Well screw the middle class.
14 Oct 2012, 1:47 pm
TM wrote:
Hopper wrote:
Then overthrow it already! Tch.
But really, that's a whole load of different arguments there. A government function is legitimate assuming it has democratic assent and doesn't go against whatever constitution or bill of rights etc that a particular country has. Where there is sufficient discord, there will be uprisings, civil wars etc. Where you break a law, the government assumes legitimacy in (if necessary) using force. That goes for every law, and would be the same even under the most minimal of governments. What those laws should be - if they should be at all - is a matter for political discourse. I'm a Socialist in the UK. I loathe a whole heap of stuff my government is doing. I follow a lot of debates and talks and thoughts on the left, and there is a lot of confusion as to what to do.
But really, that's a whole load of different arguments there. A government function is legitimate assuming it has democratic assent and doesn't go against whatever constitution or bill of rights etc that a particular country has. Where there is sufficient discord, there will be uprisings, civil wars etc. Where you break a law, the government assumes legitimacy in (if necessary) using force. That goes for every law, and would be the same even under the most minimal of governments. What those laws should be - if they should be at all - is a matter for political discourse. I'm a Socialist in the UK. I loathe a whole heap of stuff my government is doing. I follow a lot of debates and talks and thoughts on the left, and there is a lot of confusion as to what to do.
Part of the problem is that with the very split views on various things, democracy has a tendency to turn into a majority dictatorship. "You are free to leave", if this is a legitimate argument then it has to be legitimate in all cases where someone disagrees with government.
If there were more "2/3 majority" requirements it would most likely help, but if you take a lot of democratic countries a majority government does what it pleases. Even if it, thanks to voting districts or something similar has less than 50% of the votes.
When Hitler was elected, it was a social contract. When he established a dictatorship, there wasn't a social contract anymore.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
14 Oct 2012, 2:28 pm
Jacoby wrote:
A world where collecting taxes isn't tantamount to being robbed at gunpoint? Just because you rationalize the use of theft and violence doesn't change it from being what it is. What do you think happens when you don't pay these taxes? They send men with guns to your house. Just because the robber has a noble cause doesn't excuse his ignoble actions and make him not a robber.
Much like most common thieves, the noble cause usually isn't so noble when you hold it up to sunlight. My personal beliefs are that the initiation force against another is wrong, you can disagree or delude yourself into thinking that these actions don't constitute force.
Much like most common thieves, the noble cause usually isn't so noble when you hold it up to sunlight. My personal beliefs are that the initiation force against another is wrong, you can disagree or delude yourself into thinking that these actions don't constitute force.
By men with guns would you be referring to the police? Anyways there are two options if you don't like a law either move somewhere with different laws or try to change that law. Or wait maybe there are two more options break the law and be aware that its possible there will be consequences or just suck it up. I mean its not like you're going to get the noose for not paying your taxes I mean sure this country is moving in the direction of fascism but its not quite there. Though in fascism I don't know if they have taxes I'll have to refresh my memory on the specifics at some point. If I remember right though it is more likely they would just get rid of anyone who would potentially be helped by say tax funded welfare....and instead of paying taxes you just have to be nationalistic and know that if you fail to be you risk execution. But I suppose I don't know if fascism will be created here or not.
The main issue I see here though is while the uber wealthy are 'above that' and aren't typically penalized for not paying taxes...its the middle class and below that get the short end of the stick. So yes there are flaws however if humans truly are mostly just selfish self serving pigs how else do you propose we pay for things tax funds other then having laws that citizens pay taxes?
I mean if no one pays taxes than what do you think will happen? well we might be closer to pure capitalism but I can see how that could cause some problems. Anyways there are a number of things doing or not doing that will bring 'men with guns' to your door why is it any different when it comes to taxes. I mean it would be great to have no government, no cops to come and arrest you if you don't follow the laws but since that's not how it is what is a better alternative to taxation since we have such a system?
_________________
We won't go back.
14 Oct 2012, 2:36 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
Jacoby wrote:
A world where collecting taxes isn't tantamount to being robbed at gunpoint? Just because you rationalize the use of theft and violence doesn't change it from being what it is. What do you think happens when you don't pay these taxes? They send men with guns to your house. Just because the robber has a noble cause doesn't excuse his ignoble actions and make him not a robber.
Much like most common thieves, the noble cause usually isn't so noble when you hold it up to sunlight. My personal beliefs are that the initiation force against another is wrong, you can disagree or delude yourself into thinking that these actions don't constitute force.
Much like most common thieves, the noble cause usually isn't so noble when you hold it up to sunlight. My personal beliefs are that the initiation force against another is wrong, you can disagree or delude yourself into thinking that these actions don't constitute force.
By men with guns would you be referring to the police? Anyways there are two options if you don't like a law either move somewhere with different laws or try to change that law. Or wait maybe there are two more options break the law and be aware that its possible there will be consequences or just suck it up. I mean its not like you're going to get the noose for not paying your taxes I mean sure this country is moving in the direction of fascism but its not quite there. Though in fascism I don't know if they have taxes I'll have to refresh my memory on the specifics at some point. If I remember right though it is more likely they would just get rid of anyone who would potentially be helped by say tax funded welfare....and instead of paying taxes you just have to be nationalistic and know that if you fail to be you risk execution. But I suppose I don't know if fascism will be created here or not.
The main issue I see here though is while the uber wealthy are 'above that' and aren't typically penalized for not paying taxes...its the middle class and below that get the short end of the stick. So yes there are flaws however if humans truly are mostly just selfish self serving pigs how else do you propose we pay for things tax funds other then having laws that citizens pay taxes?
I mean if no one pays taxes than what do you think will happen? well we might be closer to pure capitalism but I can see how that could cause some problems. Anyways there are a number of things doing or not doing that will bring 'men with guns' to your door why is it any different when it comes to taxes. I mean it would be great to have no government, no cops to come and arrest you if you don't follow the laws but since that's not how it is what is a better alternative to taxation since we have such a system?
His alternative is a fantasy land where everything is conducted voluntarily without that big mean government coercion. You know, like that utopia we hear about in Somalia.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
14 Oct 2012, 2:43 pm
TM wrote:
Hopper wrote:
Then overthrow it already! Tch.
But really, that's a whole load of different arguments there. A government function is legitimate assuming it has democratic assent and doesn't go against whatever constitution or bill of rights etc that a particular country has. Where there is sufficient discord, there will be uprisings, civil wars etc. Where you break a law, the government assumes legitimacy in (if necessary) using force. That goes for every law, and would be the same even under the most minimal of governments. What those laws should be - if they should be at all - is a matter for political discourse. I'm a Socialist in the UK. I loathe a whole heap of stuff my government is doing. I follow a lot of debates and talks and thoughts on the left, and there is a lot of confusion as to what to do.
But really, that's a whole load of different arguments there. A government function is legitimate assuming it has democratic assent and doesn't go against whatever constitution or bill of rights etc that a particular country has. Where there is sufficient discord, there will be uprisings, civil wars etc. Where you break a law, the government assumes legitimacy in (if necessary) using force. That goes for every law, and would be the same even under the most minimal of governments. What those laws should be - if they should be at all - is a matter for political discourse. I'm a Socialist in the UK. I loathe a whole heap of stuff my government is doing. I follow a lot of debates and talks and thoughts on the left, and there is a lot of confusion as to what to do.
Part of the problem is that with the very split views on various things, democracy has a tendency to turn into a majority dictatorship. "You are free to leave", if this is a legitimate argument then it has to be legitimate in all cases where someone disagrees with government.
If there were more "2/3 majority" requirements it would most likely help, but if you take a lot of democratic countries a majority government does what it pleases. Even if it, thanks to voting districts or something similar has less than 50% of the votes.
Leave, try and change it petition, protest maybe get into politics, deal with it, complain about it ect. Point is there are a lot of actions one can take if they are unhappy with the government, society ect. But I suppose for the people who think taxation is an evil force they'd be disappointed since most nations comparable to the U.S as far as living standard also have taxation. So i guess then they'd have to eradicate taxation but just claiming its wrong isn't going to work....thus far no ones answered what would be a better way than taxation or even their thoughts on an alternative just how evil and thieving like taxation is.
_________________
We won't go back.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
14 Oct 2012, 2:48 pm
ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
Capitalists love theft and violence. Walking over land and saying only I can use it because of a piece of paper. People on "my land" need to follow my orders or get shot. That's capitalism in a nutshell.
It amazes me how right wing libertarians can conflate with capitalism liberty, and act like aggression is their main concern.
It amazes me how right wing libertarians can conflate with capitalism liberty, and act like aggression is their main concern.
The "piece of paper" is simply an instrument that says the current owner bought the land from the prior owner.
The First Owner did NOT own the land. He took it for his use. Whatever is in Nature is permissible to take and use since it does not belong to anyone.
Paper is only a symbol. The fact of purchasing or taking from nature is a fact.
If we take what you said to its logical conclusion then there would be no property at all. Or all property would be collectively owned. Which brings up the question: why are you wearing your underwear. I did not give my permission for you to wear it.
ruveyn
I hope this is not an attempt at justifying our rather grim history,....and how does any of that bring up that question? If property was collectively owned how does that indicate one would have to ask a random person permission to wear underwear that doesn't make any sense
_________________
We won't go back.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
14 Oct 2012, 2:52 pm
DancingDanny wrote:
His alternative is a fantasy land where everything is conducted voluntarily without that big mean government coercion. You know, like that utopia we hear about in Somalia.
Hmm well I can't say I would disapprove of no government, but the only way I can see that happening is communism, but real communism only issue is can people pull their heads out of their ass or not. And since currently it seems the answer is no there is no way for such a utopia to come into existence except on a small scale like communes.
And Somalia a Utopia...ha ha doubtful.
_________________
We won't go back.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
14 Oct 2012, 3:03 pm
ruveyn wrote:
RushKing wrote:
and the reality is that nothing truly belongs to anyone. We need to discuss when force and theft is justifiable. But I can't with capitalists because the refuse to agknoledge the fact that they already steal in the first place. I believe you should be free to keep the food you will eat. The stuff you grow and don't eat should be distributed.
There are people with loaded guns who will gladly refute your nonsensical statement that nothing belongs to anyone.
Well if that is true, why are you wearing the underwear you have on. It does NOT belong to you.
Sir, you have the same mentality as a pre-civilized savage. You do not recognize the distinction between what is yours and what is not. In fact you have asserted the logical equivalent that everything is yours. I could say the same. Let's have a fight to decide whose it really is.
Civilization is possible only when the distinction between mine and not mine is clearly made.
ruveyn
For someone oh so civilized you seem pretty 'savage' yourself.
It appears you aren't even talking about if someone goes and tries to steal someones private property in this society, but rather simply being of the opinion nothing should belong to anyone..... warrants needing to get out the loaded guns to refute that opinion? And you're the civil one
_________________
We won't go back.
MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland
14 Oct 2012, 3:07 pm
education reform with a heavy emphasis on STEM, short & long term tax reform, deregulation and doing away with 25% of the laws on the books, relaxing land-use and urban growth boundaries, and a renewed shift towards export-lead sustainable growth with an emphasis on high skill labor and the vocational training necessary to provide those workers, and tort reform. Pair that with tackling healthcare from the angle of costs to increase coverage instead of Obama's current approach of increasing coverage to bring down costs, and making energy cheap again.
Obama has touched on half of those and is supportive of a few of those measures. Romney is more friendly to all of the above mentioned, but it doesn't mean he will necessarily tackle all of those issues. It is a mess, and add to it that we still need heavy infrastructure and entitlement reforms, and rethinking our global military commitments.
_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,470
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
14 Oct 2012, 3:45 pm
MarketAndChurch wrote:
education reform with a heavy emphasis on STEM, short & long term tax reform, deregulation and doing away with 25% of the laws on the books, relaxing land-use and urban growth boundaries, and a renewed shift towards export-lead sustainable growth with an emphasis on high skill labor and the vocational training necessary to provide those workers, and tort reform. Pair that with tackling healthcare from the angle of costs to increase coverage instead of Obama's current approach of increasing coverage to bring down costs, and making energy cheap again.
Obama has touched on half of those and is supportive of a few of those measures. Romney is more friendly to all of the above mentioned, but it doesn't mean he will necessarily tackle all of those issues. It is a mess, and add to it that we still need heavy infrastructure and entitlement reforms, and rethinking our global military commitments.
Obama has touched on half of those and is supportive of a few of those measures. Romney is more friendly to all of the above mentioned, but it doesn't mean he will necessarily tackle all of those issues. It is a mess, and add to it that we still need heavy infrastructure and entitlement reforms, and rethinking our global military commitments.
Yeah they should probably cut corporate welfare and make sure we have an effective social safety net in place for those who struggle to or cant make ends meet. But I kind of get the impression Romney would just assume get rid of the social safety network....because those aren't the people to worry about according to him.
_________________
We won't go back.
14 Oct 2012, 3:48 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
Yeah they should probably cut corporate welfare and make sure we have an effective social safety net in place for those who struggle to or cant make ends meet. But I kind of get the impression Romney would just assume get rid of the social safety network....because those aren't the people to worry about according to him.
Two things have got to go for otherwise this country will be wrecked.
1. Corporate welfare and subsidy. It must be done away with completelyt.
2. And end to the Forever War. The U.S. spends more on its military than the next ten nations below it in expenditures. It is utterly insane. We spend ten times as much as Red China does on its military.
ruveyn
14 Oct 2012, 3:53 pm
ruveyn wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Yeah they should probably cut corporate welfare and make sure we have an effective social safety net in place for those who struggle to or cant make ends meet. But I kind of get the impression Romney would just assume get rid of the social safety network....because those aren't the people to worry about according to him.
Two things have got to go for otherwise this country will be wrecked.
1. Corporate welfare and subsidy. It must be done away with completelyt.
2. And end to the Forever War. The U.S. spends more on its military than the next ten nations below it in expenditures. It is utterly insane. We spend ten times as much as Red China does on its military.
ruveyn
How do you define corporate welfare? Some things such as ITS could be viewed as both a tax issue and a corporate subsidy.
14 Oct 2012, 3:57 pm
TM wrote:
marshall wrote:
The difference is neoclassical economics is deduced from a bunch of axioms that are just assumed to be true. One pretty ridiculous flaw is pretending that the supply curve is always positive sloping for individual wage earners. This obviously flows from libertarian ideology, not actual behavior analysis. In reality it's pretty easy to get a wage slave to volunteer more hours of work by paying him less. Why? The marginal utility differential between starving and not starving is effectively infinite while the utility differential of the additional work sold to the hiring firm is finite.
The labor supply curve, always going up is somewhat logical considering that it has wage rate as it's veritical axix and hours worked as it's horizontal axis. As nobody can work negative hours, nor be paid a negative salary, it would be hard for it to be negative. You do get the substitution effect where you see the effects of labor supply elasticity in the chart at higher wages (less hours worked at a higher wage).
So long as there isn't a negative wage or negative hours, you could start someone off at a lot of hours at a low wage, and the curve would still be sloping upwards. The person in your argument is also at all times free to decide that the pay isn't satisfying for the hours and find a new job, of course that clashes a bit with your ideology of work being more like a slave contract signed at gunpoint than a voluntary contract.
Now Marshall, what is your preferred school of economic though, I'm dying to find out so I can criticize that.
Nice dodge of my argument. That's exactly what I expected from you, an endorsement of ideology. I can tell by the way you bring up "force". The simplistic econ101 neoclassical wage theory is nothing but a cleverly veiled promotion of free-market ideology, using a bad mathematical slight-of-hand argument to claim wages are set purely by merit.
You know it would be fun to invent my own model where robbery at gunpoint is a valid contract. The victim gains the marginal utility if living another day while the mugger gains the utility of the content of the victims wallet. Both parties have increased their utility so what's all the whining about? I'd say this model is more perfect than traditional neoclassical ideology because it doesn't arbitrarily eliminate certain types of contracts that are deemed morally unacceptable for silly emotional reasons. Robbery at gun point is an extremely efficient market mechanism in my theory.
14 Oct 2012, 3:58 pm
ruveyn wrote:
TM wrote:
How do you define corporate welfare? Some things such as ITS could be viewed as both a tax issue and a corporate subsidy.
What is ITS?
In any case the revolving door between the mega corps and the government must be sealed shut.
ruveyn
Interest deductibility for corporations. Meaning that corporations can deduct interest paying from their taxes equal to the corporate tax rate. I.E 100.000 in interest payments at a corporate tax rate of 20% is a 20.000 tax deduction.
14 Oct 2012, 3:59 pm
marshall wrote:
TM wrote:
marshall wrote:
The difference is neoclassical economics is deduced from a bunch of axioms that are just assumed to be true. One pretty ridiculous flaw is pretending that the supply curve is always positive sloping for individual wage earners. This obviously flows from libertarian ideology, not actual behavior analysis. In reality it's pretty easy to get a wage slave to volunteer more hours of work by paying him less. Why? The marginal utility differential between starving and not starving is effectively infinite while the utility differential of the additional work sold to the hiring firm is finite.
The labor supply curve, always going up is somewhat logical considering that it has wage rate as it's veritical axix and hours worked as it's horizontal axis. As nobody can work negative hours, nor be paid a negative salary, it would be hard for it to be negative. You do get the substitution effect where you see the effects of labor supply elasticity in the chart at higher wages (less hours worked at a higher wage).
So long as there isn't a negative wage or negative hours, you could start someone off at a lot of hours at a low wage, and the curve would still be sloping upwards. The person in your argument is also at all times free to decide that the pay isn't satisfying for the hours and find a new job, of course that clashes a bit with your ideology of work being more like a slave contract signed at gunpoint than a voluntary contract.
Now Marshall, what is your preferred school of economic though, I'm dying to find out so I can criticize that.
Nice dodge of my argument. That's exactly what I expected from you, an endorsement of ideology. I can tell by the way you bring up "force". The simplistic econ101 neoclassical wage theory is nothing but a cleverly veiled promotion of free-market ideology, using a bad mathematical slight-of-hand argument to claim wages are set purely by merit.
You know it would be fun to invent my own model where robbery at gunpoint is a valid contract. The victim gains the marginal utility if living another day while the mugger gains the utility of the content of the victims wallet. Both parties have increased their utility so what's all the whining about? I'd say this model is more perfect than traditional neoclassical ideology because it doesn't arbitrarily eliminate certain types of contracts that are deemed morally unacceptable for silly emotional reasons. Robbery at gun point is an extremely efficient market mechanism in my theory.
It's not a dodge, it's simply explaining to you how the chart works since you obviously didn't understand it.
Still waiting for you to tell me the better alternative economic school though.
*P.S wages aren't set purely by merit in a neoclassical model, they are set by supply and demand mechanics.
MarketAndChurch
Veteran
Joined: 3 Apr 2011
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,022
Location: The Peoples Republic Of Portland
14 Oct 2012, 5:25 pm
Sweetleaf wrote:
MarketAndChurch wrote:
education reform with a heavy emphasis on STEM, short & long term tax reform, deregulation and doing away with 25% of the laws on the books, relaxing land-use and urban growth boundaries, and a renewed shift towards export-lead sustainable growth with an emphasis on high skill labor and the vocational training necessary to provide those workers, and tort reform. Pair that with tackling healthcare from the angle of costs to increase coverage instead of Obama's current approach of increasing coverage to bring down costs, and making energy cheap again.
Obama has touched on half of those and is supportive of a few of those measures. Romney is more friendly to all of the above mentioned, but it doesn't mean he will necessarily tackle all of those issues. It is a mess, and add to it that we still need heavy infrastructure and entitlement reforms, and rethinking our global military commitments.
Obama has touched on half of those and is supportive of a few of those measures. Romney is more friendly to all of the above mentioned, but it doesn't mean he will necessarily tackle all of those issues. It is a mess, and add to it that we still need heavy infrastructure and entitlement reforms, and rethinking our global military commitments.
Yeah they should probably cut corporate welfare and make sure we have an effective social safety net in place for those who struggle to or cant make ends meet. But I kind of get the impression Romney would just assume get rid of the social safety network....because those aren't the people to worry about according to him.
I sort of agree, those would be good too. They are both necessary... and is what distinguishes us from many 2nd world nations and BRICT nations, and they inspire confidence in the middle class so that they personally insure less against the risks of tomorrow, and spend more today to help our consumer spending driven economy forward, but it does hurt our savings rate tremendously.
Romney could not get rid of the safety net. Just like Bush with his pitch to the elderly via the medicare prescription drug program, the vote of the elderly is vital for the success of the GOP in election years. Regardless of who is in office this next election, our entitlements are not sustainable, and Obama or Romney will have to began cutting them for future generations, or raise taxes severely both on the wealthy and everyone in general to sustain them.
_________________
It is not up to you to finish the task, nor are you free to desist from trying.
