Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Follow your own logic. If you don't care about it when I complain of unjust taxation - why should I care about it when you complain of unjust racism?
It's still open to opinion as to whether the taxation is unjust. Personally, I find it disingenuous and utterly ridiculous when people with that amount of wealth complain about taxes. Obviously people in a high tax bracket are not hurting for cash or struggling in any way, so what's their fucking problem? Seriously, what is it? Not enough yachts or Rolls Royces in your collection?
I can't believe that you're comparing it to unjust racism. That's like comparing apples to atomic bombs.
quote:
We care about it because we have a social compact - a rule book - that we've all agreed to. You don't just get to break the rules because you want to. You don't just get to change them, because you want to. Thats like tipping the checkboard over and storming away.
What rules are you accusing me of breaking here? You're saying taxation is unjust, but I don't think it is. Everyone has to pay taxes. What's unjust about it? And how does it violate the "social compact" to which you're referring?
What you apparently are advocating is a different set of rules for wealthy people, and that would be unjust. As long as the same rules apply to everyone, then I don't see why you should have a problem.
quote:
Like it or not - we have a method of dealing with change. Play by the rules - because some day the shoe will be on the other foot - and you'll want the other side to play by the rules.
I'm not really sure what prompted this. When I see the elite in society show greater care for the poor and disadvantaged in this society, then I will give them a commensurate level of care and concern. Does that seem fair enough?
Oh hell, forget about care or compassion, but what about just being fucking honest for once? Would that be too difficult for the elite of this country?
quote:
Of course they are worth it. If they weren't - they'd be verizon, or t-mobile, or sprint, or grasshoper customers. No one is forcing you to use AT&T services.
True enough, but by the same token, no one is forcing you to stay in a country where the taxation is so unjust and unfair to the rich.
Although the question of "force" is somewhat off the subject. The question is whether it's really "worth it" or not. All you're saying is that there are suckers out there who are willing to buy a magic pen and pencil set for $10,000. Of course, it's their choice and no one is forcing them, but that doesn't alter the situation as it would be seen by a neutral observer. And it's my right to make that observation. The First Amendment guarantees that - part of that "social compact" you mentioned above.
quote:
I don't think you're competent to judge that - unless you know how much the company made or lost by the decision.
The company went out of business a short time after this. I quit before it happened.
quote:
But generally speaking the market rewards good ideas, and punishes bad ideas - far more effectively than governments do, which reward based on cronyism etc.
And you don't think there's any cronyism in private business?
I will point out that mostly the same people who comprise "The Market" also comprise another entity known as "The Electorate," which also rewards good ideas and punishes bad ideas.
quote:
The only thing that establishes is that you are a biased observer, nothing more.
And you're not? You've already stated that you're in that industry and have a financial stake in it.
quote:
Calculators work better than abacuses, computers work better than slide rules. The reasons computers have virtually 100% penetration into the business world is because they have proven their worth time and time again.
I wasn't speaking of computers in general. In fact, I find that most computer hardware is reasonably priced and affordable for the average consumer. As long as it's reliable and does what it's supposed to do, then I'm happy.
quote:
In your opinion. Which, and I truly mean no offense - is worthless.
I thought you said you wanted a civil debate. Considering how often you complain about others insulting you, you don't have much room to talk. But let's move on...
quote:
The people who spending their own money have made the determination that it is worthwhile.
That's beside the point.
quote:
No, thats exactly what it means. You may not have fun doing it - but competent people making competent decision say its the right choice for them.
I'm not saying they don't have a right to make that choice. If people want to flush their money down the toilet, that's their choice too. But doesn't address the point that what you're talking about is an illusion, not reality. It's all based on what people believe is valuable to them, and in order to sell their product, the seller has to spread it on thick and make the buyer believe. It's all based on a perception, not on concrete reality. It's salesmanship.
quote:
Look mate - by your analysis its all illusion - why is digging a ditch any more real than programming a computer?
Almost anyone can dig a ditch - far fewer can program a computer or operate. We place a premium on rarity. At the end of the day, a willing buy gets a willing seller and they make a deal.
I don't think that you understand the point I'm making here. Your earlier point was that people who make a lot of money "earn" it, but that's what they say. Am I supposed to take their word for it? How is this supposed to be objectively measured in a scientific laboratory? Someone might buy a car, and then a well-meaning friend might tell him "Oh man, you paid too much for that. You got suckered." This is rather common.
That's why I can say with a clear conscience that when these people who are beneficiaries of "suckers' money" don't have a leg to stand on when they talk about alleged "unjust taxation."
quote:
Which is infintely superiour to a government dictating policy. Which is why, whenever possible, the founders sought to minimize the rule of government dictat.
Not exactly. The Founders favored a system of checks and balances within government, but they favored the idea that most of the rule of government be placed at the State level. This proved to be an unsuccessful model, as demonstrated by the Civil War which took place 70 years later. The irony is that, almost without exception, those who support a smaller, limited Federal government do a complete 180 when it comes to State governments, which they believe in giving most control to.
I would even be in favor of limiting and minimizing the role of government in society, provided that it's implemented consistently at ALL levels of government, not just with the Federal government. Since most advocates of "limited government" are woefully and wantonly inconsistent in this proposal, I find their position to be mostly hypocritical.
Just out of curiosity, are you American? I noticed you called me "mate" and spell it as "superiour." Not that it matters, but I was just curious.
quote:
I presume your question is rhetorical. Because the fairest measure of what something is worth between a willing buyer and a willing seller.
Any other result is the government TAKING from someone - and giving to someone else.
I think what you mean to say is that it's the "freest" measure in an anarcho-capitalist model, but not necessarily the fairest. If you want anarchism, then there are consequences for that - one of which is the lack of protection from the government.
You may want to reduce it to an oversimplified model of a "willing buyer" and a "willing seller," but government has to consider the larger picture and the overall stability of society. One reason why we have a relatively stable society is because our government has been flexible in this regard, even if it means taking from someone and giving to someone else. If you wish to stop government from doing so, then there will be consequences. For one, you can throw that vaunted "rule book" away if you advocate a society like that.
quote:
Which doesn't change the fact that it is by fiat. If you steal something - you go to jail. Why? because the government says so.
The government also says that defendants are entitled to a fair trial with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. "Fiat" implies a dictatorship, which our government is not.
quote:
If you're drafted - you go to war - why because the government says so.
Our government hasn't drafted anyone since the 1970s.
quote:
If your property is ED'd - then your property is taken - why? Because the government says so.
I believe the government is required to give compensation to the property owners in cases like that.
Would you rather that we have no laws or government at all?
quote:
Do you think somehow that people are any different if they are in a union, or the government, or newspapers?
No probably not, but does that mean the people in government are any worse than those in business? Theoretically, people enter government service because they have a selfless desire to serve the public. People enter business because they have a selfish desire to make as much money as possible to only serve themselves. Who should I consider to be more trustworthy and honorable?
quote:
Do you think no one in the world has ever written a dishonest hit piece? Do you think no one in government has ever approved a food because they were bribed? Do you think no union - has ever slashed tires?
In cases of bribery, I would follow the money, and that would invariably lead me to someone in the private sector. I agree that anyone who works in government and takes a bribe is guilty of violating the public trust and should be given the harshest punishment possible.
What do you have against unions? Aren't they following the same rules of the free market as the business owners? Both sides might be guilty of doing violent acts against each other, and there's a lot of history there. I would still put the unions on the moral high ground over business, since they had a legitimate grievance in demanding higher wages, while business had no legitimate reason for denying them that.
quote:
Of course. We agree. They also need to protect them against unions, foreign enemies, rabid dogs, algae blooms. Environmental disasters. We agree.
And consumers need to be protected from dishonest businesses. Workers need to be protected from unethical employers. Tenants need to be protected from greedy slumlords. The poor need to be protected from the wealthy. The weak need to be protected from the strong. The suckers need to be protected from the con men. The honorable need to be protected from the dishonorable.
quote:
No business "rules" which means govern.
Well, not "officially" anyway.
quote:
No business can force you to buy their product.
It depends on what the product is. If it's something like food, shelter, electricity, medical care or anything that might be considered a fundamental need, then people may not have any other choice but to buy the product from a business. If it's a luxury, that's another matter.
How about if we have a society where the basic human needs are provided by socialism, while capitalism can reign over the markets involving luxuries? Would that be a worthwhile compromise?
quote:
Certainly, in the past their have been abuses. But philosophically speaking it is none the less true that only goverment can force you to do something.
The key words being "philosophically speaking." Anyone with a gun can force someone to do something, and the gun doesn't know whether it's being held by a government official or a mafia thug. It still has the same effect. Philosophically speaking, the government is supposed to protect the innocent from thugs, strikebreakers, and other monsters like that - but that doesn't always happen in practice. This is why some people advocate giving even more power to government so they can do a better job of it.
If the wealthy and powerful in society would simply refrain from being dishonest, manipulative, unethical, and dishonorable at every turn, then maybe it wouldn't have been necessary for government to intervene as much as it has had to. The private sector forced this situation and brought it upon themselves, yet even then, the worst thing government has ever done to them is tax them a little more than they would like. If you could just police yourselves and exercise a bit of self-restraint, then maybe government wouldn't need to use any of this horrible "force" you're talking about.
When we talk about business, we're talking about people whose moral compass is so whack that they had to be forced to free their slaves. They had to be forced to stop employing little children in factories. They had to be forced to end all kinds of abuses which they never would have done on their own.
If you're so much against the force of government, then your best bet would be to stop creating such obscene situations that require government to intervene. Just be honest, ethical, moral, and honorable in all your affairs, and be happy with that. If that's not good enough for you, then I don't know what to say.
Bottom line is, if you allow too much disparity between rich and poor, if you allow this kind of dishonest, abusive behavior, then there will be consequences. If the government doesn't intervene on the people's behalf, then the people may rise up and put a new government in its place - and you may not like that. It's happened in many places around the world. Fair warning.
Another question for you: Have you ever read "Nicholas and Alexandra" or know much about the history of Tsarist Russia and what led to the Revolutions of 1905 and 1917?
quote:
Factually speaking, in 2003 when the republicans wanted to rein in derivates and sub-prime mortgages it was the democrats that prevented it.
Hillary clinton has gotten far more in donations this election cycle from big banks and hedgefunds than any republican. The republicans have not been in a position to pass any legislation - so when exactly do you think 'conservatives' have been doing away with these reforms.
I'm no fan of the Clintons, so if you want to criticize Hillary, I won't argue with you. Just because the Democrats have had a lot of sellouts since the Reagan era, it doesn't negate the point I made. All that means is that they're politicians who are attracted by the mighty dollar just like any other. They're not the party of FDR, JFK, or LBJ anymore. They're not the party of the working man anymore; maybe they never really were.
But...that's politics. Our disagreement here seems more philosophical, not political.
quote:
You repeating a counter-factual position doesn't make it any more truthful. Every study of medical efficacy - such as the concord 2007 study, the heritage study, even liberal sources such as commonwealth fund - finds that the medical care delivered is tops in the world.
Most ranking of healthcare published by OECD, WHO, UNESCO etc rank US healthcare poorly because it isn't free to all. Thats not the same as saying it isn't the best.
I think we were talking about costs and whether government can do it cheaper. If the British health system can spend less per capita per patient and provide optimal care for all, why can't the US private sector hospitals do it for even cheaper per capita?
quote:
Since only you know what point you were trying to make, how can I elaborate. You asked when has a private army ever defeated a government sponsored one.
I said "privately-owned" army, such as what might be employed by a Duke or some other powerful family in earlier eras. Or even private security firms or any of the armed groups raised by the drug cartels. This is what I meant by "privately owned" army. Since the examples you gave were all "unowned" armies, then you can't use them as examples. In your examples, we're talking about armies that mostly didn't even get any pay. They believed in the cause they were fighting for; they weren't amoral/apolitical mercenaries in it only for the money. They wanted to build a better society for their people.
quote:
Unworthy comment if you want to have a civil debate.
Okay, but that works both ways.
quote:
Caracas has become the murder and kidnap province of the world.
I thought Ciudad Juarez was that, due to all those private armies vying for power in a capitalist paradise. But perhaps that's no longer the case.
quote:
Standard of living is crashing.
International flights into and out of the country cancelled for lack of payment.
International phone service cancelled for lack of payment.
The government did what you suggested - it has nationalized food distribution, diaper production, oil production, rice production, fertilizer production, most banks, tv stations, glass manufacturing, cement manufacturing, gold mining, steel mills, telecommunications - I could go on and on.
And in all cases the result has been predictable. Production has crashed. Venezuelans spend hours in line looking for baby food, diapers, insulin.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-election-nationalizations-idUSBRE89701X20121008
Just curious - how do you fight corruption - when the government owns the TV stations, newspapers, radios and internet, hmm?
Well, then, maybe they need another revolution, if it's as bad as you say. Maybe they need a better leader. I have to admit I have not studied Venezuela as much as you have, so maybe you might have some ideas.
I notice that you never did address the point I made about Cuba or Russia.
But if you're going to use an example like that, I could probably come up with many more examples of capitalist countries which are also in rough shape, probably even worse off. Such as Pakistan, where I read about a man who was faced with a choice of either having to sell his daughter or sell a kidney to pay off his landlord. Or what about Mexico or Guatemala? There's scads of untold poverty and misery in those countries and pretty much throughout most of the developing world, most of which can be considered capitalist in form.
quote:
It reminds me of the old joke:
Q: What did socialists do for light before candles?
A: Lightbulbs.
Oh, how droll. That's good; hadn't heard that one before.
quote:
quote:
quote:
But lets consider the example exactly of China. 40 million people were killed under Mao's great leap forward.
But fine - lets ignore that.
Capitalists have blood on their hands, too. All it goes to show is that neither system holds the moral high ground and that the only effective basis for comparison is how good it does for the aggregate whole of the nation.
Quite changing the goal posts. You said china's economy took off after the introduction of socialist reforms.
I'm not changing the goal posts. I didn't say their economy "took off" either. I said they became very powerful in a very short period of time, which is true. The fact that Korea is still a divided country is a testament to that power, something they didn't have when they were under a capitalist regime and fighting the Japanese. In contrast, the communist regime fought the entire UN to a stalemate.
I would call that a marked improvement and a sign of a successful regime, unlike the capitalist regime which preceded them and did such a poor job. Why do you disagree with this?
It should also be noted that communist North Korea also kicked butt against capitalist South Korea, even though South Korea had more than twice the population as their neighbor to the North. We had to go in and save their bacon. And even we would not have had such a powerful army if it wasn't built up by "socialists" (as you would call them) like FDR. It's a good thing for America that ardent capitalists like Hoover or Coolidge weren't in power then, otherwise we probably would have lost World War II.
It just goes to show that conservative capitalists aren't as tough as they think they are, nor are liberals as "wimpy" as conservatives often paint them.
quote:
Zonie - this position is literally ridiculous.
Blustery opinionated comments do not a refutation make.
quote:
From 1770 to 1776 the output of the US economy increased 12 fold. No socialism there. White males enjoyed the highest standard of living in the us in 1775.
There was no United States during those years, except for the last five months of 1776.
"No socialism"? Perhaps you may be technically correct, although there was race-based slavery and a rapid expansionism involving genocide against the Native peoples as our population moved westward. They stole land and gave it away to white males who (not surprisingly) became more wealthy, and with slaves bought on credit, they didn't even have to work it themselves. Sounds like a great system.
And yes, the economy did expand along with the expansion of our territory and the ethnic cleansing of entire cultures, so I guess you're technically correct on that point.
And the government was most helpful in bringing all of that about, as well as providing the troops to protect those settlers who were moving west. It may not be "socialism" according to your definition, but it was certainly government TAKING from someone in order to give to someone else - a process which you decried up above.
quote:
Personal income increased 50% in the next two generations.
Real GDP per person increased 300% between 1870 and 1918 - which meant that gdp increased significantly more, as population exploded.
Read some history man. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States
While you may know more about computers than I do, I'm pretty certain I'm a lot more well-versed on the history of my country than you are.
What I was referring to was the post-war boom which led to an unprecedented period of prosperity and affluence that America had never seen before. It was the first time that common workers could actually own their own homes. It was a time of great boom, as people moved out of the tenements in the cities and out to the suburbs. I know this just by comparing my grandparents' generation and their situation when they were born to how well they were doing when I was born. The difference was night and day.
quote:
No. You said the economy of china took off after the introduction of socialist reforms.
Again, I didn't use those words. Re-read my previous post. I said:
quote:
Then there's China, which was a total mess for the first half of the 20th century. Japan had them on the ropes all during WW2, yet look at how powerful they became in a very short time after the 1949 Revolution.
Nowhere do you see the words "take off," nor was I even referring specifically to the economy.
quote:
I showed that is not factual.
If you want to make an argument about happiness - I'm happy to have that debate also.
I wasn't really talking about happiness either, although we can debate that as well. Who do you think is happier, the average Chinese for living in a communist country, or the average Chadian for living in a capitalist country?
quote:
Where exactly are you from?
I was born in California, grew up in upstate New York, and I've been living in Arizona for the past 30+ years. Why do you ask? What relevance does it have to what I'm saying?
|
RE: Damn Welfare Queens! - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread