out there in free enterprise land. It would be great if there was some way to stop wealth generation via corruption and insider status but that does not benefit many of those currently making the rules.

The idea that taxation is theft is amusing to me. It's right up there with the idea that property is theft. Both of these ideas smack of anarchy, which means neither are sustainable.

If one doesn't like the way their taxes are being used, it does not follow that their government is committing robbery--unless they're an anarchist.

Are there any anarchists here?

"Rewarding effort is a good goal but too often the rewards are given to those whose efforts are geared to obtaining wealth via political connections..."

Some inherit money. Don't you want a say in what happens to your possessions when you die?

Some get money illegally or with undue influence. This is a separate problem, and should be handled by law enforcement.

Far more people live off the government teat. These are the ones I'm talking about. These are the people that tax-payers resent so strongly.

maybe the overall policy orientation of american-style capitalism is entirely dysfunctional. maybe it parks people.
maybe people get parked because nitwit conceptions of what socialism is prevents the folk who steer the system from doing anything else.
maybe this collapse of the "moral" into capitalist relations is a self-fulfilling logic: folk who are excluded for structural reasons end up being blamed for the effects of structure so that structure can be disappeared, like a political dissident in the chile of the 1970s. which was also an american production.
maybe the primary obstacle to american empire is the ways of thinking that have been disseminated within the empire in order to make empire seem a fact of nature rather than a political formation.
perhaps the paranoid mode of ideological governance is a circle.

i am pleased to see the "free market" ideology, and its ultra-right variant in anarcho-conservative "libertarian" thinking being pulverized by events unfolding in the world.
nothing good comes of it, not even for the ideologues who carry shit for this way of thinking: the folk who benefit do not in the main believe, otherwise they would not benefit as they do. a world of chumps presents itself, and in a world of chumps who think themselves other than chumps, the only sane move is to take what you can get and get out. "these idiots cannot run a coherent system. they don't even see that there is one."

then i wonder: how do folk believe this stuff? where does it come from? how is it possible for example to erase the history of actually existing capitalism--which is only a coherent social system--that is the dominant mode of production at the scale we now are accumstomed to thinking about--after 1870. capitalism as a dominant mode of production has been remarkably unstable--depression in the 1870s, depression in the 1890s...world war...depression in the 1920s and into the 1930s--world war. the only period of relative stability followed world war 2, and the institutional configuration that enabled it would be seen by most libertarian types as socialist. what i don't get is the 1970s-early 80s period, during which a conservative movement took shape bent in part of dismantling what they apparently never understood. but the system of production had already outstripped them, as had the patterns of ownership--so they were perhaps in a reactive mode but at the same time understood that something Different was taking shape but had not idea what to do. they were like the egyptians in the way hegel talks about them: they "knew there was a riddle" but couldn't get distance enough on it to see it as a riddle, so they were stuck repeating it. but that cannot be right---more reasonable is to assume that the transition away from nation-states which was already underway in the 1970s posed problems that the right could not really work out, so the best move was to privatize as much as possible in order to reduce political risk in general---in the interim, they could naturalize the notion of nation---almost knowing that it was of limited functionality for a limited time--so the main thing was to reduce risk and get out.

it's always seemed to me that conservative ideology was something produced in the interests of a group which was not the group being addressed by the ideology. like there was something patronizing about it. but as it acquired traction and so acquired social power, a faction within the right that actually believed this shit rose to prominence--but it kept that patronizing quality to it, so that can't be right. more consistent would be to think that shills had been put forward. but that's a paranoid avenue to go down. it leads to conspiracy. but conspiracy isn't necessary.

but still, the sense that conservative economic ideology has this nihilist streak to it that is not at all present in what it says, but shows up when you think about what it says against the background of the history that lead up to their saying it. this is not the same as adam smith or ricardo. but i only really know about them from marx. maybe that's true for you too.

I don't know why I'm doing this, but here goes...


You first. I have yet to see you post anything which isn't some equally impenetrable form of leftwing gobble-do-gook.

A system of economic organization wherein the means of production is owned, primarily or in total, by the State or, in some understandings, any collective body. There; care to retract that snide little gem?

Except that when you tax someone's earnings, you're taxing all the time, effort, and thought he put into making that money. You are now taking ownership of one of the crucial means of production (capital) by force and transferring its' control to the State. Moreover, you are ex post facto taking possession of the time, effort, and thought which went into making that money: howzit feel to be a Slave Owner? Means of production under control of the State; Socialism.

If you -really- need an answer to that, come check out my neighborhood (such as it is.) 60+ able-bodied adults, 4 people with jobs. The rest sit on their arses and drink Nyquil all day while drawing checks because they can. Because the system allows them to do so. What you "liberals" frequently fail to realize is that some people are just plain lazy, stupid, and happy that way: they're perfectly happy to be subsidised with my money. Giving these people a job is like giving The Tragedy of Othello to a milk cow: she doesn't want it, wouldn't know what to do with it if she did, and is perfectly happy with the Status Quo.

So let me get this straight. I'm walking down the street at night and I run into three other guys. They pull guns and demand my money (3:1 majority rules seems like a political consensus). I pay them because I don't want to wake up missing my kidneys tomorrow. They leave with my money (transferring my wealth from my pockets into their own) and I go home without the paycheck I worked all week for. And you find this acceptable?! Please tell me I'm misreading your leftwing gobble-de-gook here: I haven't been a Communist in some years and I'm afraid I've lost my ear for the language.

So my whole street, all three burnt-out meth-labs, child-molester, Church-cheating welfare queens with the Dodge Ram 'n all, is an hallucination? Fascinating...

Because we can look out our windows and see it, it's kind of like trees that way.

All enforced at the point of a gun. Why is it, I wonder, that you lefties are so disinclined to acknowledge this aspect of your pipe-dreams? Every single one of those nice little ideas up there would be enforced upon others by violence or the threat of violence. Funny how "evil" Capitalism is predicated upon mutually beneficial voluntary exchange, while "good" Communism or Socialism is based on threatening to blow someone's face off.

Because the world is full of deeply, deeply stupid people who have no business trying to run a trotline, let alone an enterprise with more than two people. Stupid people vote for stupid things, and stupid things are something I do my level best to avoid. Unfortunately, stupid people voting for stupid things frequently succeed in getting them, as witness almost everything Congress has done in the past eight years.

Why in God's name would you think that was what you were seeing? This is Mercantilism or Corporatism or Fascism (take your pick) failing under its' own weight, not Capitalism. Capitalism disallows the Gov't interference and distortion of Markets which created this problem in the first place, especially the ridiculous notion of "Corporate Personhood" which allowed the monstrosity known as Corporate Welfare (AKA The Big Bad Bailout) to exist in the first place.

Again, NONE of this is Capitalism! Capitalism was destroyed in the US by the 1850s, mostly thanks to the Eerie, and was buried 12 feet deep by that treasonous scumbag Abraham Lincoln's War Department.

The binary nature of your thinking is regrettable.

How so? Threat of force is threat of force, and when that force is coming from the State it's coming from an entity with the means, the ability, and the inclination under the proper circumstances to blow people's faces off. Ask Viki Weaver.

You respond from inside the box you're in because it's the only place you have to respond from. You'd have to be outside the box to SEE the box, which would be the only way to get out of the box.

If this seems like a koan to you.... good.

wow, fantastic. where the hell do you live? 56 out of 60 people are unemployed and milking the government.....even if this is true (which I doubt), do you really think that percentage translates across the entire welfare state? give me a break...even you don't believe this

The_Dunedan: You espouse plutocracy? Didn't we leave most of that behind in the 20th century?

It might seem like a Koan, but it smells like an evasion. How is the threat to shoot someone if they don't hand over their money any different from the threat to shoot someone if they don't hand over their money?

Appalachia. Entire county has less than 9,000 people, and that's counting the illegals who work the Christmas-tree farms. A "male human" down the road is one of the 4 who work, but only because he's forced. He's the neighborhood child molester, just out of prison for impregnating his 13-year-old stepdaughter. He can't get any benefits, so he had to get a job. Most of the rest of the street pretty much just sit there, unless (as happens every five years or so) one of them burns a trailer down. Somewhat more frequently violence is involved; someone assaults someone else, or gets arrested for threatening someone and then assaults the three Deputies arresting him, for instance. The really fun one was the guy who was growing 30+ cannabis plants in his backyard, driving over them with his bush-hog as the DEA helicopter was circling over his house.

I don't care if you don't believe it; you're free to come and see for yourself. And no, I don't think this percentage translates across the entire welfare state, but I know that assholes like my neighbors exist everywhere.

Where did you get -that- idea? Plutocracy is rule by wealth, or rule by virtue of wealth. I espouse the idea that nobody has the right to rule over anybody by force, whether that force is "legitimized" by State execution, great wealth, or simple interpersonal violence.

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

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.

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)

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

@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.

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....

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.

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.

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.......

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

i never said anything about privatizing roads or anything.

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?

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.

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?

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.

you realize how small those government checks are, right?

What a lot of people don't realize is that welfare funding often remains below the poverty line. Historically, overall funding for welfare has been as low as 1% of federal spending.

The other thing is that welfare families, on average, have no more children than other families, and most of them want to work but have trouble finding it (and they also have recent work histories).... The welfare status of most of these families lasts around a year, with a clear majority of them being no longer on welfare within 2 to 4 years.

How easily we overlook typical cases.

then there's the whole thing of the "social parasite" that you see running through alot of these "libertarian" style posts (not all of them, i should say):
the "lazy" as over against the "hard-working"; the "degenerate" as over against the "moral"; the "members of society" and those who "are not" or "should not be members of society"; the "regular joe who struggles in his righteousness to get over" as over against these Others "who only know how to get a government check."

flip a libertarian over and too often you find yet another petit-bourgeois fascist. whether any given person who thinks in these terms would act on the above is another matter---you know, to purge Society of the Undesirables which Drag It Down, man---but structurally, the arguments are very familiar.
everything that's maybe uneven about the surfaces from which different class positions start is pegged on the Undesirable. without them, "society" would be singular, self-contained and limited--the reason that there is the evil state is because there are these parasites.

fascism straight up, in its oppositional form. alot of populist fascist movements start out being kinda anarchist regarding the state--but once in power, there's a reconsideration. it's hard to have a National Military Destiny without the state. and besides, there's a curious symmetry between a limited state and authoritarian rule. a single authoritarian ruler is pretty limited as a model of state--one guy.
and such systems are not necessarily experienced as authoritarian so long as you support them, so long as the parasites being eliminated are not you.

If there are so few of those who make a long-term lifestyle out of living off the government, i.e. my taxes, then you and they won't mind if we cut back on the enormous amount of money we're spending on them, will they?

Your premise is false, because enormous amounts of your taxes isn't being spent on long-term living off of the government lifestyles.

Unless you are talking about defense contractors and politicians.

I'd like to see your figures on the laziness index, and since you're making international comparisons, kindly provide figures from Canada. I will not accept anecdotes.

Sorry for the big words. If you find the vocabulary intimidating, that would suggest to me that you or your parents made poor investment decisions. Your local schools were crappy and you didn't have enough money to go to a better school? Tough shit. Deal with it. It's not our responsibility.

not only that, mcgeedo, but you miss the point i was making almost entirely.
the centrality of petit bourgeois resentment in all this "moral" talk about markets and capitalism is kinda creepy.
set outside your frame and look at it.

i don't have any of the affective investments that you seem to in that way of thinking, so i just read sentences and try to figure out what is happening in them.
this discouse of the "social parasite" leads to the "what the fuck" response.
then it goes past that.
so i stand by what i said concerning the resonances of it.

but it's strange nonetheless to read this stuff from people whom i do not imagine to be fascist, and who probably do not see the linkages unless they're pointed out (and who probably stop reading at the word "fascist" in any event--but there's nothing to be done about that, as it is what it is historically)

what i don't know about is the relation that holds between the "pure" market fantasy and the discourse of "social parasites" or its equivalent, if one needs the other.
that'd be a problem, if one needed the other to operate.

if you'd bother to look up some numbers, you'd see that there isn't an enormous amount of money being spent on anyone. also, the % of people abusing the system is extremely low as well.

Our polititians and those connected to them who benefit most are doing very well and are probably not inclined to cut back and they make the rules.

Am I selling out to engage in what already is. I think the trend is continually boucing further left each time. Although the healthcare issue doesnt seem to be as near as extreme as I thought it was going to be.

If the world was ready I would not be sad in this type of culture The Venus Project - The Redesign of a culture

it may have to happen at some point if humanity is to survive. Highly unlikely.

"flip a libertarian over and too often you find yet another petit-bourgeois fascist" wow

I see what you are doing here. You can take your little insult here and shove it straight up your ass.

I am college educated. My wife and I have over $150,000 in student loans to prove it. We did it ourselves and one day we hope that it will pay off big time. So we made sacrifices and worked hard to get an education (that was more than just English classes) so that we could put ourselves and our future family in a much better position in life.

Now you and your friends say that it is great that you worked hard, achieved the American dream. Now we are going to take even more of that money you worked so hard for and give it to people that "need" it more than you.

My wife is social services attorney for a smaller county in North Carolina. Do not tell us that there is a "small" amount of people suckling off of the governments tit.

Flatland, good to hear about how hard you worked to get your degree.

Thank god (or taxes) one can get loans for education, eh?

I think it's great that tax money (in Canada, at least) is set aside for loans for education.
A classic example of providing education, and at least a shot, at achieving wealth.
I think almost all would agree it's a moral way of spending our taxes.

As to those who suck off the "tit", well, I DO think there should be minimum requirements for receiving
aid. Like, if you are physically able to work, donate 15 hours a week to your local community.
Pick up trash, whatever.

Wow. I didn't see a terrible insult in Guyy's post. (Certainly less severe than your "shove it up your ass" comment). I saw a tongue-in-cheek response to your complaint about "obscure" words (and your complaints about "redistribution of wealth").
My thoughts exactly. Where do those low interest rate loans come from?

Do I get a win, Sapiens?

Often when I encounter those who have "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps" they often seem
to miss the infrastructure they used to do so.

Or State-run Universities, for that matter?

Glad to see I'm not the only one who sees the flaw in the 'pick yourself up by your bootstraps' argument.

Let's refrain from telling people to shove things up their ass. You may have a legitimate issue with the other poster insult, I'll read it next, but your response is not acceptable.
-----Added 22/10/2008 at 07 : 08 : 39-----
There's no need to engage in childish comments like this. You could have easily made you point with out insulting the other members intelligence. Just because you disagree with his position doesn't mean you have the right to insinuate he's an idiot and would only understand smaller words.

Let's keep it civil folks.

Can we at least stick to facts.

The welfare reform of the 90s requires:

that the "head" (father or single mother) of every family on welfare must work within two years, or the family will lose benefits.

within two months of receiving assistance, adults must begin performing community service work unless they have found regular jobs.

there is now a lifetime welfare benefits limitation of five cumulative years; states may reduce even more if they choose.

When you demagogue about "disease snowballing" or "getting money and have no need to work" or "no incentive to change because check arrives every month"...the only thing you accomplish is to demonstrate that you dont know the facts.

BTW, your wife should know all of this if she is a county social services attorney.

You can technically "be off the welfare rolls" and still qualify for section 8 housing, food stamps and medicare or medicaid or whatever it's being called today. So your not really off welfare but then you are. Typical government bullshit. They feel they have at least look like they are doing something about a perceived problem while insuring they don't piss off the people living off the government teat who's voting them into office. It's just another typical government circle jerk. Don't worry no matter who gets elected they have a plan and it will suddenly all be better.

Hell, I worked for HUD a short time and there was people living on disability, and qualified for all the above assistance btw, for being an alcoholic. Apparently the lack of self disclipine is some sort of mental illness and qualifies you for all sorts of government aid.

scout...you call it "government bullshit" and "living off the government" and I call it a "social safety net"....somethng common to most civilized societies.

I hope you or your family (or mine) never need it!
-----Added 22/10/2008 at 06 : 26 : 28-----

The bullshit is all this rhetoric by McCain/Palin and "wealth distribution" as socialism.

Its called a progressive income tax...or at least McCain thought so in 2000 when he was running against Bush.
So..in 2000, it sounds like he supports Obama's 2008 tax plan....and now its socialism...go figure!

I don't recall mentioning anything about McCain in my post. Since you brought it up neither candidate is worth voting for. I wouldn't vote for either of them for a county office period. It's a sad day in the United States if all we can muster up for president is the likes of Obama or McCain. We are collectively in deep shit and it isn't going to get much better for awhile. /end threadjack.

Call it a social safety net or whatever you want it doesn't change the fact there is consecutive generations living off our tax dollars. I have witnessed several instances of three generations living within a block of each other. Drop by for a beer sometime and I'll take you around my neighborhood and you can witness it too. Just a mere 300 yards or two doors down the mobile home has camaras all around so no one steals the pot/drugs etc they sell for cash while they suck all they can from the government teat. Dad works a part time job, has for years, and they qualify for section 8, food stamps and the mom/kids get free medical care courtesy of you and I. Grandma and Grandpa and Dads brother, wife and family live behind them in two other homes. All sucking what they can from you and I. Shit they got it made. Granted there may have been some reform in the nineties but more needs to be done. It's a helluva thing to have to pass a piss test to get a job so you can pay taxes to the government so they can give your money away to people that don't have to pass a piss test to qualify for the government teat.

To equate welfare programs with government backed student loans or state supported universities is a bit of a stretch to say the least.


I do agree there needs to be a safety net for everyone. It should be a safety net, not a lifestyle.