The P.E.A. Party asks the basic question, Poor Enough Already? in much the same way as the TEA Party asks "Taxed Enough Already."
The difference is that the PEA Party doesn't think that big government is the sole, main, or even important cause for ones lack of prosperity.
The TEA Party says they are against the redistribution of wealth.
The PEA Party is against the redistribution of wealth, and since for the past few decades that redistribution has seen the wealth of the middle class and poor flowing straight into the hands of the wealthy and uber-wealthy, we seek to correct that error.
And the PEA Party has no problem using legal means to do so--even using the government and the tax system as non-violent tools to accomplish our goal.
The PEA Party is not anti-wealth. We are anti-greed, anti-slime, and anti-idiot. It does not promote class warfare, for there are far more greedy, slimy idiots in the middle class and the poor than in the small ranks of the rich and uber-rich. However, when you combine the power of the wealthy with greed, slime, and idiocy that is a recipe for disaster.
A poor criminal robs one person at a time. A wealthy criminal robs nations.
Only the government has the power to limit the greed, idiocy, and slime and sleaze of the deviant with wealth and power.
Cutting the government, cutting regulations and oversight, cutting the power and reach of those elected to help us can not be a good thing in combating the greedy, the idiots, and the slime-balls.
Remember--it took a lot of slimy and sleazy folks to make assets toxic.
The TEA Party warns of a (some say promotes) violent civil war if their concerns are ignored. The PEA Party wants to remind every one that the most violent revolts have not been those of folks thinking they were over-taxed, but by those of the middle and poor classes against those of wealth and power who followed idiots, greedy leaders, and slime balls. Think French Revolution. Think Russian Revolution. Think Chinese Civil War. Think Vietnam.
The only successes of such class war have been the non-violent ones (think India). That is what the PEA Party supports.
Finally, the TEA Party had some issues with jokes being made about their name.
The PEA party is even more ripe for jokes with its name. But remember--the PEA Party is made up of people who have become p-----d off at being p-----d upon by the wealthy and powerful. We aren't going to take it any longer.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:The PEA Party is against the redistribution of wealth
it appears that you are completely for this since your very next line states
quote: since for the past few decades that redistribution has seen the wealth of the middle class and poor flowing straight into the hands of the wealthy and uber-wealthy, we seek to correct that error.
And the PEA Party has no problem using legal means to do so--even using the government and the tax system as non-violent tools to accomplish our goal.
Two things, first it is not always an 'error' that the wealth of the middle class and poor flow to the wealthy. Second, you absolutely are for redistributing the wealth of the rich to the poor and middle class, using the government to do so. Why would you say that you are not? This leads to many questions.... How will you determine that the money a rich person has is because the rich person took it from the poor? Are actors, singers, and music groups exploiting the poor and middle class because they take money from the poor for the actor, singer, or music groups own personal gain? I mean Jim Carrey got like $20 million for the Cable Guy! Should all profits from Avatar and Titanic be seized and be returned to the poor and middle class? How about all of the profits from the Star Wars franchise, including merchandise? Those movies and merchandise have reaped billions and billions from the poor and middle class. How are you going to determine what is greed? If I become rich by starting and growing a small business into a very large one by providing goods and services at low prices that benefits the poor, will you tax my wealth to give back to the middle class and poor simply because I end up making a lot of money? How do you decide what is rich? How do you decide who is poor? If I am 'poor' but own a car, cell phone, 46" tv, microwave, dishwasher, etc do I still get to take from the rich? Can I work a minimum wage job and just supplement my income by taking from the rich?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: And the PEA Party has no problem using legal means to do so--even using the government and the tax system as non-violent tools to accomplish our goal.
A system which relies on being able to confiscate the fruits of your labor or to imprison you in order to attain compliance is not "non-violent" in any rational sense of the word.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: A poor criminal robs one person at a time. A wealthy criminal robs nations.
Only the government has the power to limit the greed, idiocy, and slime and sleaze of the deviant with wealth and power.
Once a government has the power to limit wealth on the part of the people you don't like, it also has the power to limit wealth on the part of the people you do like. In other words, if you grant the government the power to help the poor, you have automatically granted them the power to help the rich. And since the rich can do more for any politician than the poor can, you've basically screwed yourself.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Cutting the government, cutting regulations and oversight, cutting the power and reach of those elected to help us can not be a good thing in combating the greedy, the idiots, and the slime-balls.
It can only be a good thing in combating the corporate monstronsities that have taken over this country (and pretty much every other one in the world). The only way to keep corporations from sucking at the public teat (which is the only way to combat the greedy, the idiots and the slime-balls) is to make it as constitutionally off-limits for the government to use that teat as it is for them to institute a state religion.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Remember--it took a lot of slimy and sleazy folks to make assets toxic.
Not really. The whole toxic assets thing was the brainstorm of computer geeks. We're talking about people who are great problem solvers, who excel in looking outside the box and finding ways to take advantage of anything and everything a system allows for.
When the dot-com bubble burst, you had a ton and a half of geeks out of work. A lot of them had learned that they rilly, rilly like money. And a lot of them had grown acquainted with money people and money manipulation during the dot-com days. So they found their way into big business.
The average computer geek has a computer game mentality. The long term social repercussions of what they do really aren't so much their concern. Not while they're working. They're about finding loopholes and elegant solutions and possibilities that even the designers of the system weren't aware they'd put in. Hell, I do that all the time at work. But with me, it's software. These guys were in the guts of the American corporate banking solar plexus. In the guts of a system that do-gooders like yourself had unintentionally granted an enormous amount of power. Oops. And the rest is history.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Hmmm.
I say I am for the stopping of the blundering of the middle class and the poor by members of the wealthy elite who abuse their position.
You read it that we are for taking money from the rich.
I never said anything about taking money from the wealthy. I said things about stopping the abuse some (the slimy, greedy, and idiotic) of the rich have used to rob the middle class and the poor.
I did not say a thing about raising taxes or increasing welfare, but you assume I am.
Sure, I would like to see the end of some tax breaks.
I am referring to things like ending the small tax breaks for the wealthy, since that will do nothing for me and others in the middle class or the poor except increase the debt my children and I will have to pay.
I am referring to reinstating the inheritance tax because, face it, do we really need more Paris Hilton's with unearned millions while hard working folks can't find a job to earn minimum wage?
But I am also for cutting down the size of Government. The TEA Party folks only seem to want to cut government that helps the common folks--like Health Care, Unemployment, Welfare. What about the big players? What about Boeing, Haliburton, Big-Agra? Do we really need milk subsidies?
I am for limiting what Pay Day loans can charge, and what Banks can charge on their credit cards. I want to reserve the right to sue a stupid doctor who performs the wrong operation. I want to preserve the right to sue a company that makes faulty and dangerous products because they figure the lawsuits would be less expensive than the cost of making a safe and reliable product.
These are the errors that some with wealth and power have used to redistribute the wealth from the poor and middle class. They need to be stopped.
Yes, not all the money that has gone from the middle class to the wealthy has been an error. To stop it all would be to freeze the economy and that helps no one. But the unprecedented rate that the wealth has been sucked up hints that something is wrong, and what I've mentioned above is a fine beginning of what that might be.
The PEA Party stands for FREE & FAIR Trade. That means we have enough people watching the scales. See, when cities were first created one of the earliest duties of a government was to make sure that the merchants used accurate scales. Otherwise you would be paying for a pound of butter that was actually 1/2 a pound. But modern "small government" and "no regulation" cries would have the folks who check on those scales removed. After all, its expensive to make sure your scales are accurate--they say. The PEA Party says, its also more profitable to use fraudulent scales when no one is checking up on you.
Lisa, if the Computer Geeks abused the system to make toxic assets which crippled our economy fine, lets stop them. They are the short-term Greedy folks, most of whom are now in that wealthy tier, that need to be stopped. How do you stop them? Government oversight and regulation. Not--calling them geeks and hoping they'll go away.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I shall join your P.E.A party. I'm definetly against corn subsidies for example.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Hmmm.
I say I am for the stopping of the blundering of the middle class and the poor by members of the wealthy elite who abuse their position.
Then vote them all out in November.
I don't understand this Robin Hood complex. Almost 50% of households in the US do not pay Federal Income Taxes. The top 25% of wage earners in the US pay 85% of the Federal Income taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 3%.
Hey what do I know. Tax the rich more, and tax their businesses as well. Let me ask you a serious question. If you have a business and you are paying MORE money out for taxes and health care, are you going to have the money to grow your business or hire more employees?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Perhaps it would be helpful, Darth_Mauve, if you gave a specific example of the kind of wealth redistribution you're talking about? For example, corn subsidies are a redistribution to rich Midwestern landowners. The mortgage exemption basically gives money to people who own a lot of house. And so on. No doubt Lisa, Geraine and DK could get behind ending these subsidies for the wealthy. But your current formulation just sounds like a dog whistle. Give us some specifics of what programs you would end, and you may see more support.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
More class envy and the victim mentality.
"Oh I'm broke and it's those greedy bastards fault"
I'm so sick of it all. I'm broke too but it's not Bill Gates' fault. It is MY OWN fault.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
And, of course, the economic and governmental structure we have. Do you recogize that? Or are you just another type of class warrior who thinks that people are poor because they are lazy or stupid, and that everyone is on a level playing field regardless of the circumstances of their birth?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: And, of course, the economic and governmental structure we have. Do you recogize that?
I recognize that the economic and governmental structure we have allows me to succeed if I take advantage of those opportunities. I have so far failed to do so due to my own failures but the opportunities are still there for the taking.
Are there people in this country that do not have those opportunities? Yes there are but I find those people also do not have the opportunity to get into an internet chat room to discuss it.
These are also people that are not being kept down by "greedy corporations" but primarily by a lack of educational opportunities.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"These are also people that are not being kept down by "greedy corporations" but primarily by a lack of educational opportunities. "
These two are ridiculously connected, not separate as you state.
"Are there people in this country that do not have those opportunities? Yes there are but I find those people also do not have the opportunity to get into an internet chat room to discuss it."
These two groups are also not completely connected.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: For example, corn subsidies are a redistribution to rich Midwestern landowners.
This would be a very good start, and expand it to include the immediate end of ethanol too.
quote: I say I am for the stopping of the blundering of the middle class and the poor by members of the wealthy elite who abuse their position.
well, what you actually said was
quote: since for the past few decades that redistribution has seen the wealth of the middle class and poor flowing straight into the hands of the wealthy and uber-wealthy, we seek to correct that error.
which seems to be saying that the error is the redistribution of wealth to the wealthy from the poor and middle class, and you seek to correct that error. If the wealth is not returned to the poor and middle class, where does it go? Your original post seems to be making the case against the wealthy.
quote: I want to reserve the right to sue a stupid doctor who performs the wrong operation. I want to preserve the right to sue a company that makes faulty and dangerous products because they figure the lawsuits would be less expensive than the cost of making a safe and reliable product.
Who is arguing to remove those legal protections?
quote: I am referring to reinstating the inheritance tax because, face it, do we really need more Paris Hilton's with unearned millions while hard working folks can't find a job to earn minimum wage?
Paris Hilton has earned millions of dollars as well, and has created wealth and employment for many many people. There is nothing wrong with Paris Hilton being rich yet you make it sound like there is. I fail to understand why being born wealthy is something to be punished for. Your idea is simply stealing from a family because someone died which seems grossly unfair. One way a family can build their wealth is through inheritance yet you want to deny a family something that was earned because someone else doesn't have the same thing?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: These two are ridiculously connected, not separate as you state.
Corporations prevent learning?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" I fail to understand why being born wealthy is something to be punished for."
I fail to understand why having wealthy parents is something to be rewarded for. I also fail to understand why having poor parents is something to be punished for.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:This would be a very good start, and expand it to include the immediate end of ethanol too.
Do you want to make it illegal to make ethanol?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I fail to understand why having wealthy parents is something to be rewarded for. I also fail to understand why having poor parents is something to be punished for.
Wealth is not necessarily a reward and being poor is not necessarily a punishment. Taking money from a family simply because someone dies is a punishment.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
MPH, we were talking about ending subsidies, not making things illegal. To be clear, no I do not ethanol to made illegal.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I also fail to understand why having poor parents is something to be punished for.
I don't think that not being given unearned money can reasonably be called a punishment.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: MPH, we were talking about ending subsidies, not making things illegal. To be clear, no I do not ethanol to made illegal.
Just wanted to make sure.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
So Paul, you should not be allowed to leave something behind for your children? If that's the case, feel free to write me into your will instead of your kids. I'll make sure they never see a dime of it.
Doesn't everyone want a better life for their children then they had?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Wealth is not necessarily a reward and being poor is not necessarily a punishment."
Birth wealth has a very strong correlation with life expectancy, education, future income, and a whole host of other life outcomes.
"Taking money from a family simply because someone dies is a punishment. "
While letting families accumulate wealth over generations punishes far more people than taxing wealth upon the death of the owner.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"So Paul, you should not be allowed to leave something behind for your children?"
Who said this at all?
First of all, you get HUGE benefits from having parents who are wealthy. You are leaving something behind for your children simply by virtue of having money that you can use to educate them, keep them healthy, provide a home for, etc.
Secondly, the federal estate taxes are taxes that only kick in beyond a certain level of wealth. I would say being able to leave a million dollars behind, without any tax at all, is leaving something behind for your children.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: First of all, you get HUGE benefits from having parents who are wealthy. You are leaving something behind for your children simply by virtue of having money that you can use to educate them, keep them healthy, provide a home for, etc.
Secondly, the federal estate taxes are taxes that only kick in beyond a certain level of wealth. I would say being able to leave a million dollars behind, without any tax at all, is leaving something behind for your children.
Ah I see. So it's not the fact that they are getting something that bothers you, it's the amount. How is this not envy again?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:While letting families accumulate wealth over generations punishes far more people than taxing wealth upon the death of the owner.
How is this? What sort of punishment are you talking about?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: While letting families accumulate wealth over generations punishes far more people than taxing wealth upon the death of the owner.
So we should not let families accumulate wealth? Passing wealth onto heirs punishes many many people? I'm not sure how that follows unless you are saying that the wealth should have been seized by the government and given to whomever the government thinks is best because the accumulation of wealth over generations is a bad thing. Passing a family farm down over the generations is bad? How about a business, like a publishing company?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Ah I see. So it's not the fact that they are getting something that bothers you, it's the amount. How is this not envy again? "
1) Life outcomes. People who are born wealthy stay wealthy. And live longer. And have access to better education. And are less likely to end up in jail. Are less likely to wreck lives with drugs. Etc etc etc.
2) There is not a level playing field. Estate taxes are a part of the reason for that.
3) How is not class warfare to endorse a system that heavily tilts the playing field to people who least need the tilt?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I don't think that not being given unearned money can reasonably be called a punishment. "
IT certainly can be if we're saying that estate taxes are a punishment.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't see how that follows at all.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Ah I see. So it's not the fact that they are getting something that bothers you, it's the amount. How is this not envy again? "
1) Life outcomes. People who are born wealthy stay wealthy. And live longer. And have access to better education. And are less likely to end up in jail. Are less likely to wreck lives with drugs. Etc etc etc.
2) There is not a level playing field. Estate taxes are a part of the reason for that.
3) How is not class warfare to endorse a system that heavily tilts the playing field to people who least need the tilt?
All of those still make you sound envious of their advantages and instead of trying to accumulate your own wealth so you can have those same advantages, you just want to take it from them.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"So we should not let families accumulate wealth?"
Correct. Not if we want a level playing field for people who are born into our society.
"Passing wealth onto heirs punishes many many people? I'm not sure how that follows unless you are saying that the wealth should have been seized by the government and given to whomever the government thinks is best because the accumulation of wealth over generations is a bad thing."
YEs, it should have been seized by the government and redistributed in ways that help level the playing field by building and funding roads, schools, sewage systems, hospitals, etc.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I don't see how that follows at all. "
Because you buy into the assumption that the wealth of a parent belongs to the children. OR, heck, even belongs to the parent in the first place. I'm not willing to grant these assumptions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: I fail to understand why having wealthy parents is something to be rewarded for. I also fail to understand why having poor parents is something to be punished for.
Wealth is not necessarily a reward and being poor is not necessarily a punishment. Taking money from a family simply because someone dies is a punishment.
Was this money held collectively by the family before the person died? Or did it belong to one person who then gave it to another person? Why are you assuming that the wealth will go to family members? It may be most often the case, but certainly money is bequeathed to non-family members as well. Should those people be taxed?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "I don't see how that follows at all. "
Because you buy into the assumption that the wealth of a parent belongs to the children. OR, heck, even belongs to the parent in the first place. I'm not willing to grant these assumptions.
Ah I see again. So all wealth belongs to the government to be distributed as they see fit. Now tell me how that would change anything? Do you really think ANY government would actually distribute such wealth in a fair manner? I certainly don't and history backs me up on that with a certainty.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "I don't see how that follows at all. "
Because you buy into the assumption that the wealth of a parent belongs to the children. OR, heck, even belongs to the parent in the first place. I'm not willing to grant these assumptions.
So, basically, you're rejecting the entire concept of private property?
Well, that answers that, I guess.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Not speaking for Paul here, but rejecting something as an assumption doesn't mean you're disbanding it completely, simply not starting from the premise that it has to exist, period. Private property is something we made up. If there are problems with it as a concept, we can rework it into whatever we think will work best, whether that is pure communism or something else.
I think there is a quantity of money at which point, if you are starting your life off with it, both society and your own well being may be compromised. This isn't because I'm envious (indeed, whatever this amount of money is, let's call it a million dollars for now but bear in mind I just made that up, I am just as envious of someone starting out with $999,999.99, but with these hypothetical numbers, 999,999.99 has been determined to be less damaging to socio-economic fabric of society.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I think that accumulation of wealth over generations past a certain point is likely to be bad. The italicized part may have been an unspoken shared assumption, but I think it's worth talking about explicitly. I suspect that this argument effectively comes down to where that certain point is.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Agreed. I am not remotely prepared to argue where precisely that line falls, but I think it absolutely exists.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer:
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "I don't see how that follows at all. "
Because you buy into the assumption that the wealth of a parent belongs to the children. OR, heck, even belongs to the parent in the first place. I'm not willing to grant these assumptions.
Ah I see again. So all wealth belongs to the government to be distributed as they see fit. Now tell me how that would change anything? Do you really think ANY government would actually distribute such wealth in a fair manner? I certainly don't and history backs me up on that with a certainty.
Why the assumption that he thinks that money should belong to the govt? Just because he doesn't believe wealth belongs to parents, that doesn't mean govt necessarily.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
My argument would be that, first of all, bear in mind that government should MEAN the collective will of the people (and fair distribution of wealth would be an important building block to that notion of government), as opposed to something somehow separate from them. Second of all, money doesn't even EXIST without the collective will of the people. So money, by definition, is owned by people collectively and parceled out however they want. Right now, we've decided to do so in a way that gives it back to individuals to do whatever they want with, for the most part. But that's not where it started, that's how we chose to make it.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I don't understand this Robin Hood complex. Almost 50% of households in the US do not pay Federal Income Taxes. The top 25% of wage earners in the US pay 85% of the Federal Income taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 3%.
These numbers are meaningless on their own. If the top 25% of earners earn more than 85% of the total wages, then at 85% of the total tax collected they'd be paying a lower percentage of their income in taxes than everyone else. Without that information the "25% pay 85%" is just a catchy but empty soundbite.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It isn't a totally empty soundbite, when used against the argument that the poorer people are being stolen from in order to support the richer. For instance, it undermines the idea that the richer 50% are somehow supporting themselves off the taxes of the poorer, since very little in the way of taxes (in absolute terms) are paid by that lower half.
I agree that it is not in and of itself any concern in deciding levels of taxation, though.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I also fail to understand why having poor parents is something to be punished for.
I don't think that not being given unearned money can reasonably be called a punishment.
It's a posthumous punishment. If I earn money, I can by damn give it to whomever I want.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: And, of course, the economic and governmental structure we have. Do you recogize that? Or are you just another type of class warrior who thinks that people are poor because they are lazy or stupid, and that everyone is on a level playing field regardless of the circumstances of their birth?
Aren't people that say the opposite playing class warfare as well?
Providing opportunity is different than providing all of the amenities of life. If you want to provide opportunity, then do it. Providing endless unemployment checks, welfare, health care and food stamps doesn't provide opportunity, it causes dependence. Everyone needs a job, a car, and a house, shouldn't the government provide those as well? How about a little personal responsibility and accountability instead of this idea that the government somehow owes you something?
I'm fine with ending subsidies on the wealthy. I'd be fine if everyone paid a flat percentage for Federal Income Tax, regardless of income. When the government gives people federal benefits because they are poor and does not provide a way for them to get out of poverty, then I have a problem. It isn't the rich people that are keeping the poor people in poverty.
Sadly I can totally envision conversations like this taking place:
Senator 1: "You can't just end the hand outs, that would be mean! These people need our help!"
Senator 2: "What do we do? We can't pay for it!
Senator 1: "Oh, this guy that employs 10,000 people and provides services to other businesses makes too much money. It doesn't matter if he grew up in a lower middle class family and started his business 30 years ago in a garage and has worked 16 hour days for years! He's an evil rich man!
Senator 2: "Oh, Lets just take a big chunk of his money and give it to these less fortunate! I need to get elected again!"
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: My argument would be that, first of all, bear in mind that government should MEAN the collective will of the people (and fair distribution of wealth would be an important building block to that notion of government),
Government is the agent of the people. As such, it doesn't have any rights that the people who invest it with agency have.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I also fail to understand why having poor parents is something to be punished for.
I don't think that not being given unearned money can reasonably be called a punishment.
It's a posthumous punishment. If I earn money, I can by damn give it to whomever I want.
Of course you can. And those that receive will be taxed on it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm not sure whether we're disagreeing here or not. I think the notion of the goverment as something separate from the people, period, should be a ridiculous notion.
Note that I said "should." I do not think this is the case right now. But a major reason it is not the case is precisely BECAUSE of the inertial corruption that occurs when power accumulates over time (money being one form of power).
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I don't understand this Robin Hood complex. Almost 50% of households in the US do not pay Federal Income Taxes. The top 25% of wage earners in the US pay 85% of the Federal Income taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 3%.
These numbers are meaningless on their own. If the top 25% of earners earn more than 85% of the total wages, then at 85% of the total tax collected they'd be paying a lower percentage of their income in taxes than everyone else. Without that information the "25% pay 85%" is just a catchy but empty soundbite.
Also, limiting the argument to federal income tax ignores payroll taxes.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I don't understand this Robin Hood complex. Almost 50% of households in the US do not pay Federal Income Taxes. The top 25% of wage earners in the US pay 85% of the Federal Income taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 3%.
These numbers are meaningless on their own. If the top 25% of earners earn more than 85% of the total wages, then at 85% of the total tax collected they'd be paying a lower percentage of their income in taxes than everyone else. Without that information the "25% pay 85%" is just a catchy but empty soundbite.
quote: For example, corn subsidies are a redistribution to rich Midwestern landowners.
This would be a very good start, and expand it to include the immediate end of ethanol too.
quote: I say I am for the stopping of the blundering of the middle class and the poor by members of the wealthy elite who abuse their position.
well, what you actually said was
quote: since for the past few decades that redistribution has seen the wealth of the middle class and poor flowing straight into the hands of the wealthy and uber-wealthy, we seek to correct that error.
which seems to be saying that the error is the redistribution of wealth to the wealthy from the poor and middle class, and you seek to correct that error. If the wealth is not returned to the poor and middle class, where does it go? Your original post seems to be making the case against the wealthy.
If there is a transfer from A to B, and you stop the transfer, then A has more wealth and B has less; yes. So, agreed, DM is making a case for the wealthy having less wealth than they do now. But surely there is a valid distinction between this, and arguing for transfers from B to A?
Now, of course, if it is the case (and this would not at all surprise me) that there exist transfers from poor to rich, and from rich to poor, and that the net favours the wealthy, but you argue only for stopping the poor-to-rich transfers while leaving in place the rich-to-poor ones - then, indeed, you'd have a case that this is class warfare. But I think you ought to demonstrate that this is DM's position before jumping all over him.
quote:Paris Hilton has earned millions of dollars as well, and has created wealth and employment for many many people. There is nothing wrong with Paris Hilton being rich yet you make it sound like there is.
There certainly is something wrong with the Hilton woman being rich; but the fault does not lie in her, and she should not be punished for it. Rather it lies in the idiots who make it possible for celebrities to become wealthy through sponsorship deals and whatnot. Similarly, the extreme wealth of top athletes is not the fault of the athletes but of the idiot sports fans. Alas, the only solution I can think of is a eugenics program not likely to find acceptance any time soon.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I'd be fine if everyone paid a flat percentage for Federal Income Tax, regardless of income.
This idea presumes that all money is equal and should thus be taxed equally. I think that is a completely false assumption. In order to just barely get by, a person needs a certain amount of money for rent and food- let's say around $10K a year. At around 30K a year, you're probably able to afford some niceities- you can eat out and go to the movies when you want. You can actually afford health care. At 50K, you could probably afford a house, go on nice vacations, etc. At 500K, you can laregely get whatever you want.
A progressive tax system isn't about punishing people for making more money. It's about accepting the reality that there is a slight diminishing return on the value of money. The money to just survive is of greater value than the money to take a vacation and it makes sense to tax the two differently.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I like Amanecer's point- though I am not sure I agree with how far money can go, but I am thinking in terms of family of four budgeting not individuals. To that end, economists are constantly pointing out that you give a $1 to poor people, it pretty much goes 100% back into the system, encouraging economic growth. The same $1 to a rich guy goes into a bank and so no increased shopping, no increased demands to service industry, etc. It does not help stimulate the economy.
There also are some economic studies that show when the poor get richer, everyone's wealth increases. When the rich get richer, there is a very, very slight increase to poor, but not nearly as significant- and I believe in the poor rising case, the rich ended up rising more than when the money was fed directly into the poor.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Lots of conservatives point out how loop-hole-u-lar our tax system is, and then make the leap that we should just jump to a flat income tax. This ignores not only the fact that a "flat" tax disproportionately taxes poor people, but that the simplification doesn't come from reverting to a "flat tax" at all, but rather from getting rid of deductions and other intricacies of the tax system. Which would work just as well if you got rid of them but kept the progressive tax.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:To that end, economists are constantly pointing out that you give a $1 to poor people, it pretty much goes 100% back into the system, encouraging economic growth.
I doubt very much that you can find an economist who points this out, because it is a classic populist fallacy and a distortion of what Keynesian theory actually says. Consumption does not increase the size of the economy. Investment increases the size of the economy. The one exception to this is when you have a large amount of unused resources, as in a recession; and even then you are not likely to get the optimal use out of a gifted dollar. In ordinary non-recession circumstances, you can not increase the economy's size by moving IOUs around.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Sorry- I was referring to recession circumstances.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I suggest that in a discussion about redistribution and what should be done as a general principle, points about stimulus in case of recession should be explicitly marked as such lest they cause confusion.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I don't understand this Robin Hood complex. Almost 50% of households in the US do not pay Federal Income Taxes. The top 25% of wage earners in the US pay 85% of the Federal Income taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 3%.
These numbers are meaningless on their own. If the top 25% of earners earn more than 85% of the total wages, then at 85% of the total tax collected they'd be paying a lower percentage of their income in taxes than everyone else. Without that information the "25% pay 85%" is just a catchy but empty soundbite.
So according to your link the earners of 68.7% of the nation's income paid 86.6% of the taxes. Doesn't sound quite as shocking that way, does it?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Yet I still find it disturbing that the top 1% of the nation represents 22.8% of the income, even knowing they pay 40% of the taxes.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Let me ask you a few questions.
Do you believe that having no restrictions on accumulations of capital other than the market itself a problem?
Do you believe that the government of the USA spends your money in a proper and fair manner?
At what point do you say enough is enough to handouts and bailouts? Give me a value. How long should unemployment benefits be given? How long should someone stay on welfare roles? How long before you would consider these benefits a dependence instead of a helping hand?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Lets clarify a few points about what I was saying.
1) I do not propose going to the homes of the rich and pulling out all their good china and giving it to the poor. I propose ending the slimy and greedy practices of a few who have wealth and power on their side.
One example recently slightly adjusted was the minimum wage. It had stayed the same for 20+ years while the wages of the CEO's doubled almost yearly. When they give away the salaries of 100 employees to pay for the golden parachute of the CEO who ran the company into the ground in order to make the stock look valuable, then that is wrong and needs to be stopped.
When the head of a bank gets more in bonuses than the entire yearly salary of 50 of the bank employees he fired because of hard times, I don't see how that is helping the economy, the middle class or the poor.
2) When I said Paris Hilton was undeserving of her millions, I was referring to her before she was discovered creating her first productive service--that entertaining video. There are a lot of people like her. They walk around after inheriting more than the average middle-class person could earn in ten life-times, and they seem to believe that they earned this money because...well...because they some how earned the right parents.
Everyone talks about earning their wealth and I am all for earned wealth. Warren Buffet is a fine man who earned his wealth. Sam Walton earned his wealth. But why is my hard work a laughing matter by people who were born into a Harvard degree?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The minimum wage is a terrible way to redistribute wealth. If you want people who can't find a job paying more money to have more money, use a reverse income tax to give them more money from the broad tax base (the position I support).
Increasing the minimum wage is, in good times, either an approximately zero impact or negative impact move, overall, when you take into account the increased welfare of people who get more money and the decreased welfare of the people who lose jobs. What's more, the current high minimum wage seems to have priced quite a few people out of jobs in the current situation (the data seems to be that low wage jobs, especially minimum wage jobs, except for temp work, are seeing the least hiring, while temp work is seeing much more extensive use -- all signs that the work of an ongoing low wage worker doesn't generate the income required to sustain that worker's position). If businesses were able to pay workers amounts concurrent with the value they generated, businesses would be able to hire many more people. The wages would be low, but that's where the reverse income tax comes in -- just like a minimum wage, it would ensure people had enough income to live, only more consistently, and with fewer negative side effects.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Do you believe that having no restrictions on accumulations of capital other than the market itself a problem? "
Yes. The market freaking SUCKS. I do not believe that an unregulated, or moderately regulated market, is better for the population as a whole than a heavily regulated market.
"Do you believe that the government of the USA spends your money in a proper and fair manner?"
I believe that the government of the USA spends far too much money helping people with a lot of money hold onto it, and not NEARLY enough money helping people move up the economic ladder.
"At what point do you say enough is enough to handouts and bailouts? Give me a value. How long should unemployment benefits be given? How long should someone stay on welfare roles? How long before you would consider these benefits a dependence instead of a helping hand?"
Handouts and bailouts should be stopped when they stop helping. We haven't gotten close to the point where the money we are spending on handouts and bailouts is more than the money we get back from those handouts and bailouts.
Instead of unemployment benefits over a period of weeks or months, I think we should give people moderate to large lump sums. On the order of 50-100k dollars.
Welfare assisstance should be given to anyone who needs it, and is using the assistance productively.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I believe that the government of the USA spends far too much money helping people with a lot of money hold onto it
How to you think the government spends money doing this?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
The entire structure of our economic regulatory system is pretty well designed to make sure that people with money have an easy time holding onto it, while making it extremely hard to accumulate wealth without a good baseline. Our over-seas military ventures do almost nothing for us other than protect the economic interests of some of our wealthiest corporations. Our environmental regulations are so freaking weak because it is against corporate interests. We have mammoth subsidies for large corporations that simply do not exist for smaller businesses. And the list goes on and on. The tax code is pretty much designed so that if you have a lot of money you can pay far less in taxes than you should, based on the strict percentages. And the list goes on...
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Our over-seas military ventures do almost nothing for us other than protect the economic interests of some of our wealthiest corporations.
Yes, that involves spending a lot of money.
quote:Our environmental regulations are so freaking weak because it is against corporate interests.
That does not.
quote:We have mammoth subsidies for large corporations that simply do not exist for smaller businesses.
Some of these subsidies involve spending lots of money, while others give companies tax breaks. (Not collecting taxes from somebody is not spending money.)
quote:The tax code is pretty much designed so that if you have a lot of money you can pay far less in taxes than you should, based on the strict percentages.
This does not involve the government spending a lot of money.
[ August 17, 2010, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote: Our over-seas military ventures do almost nothing for us other than protect the economic interests of some of our wealthiest corporations.
Yes, that involves spending a lot of money.
quote:Our environmental regulations are so freaking weak because it is against corporate interests.
That does not.
quote:We have mammoth subsidies for large corporations that simply do not exist for smaller businesses.
Some of these subsidies involve spending lots of money, while others give companies tax breaks. (Not collecting taxes from somebody is not spending money.)
quote:The tax code is pretty much designed so that if you have a lot of money you can pay far less in taxes than you should, based on the strict percentages.
This does not involve the government spending a lot of money.
To some people, everything we own basically belongs to society, as represented by the government. To the extent that the government allows us to keep money, it is in effect spending that money on us. So tax cuts and even tax refunds are really like grants which are being paid for by society.
Of course, that's inhuman, but the view exists.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
If you were to remove government from the equation, the concept of money would not exist, and the concept of property would be defined as "if you are strong enough to keep it, it's yours." The notion that we have an intrinsic right to property (that we can expect to not have stolen) is not an inherent, obvious truth, and certainly not one that can exist without some form of government's authority to back it up.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Do you believe that having no restrictions on accumulations of capital other than the market itself a problem? "
Yes. The market freaking SUCKS. I do not believe that an unregulated, or moderately regulated market, is better for the population as a whole than a heavily regulated market.
So you are a self admitted Marxist then?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: If you were to remove government from the equation, the concept of money would not exist, and the concept of property would be defined as "if you are strong enough to keep it, it's yours." The notion that we have an intrinsic right to property (that we can expect to not have stolen) is not an inherent, obvious truth, and certainly not one that can exist without some form of government's authority to back it up.
Who told you that? What an odd thing to say.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I don't know if I heard it from anywhere in particular. I'm not sure if I came up with it on my own, but it seems like a pretty obvious extrapolation from other things I know to be true.
Money as a concept only exists when people collectively agree that it exists (again, I define people collectively agreeing to things as government, not sure if this is a semantic point on which we disagree. If you do have a different definition of government that you feel is important to distinguish, let me know).
Property that we have a right to beyond our ability to protect it ourselves only exists when people collectively agree to help each other protect it.
You can strip away a lot of other extraneous parts of government and still get to those two places pretty easily, but the bottom line is that "rights" are meaningless without collective agreement to enforce them. And there's no rule woven into the universe that people must collectively agree to any particular set of rights. But you CAN objectively observe which collective agreements lead to more suffering.
I think it is valuable to agree that people have the right to acquire property, to some extent. I do not think it is necessarily valuable to assume that this right should be extended infinitely.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Do you believe that having no restrictions on accumulations of capital other than the market itself a problem? "
Yes. The market freaking SUCKS. I do not believe that an unregulated, or moderately regulated market, is better for the population as a whole than a heavily regulated market.
So you are a self admitted Marxist then?
Geraine, What do you think it means to be a Marxist?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Do you believe that having no restrictions on accumulations of capital other than the market itself a problem? "
Yes. The market freaking SUCKS. I do not believe that an unregulated, or moderately regulated market, is better for the population as a whole than a heavily regulated market.
So you are a self admitted Marxist then?
I've been reading comments like this more and more often and I'm ... well, entertained that since 'socialist' is kind of losing its bite as a pejorative label, we're making the jump to calling people 'Marxists.' With or without actually really understanding what a Marxist is. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Are you now or have you ever been a Marxist? Don't wait for the translation, answer me now!
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Money as a concept only exists when people collectively agree that it exists (again, I define people collectively agreeing to things as government, not sure if this is a semantic point on which we disagree. If you do have a different definition of government that you feel is important to distinguish, let me know).
You're probably aware of this, but just in case you're not, you might find it helpful to know that Lisa thinks her rights are written into the physical structure of the universe, and exist whether they're enforced or not. I would not be entirely surprised if she thinks the act of, say, picking up a rock and making a tool from it has the additional effect of adding a little XML tag to each atom of the rock, saying <owner>Lisa</owner>.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually thought her last response was rather interesting (insofar as, rather than "that's wrong", she seemed more like "that's weird"). I was interested in seeing where the discussion went from there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As a side note: if all objects had an atomic schema of well-formed XML, my job would be so much easier.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
also, as per the OP
quote:The PEA Party is not anti-wealth. We are anti-greed, anti-slime, and anti-idiot.
And, apparently, pro-empty platitude. Might as well say 'the PEA party is pro-good, pro-right, and pro-pony'
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Well, the question I posed was a quote by Marx, so yes, I would say Marxist. I don't think it is that big of a jump.
But that is fine. Disregard it. Let me ask a more direct question.
Do you want the US to change from a Capitalist society to a Socialist society?
I saw a quote somewhere that said "When you implement 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,' magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Do you want the US to change from a Capitalist society to a Socialist society?
You realize that's a false dichotomy?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Do you want the US to change from a Capitalist society to a Socialist society?
What do you mean 'society?' What does a society have to be to classify as a 'socialist society' versus a 'capitalist society?'
I'm going to guess that the artificial separation of these social concepts is 'in a capitalist society, society is <insert positive, individualistic concepts here> and in a socialist society is <insert negative, parasitic concepts here>'
But for what it's worth, if we apply the words in their nominal definition, the united states has both 'societies' interwoven into it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: As a side note: if all objects had an atomic schema of well-formed XML, my job would be so much easier.
Mine too! Except, in fact, it would probably be so easy that I'd likely be out of a job.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Samprimary, thats not what I am trying to do. Both socialist and capitalist societies or systems have positive and negative aspects. I am not saying that a free market system is perfect in any way. It is my personal opinion that it works better than a socialist system, but not perfectly.
I simply feel that there is more opportunity for prosperity and in a free market system than a socialist one.
I'm not saying socialism can't work because it can. The thing that gets in the way of it is the people. People have a strong desire to look out for themselves and their own self interests. As long as people are selfish, socialism can't work.
I may be looking at this from the wrong point of view. If you feel I am, please enlighten me. I come here to learn Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Your mistake is in thinking that these two are binary alternatives. There is a whole continuum. Someone is suggesting that the saturation be increased from 0.425 to 0.426 (on a scale from 0 to 1), and you immediately respond "So you prefer black to white, then?"
As a side note, I would myself prefer that the saturation be tuned down to 0.35, but that's a completely separate point. To have an intelligent discussion at all, it's necessary first to recognise that we're not at the endpoints and we're never going to be. The Soviet Union under Stalin hit, maybe, 0.85.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think the main thing is that the US already IS socialist, so the point of your question is rather unclear. We could become more (or less) socialist, but that's still a bad question, since there are a thousand individual ways to implement specific socialist ideas, and each of those ideas can be good or bad for various reasons.
Socialism does not equal communism. Communism (as implemented by the soviets anyway) did suffer from self-centered-ness. But a lot of the things that are wrong with communism (decisions made by distant bureaucracies that don't know what's good for local areas, people feeling that the amount of work they do is unrelated to their payment and therefore not working hard) are just as present in modern US corporations. (I learned why soviet communism failed largely from working at the A&P supermarket, where I got to see everything I had learned in history/economics class firsthand).
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: I'm not saying socialism can't work because it can. The thing that gets in the way of it is the people. People have a strong desire to look out for themselves and their own self interests. As long as people are selfish, socialism can't work.
So you're saying socialism can't work?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would be delighted to be a socialist as Canada or even Ireland - or most of Europe.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
I'd be leery of Ireland in its current austerity drive. I'd choose Germany.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Samprimary, thats not what I am trying to do. Both socialist and capitalist societies or systems have positive and negative aspects.
er, that's a nice disclaimer, followed pretty rigidly with a "socialism can't work" -
quote:I'm not saying socialism can't work because it can. The thing that gets in the way of it is the people. People have a strong desire to look out for themselves and their own self interests. As long as people are selfish, socialism can't work.
But that's all a digression. What I'm interested in and asked about was what does a society have to be to classify as a 'socialist society' versus a 'capitalist society?'
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
Throw out the labels, it just distracts everyone into engaging in arguments over definitions. I'll put my worldview into very simple terms.
1. Anything which gives someone else any level of control over my own life is wrong, even if that person was benevolent and it made my life easier.
2. Anything that increases my freedom to choose my life is good, even if that makes my life harder.
Too many people in this world think it is their right to be happy. They point to the Declaration and and say it gives them the right to be happy. They do NOT have a right to be happy, they have the right to "the pursuit of Happiness." There is a difference.
Anything which is given to me for no effort on my own holds very little value to me.
Anything I have earned through my own labors holds enormous value to me.
So at the end of the day, all I ask to be given is my freedom. The freedom to choose how I will live, the freedom to succeed, the freedom to fail. The only limit I want placed on myself is to have those same freedoms extended to everyone else so that neither I nor anyone else can take that from them. All else is dross.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So traffic laws are wrong? Laws against - well anything really?
You fail to realize that you have already been given much more than most people.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Anything which gives someone else any level of control over my own life is wrong
Do you believe it's OK for an individual or group of individuals to voluntarily exchange some level of freedom for compensation?
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Anything which is given to me for no effort on my own holds very little value to me.
So, your life, your care and nurture as a child, the love of your parents . . . all of very little value?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: 1. Anything which gives someone else any level of control over my own life is wrong, even if that person was benevolent and it made my life easier.
If you grant me the same inclusion into your axiom, then I can say I can shoot you and steal everything in your house, and anything that gives 'someone else any level of control over my own life' (say, putting me in jail for doing such a thing) is wrong.
This is so morally indefensible to the absolute that it would even send zealotic adherents of the non-aggression principle running for the hills.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I think the main thing is that the US already IS socialist,
Actually, we're a particular kind of socialist. See, socialism has public ownership of the means of production. The term for private ownership of the means of production along with public control of the means of production is "fascism". The real thing; not the word that everyone throws at anyone they don't like. There's another term for it, actually, but I'd be accused of violating Godwin's Law if I were to mention it, even though I'm not referring to the bloodthirsty policies that went with it in German.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: You fail to realize that you have already been given much more than most people.
No, I realize that just fine thank you and wish to extend that freedom to others.
Why is it that whenever someone has more than someone else, the answer is always to take the excess away from that person, rather than have the less fortunate attain more?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Strictly speaking, the difference would be in who controls production. If production is controlled privately, I'd consider that capitalist. If it is controlled by the community, I would consider that socialist.
Let me put it this way. Socialism can work as long as it is implemented from the bottom up, not the top down. It can work but it is a very difficult system to sustain. It can be sustained only as long as people feel they are being treated fairly.
The LDS church actually practiced a form of socialism in the early days of the church called the United Order.
Though private property still existed, you would "consecrate" all of your money and goods that you received to the church. You would then be given a "stewardship" based on your wants and needs for your family.
quote: If you grant me the same inclusion into your axiom, then I can say I can shoot you and steal everything in your house, and anything that gives 'someone else any level of control over my own life' (say, putting me in jail for doing such a thing) is wrong.
This doesn't hold, simply because you took control from someone else in the first place.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Anything which gives someone else any level of control over my own life is wrong
Do you believe it's OK for an individual or group of individuals to voluntarily exchange some level of freedom for compensation?
Seriously? Is this going to be another one of those "You implicitly agree, and if you don't, you can always leave" arguments? Because no, we really can't. There's only one country on earth that was founded on the principles of individual freedom, and to change that and say, "Sorry, try somewhere else" is a very unfunny joke.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: 1. Anything which gives someone else any level of control over my own life is wrong, even if that person was benevolent and it made my life easier.
If you grant me the same inclusion into your axiom, then I can say I can shoot you and steal everything in your house, and anything that gives 'someone else any level of control over my own life' (say, putting me in jail for doing such a thing) is wrong.
This is so morally indefensible to the absolute that it would even send zealotic adherents of the non-aggression principle running for the hills.
You completely failed to notice the conclusion so I write it here again:
The only limit I want placed on myself is to have those same freedoms extended to everyone else so that neither I nor anyone else can take that from them.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Do you believe it's OK for an individual or group of individuals to voluntarily exchange some level of freedom for compensation?
Only if it was unanimous and only affected them. They have the right to decide that for themselves but not for me.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:They have the right to decide that for themselves but not for me.
How do you handle something like a national military then? Should it not exist if unanimous consent isn't behind it? Or should the funding for such a service be entirely voluntary?
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:They have the right to decide that for themselves but not for me.
How do you handle something like a national military then? Should it not exist if unanimous consent isn't behind it? Or should the funding for such a service be entirely voluntary?
The military; if used correctly, exists to protect my freedom and that of others. It is therefore a benefit to all and should be funded by all.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: The military; if used correctly, exists to protect my freedom and that of others. It is therefore a benefit to all and should be funded by all.
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Anything which gives someone else any level of control over my own life is wrong, even if that person was benevolent and it made my life easier.
I can't reconcile the two statements.
Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT:
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: The military; if used correctly, exists to protect my freedom and that of others. It is therefore a benefit to all and should be funded by all.
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: Anything which gives someone else any level of control over my own life is wrong, even if that person was benevolent and it made my life easier.
I can't reconcile the two statements.
Why not? The military does not have power over me. They are not deciding my life for me.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The military; if used correctly, exists to protect my freedom and that of others. It is therefore a benefit to all and should be funded by all.
But it protects your freedom by taking some away, with no consideration given to your will in that decision. There's now a collective calculation of which action/inaction provides greater freedom where you no longer are the only agent that decides how your resources are expended.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Hmmm. Tax money gathered from individuals is spent in (significant) part for the support of the military, federal resources of other sorts are spent on the military (including public land), there is required registration for military service by young male citizens, there is the potential for a draft in time of need -- and to oppose any of these with effect is to enter into a well-trod road of enforcement.
These look like a level of control, albeit at times minor in effect. Still, always there, and what you said was "any level of control." For example, try not paying the portion of your taxes that funds the military. Eventually, it should get interesting.
Or, you know, you could just abide by that rule which enjoins you to support the military as part of your federal tax burden.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
And I forgot: sticks! marshmallows! bodily fluids!
In error I left the Way of Scott; and lo, in how many ways shall I suffer to repent. Posted by Wingracer (Member # 12293) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:The military; if used correctly, exists to protect my freedom and that of others. It is therefore a benefit to all and should be funded by all.
But it protects your freedom by taking some away, with no consideration given to your will in that decision. There's now a collective calculation of which action/inaction provides greater freedom where you no longer are the only agent that decides how your resources are expended.
Again, everyone seems to ignore the last part of my original post. I stated that those freedoms I want for myself must also go to ALL others. That automatically limits my freedoms, otherwise I would be an all powerful tyrant. In order for everyone to be free, they must be protected from those that wish to take it. This means a professional military.
I do not see this as a limitation but an empowerment as without it, I will be enslaved.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
But ... it also, concurrently, limits your freedom. As (I think) you acknowledge.
This is my quibble with all-or-nothing, black-and-white, categorical statements of political or personal philosophy. They work for bumper stickers, but not for real life. Real life is messy. There are exceptions and unacknowledged or vaguely acknowledged assumptions. Here, above, is one. There are others.
That is one reason why people may not see things as baldly, clearly, and black-and-white obviously as you. They may indeed be looking at the messiness swept under the rug.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wingracer: You completely failed to notice the conclusion so I write it here again:
The only limit I want placed on myself is to have those same freedoms extended to everyone else so that neither I nor anyone else can take that from them.
I noticed it, and in particular, notice that the numbered points rendered to set up the idea are just .. not .. applicable .....
You're using words and applying ideas in absolutes which are unworkable and completely arbitrary and end up conflicting. You are just deciding to call some limitations which point one explicitly disallows and calling them something else entirely, like, um 'empowering limitations.'
Note also the abuse of Declaration 'rights.'
quote:They do NOT have a right to be happy, they have the right to "the pursuit of Happiness." There is a difference.
Note we do not have the right to either any more than we have the 'right to liberty.'
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
*grin
PS: Back to marshmallows for me, for now, alas. Current political philosophy gives me indigestion -- moreso even than marshmallows!
Best wishes for a stimulating and respectful conversation.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Again, everyone seems to ignore the last part of my original post. I stated that those freedoms I want for myself must also go to ALL others. That automatically limits my freedoms, otherwise I would be an all powerful tyrant. In order for everyone to be free, they must be protected from those that wish to take it. This means a professional military.
I do not see this as a limitation but an empowerment as without it, I will be enslaved.
So you are OK with freedoms being taken against your will, provided the effect is that you have more net freedom than you would have if those freedoms were not taken from you. Is that correct?
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: But ... it also, concurrently, limits your freedom. As (I think) you acknowledge.
This is my quibble with all-or-nothing, black-and-white, categorical statements of political or personal philosophy. They work for bumper stickers, but not for real life. Real life is messy.
Amen. I think of this whenever I listen to anarchists, utopian socialists, communists, or Objectivists.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
Note also the abuse of Declaration 'rights.'
quote:They do NOT have a right to be happy, they have the right to "the pursuit of Happiness." There is a difference.
Note we do not have the right to either any more than we have the 'right to liberty.'
While technically correct, what is not an enumerated right is nonetheless referred to as an inalienable natural right in the document that started it all.
I'm always baffled when people show disdain for the rights enumerated in the Declaration (or for anything else in the Declaration.) The Framers certainly didn't view it with disdain. I sometimes think perhaps such people feel equal disdain for the Constitution, but the Constitution actually is the law of the land, so they can't blatantly disregard it and act as though it has no relevance or bearing on the country today. Not that some don't try, of course.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Seriously? Is this going to be another one of those "You implicitly agree, and if you don't, you can always leave" arguments? Because no, we really can't. There's only one country on earth that was founded on the principles of individual freedom, and to change that and say, "Sorry, try somewhere else" is a very unfunny joke.
This exactly.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: But ... it also, concurrently, limits your freedom. As (I think) you acknowledge.
It doesn't limit my freedom to act in an objectively legitimate way. "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." That is not in any way a limitation on a sane person. Only on a beast.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Seriously? Is this going to be another one of those "You implicitly agree, and if you don't, you can always leave" arguments? Because no, we really can't. There's only one country on earth that was founded on the principles of individual freedom, and to change that and say, "Sorry, try somewhere else" is a very unfunny joke.
This exactly.
Then you're basing yourself on nothing but thuggery. Congratulations.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
What??? Lisa, you just completely misread me! I was agreeing with you. What you said about this country is exactly right. It's the thing that people who want to make our country more in line with socialized European countries either don't understand or choose to ignore.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by CT: But ... it also, concurrently, limits your freedom. As (I think) you acknowledge.
It doesn't limit my freedom to act in an objectively legitimate way. "My right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins." That is not in any way a limitation on a sane person. Only on a beast.
How is being subject to a compulsory tax to fund the military "act[ing] in an objectively legitimate way"? You aren't acting, you're being acted upon.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
Note also the abuse of Declaration 'rights.'
quote:They do NOT have a right to be happy, they have the right to "the pursuit of Happiness." There is a difference.
Note we do not have the right to either any more than we have the 'right to liberty.'
While technically correct, what is not an enumerated right is nonetheless referred to as an inalienable natural right in the document that started it all.
I'm always baffled when people show disdain for the rights enumerated in the Declaration (or for anything else in the Declaration.) The Framers certainly didn't view it with disdain.
i show disdain for people assuming that the declaration is a legal document that actually provides rights.
it provides none.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: What??? Lisa, you just completely misread me! I was agreeing with you. What you said about this country is exactly right. It's the thing that people who want to make our country more in line with socialized European countries either don't understand or choose to ignore.
My most humble apology. Given the way this board has been going, I automatically took the "this exactly" the wrong way. I'm very sorry.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
Note also the abuse of Declaration 'rights.'
quote:They do NOT have a right to be happy, they have the right to "the pursuit of Happiness." There is a difference.
Note we do not have the right to either any more than we have the 'right to liberty.'
While technically correct, what is not an enumerated right is nonetheless referred to as an inalienable natural right in the document that started it all.
I'm always baffled when people show disdain for the rights enumerated in the Declaration (or for anything else in the Declaration.) The Framers certainly didn't view it with disdain.
i show disdain for people assuming that the declaration is a legal document that actually provides rights.
it provides none.
SamP is right, and I agree with him. Mark it on your calenders, this is truly a historic event.
The Declaration does not refer to rights guaranteed by the government. That is what the Constitution and Bill of Rights was for. The Declaration refers to rights given not by the government, but by God.
I would be interested to find out exactly what the Founders were referring to in regards to "liberty." As they said it was an inalienable right endowed by their creator, were they referring to free will? Were they referring to liberty of tyranny, taxation, or government? How do you interpret it?
Everyone has a right to live, to make their own decisions, and to try and be happy. That doesn't mean that the government or others are forced to provide the means in which to do it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
No document "provides" rights. Rights are there whether they are recognized or not. Any "rights" given by the government above those are nothing of the sort. They are entitlements. Gifts. As Geraine points out, government can "guarantee" rights, but it cannot grant them.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: What??? Lisa, you just completely misread me! I was agreeing with you. What you said about this country is exactly right. It's the thing that people who want to make our country more in line with socialized European countries either don't understand or choose to ignore.
My most humble apology. Given the way this board has been going, I automatically took the "this exactly" the wrong way. I'm very sorry.
No problem. I should have said "QFT," since that has less room for misunderstanding.
Re: what Geraine said... This exactly. I mean... QFT! Oh, but I didn't quote it. Hmmm... I guess I'll just say "I agree" and leave it at that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No document "provides" rights.
When we are talking about law, society, social, and legal/contractual systems, it does. You can say as much as you want that it is not true in your private religious/moral view, but for the purposes of this (more actionable) discussion, yes, documents provide rights. Much like 'the constitution' or 'your green card.'
![[Smile]](smile.gif)