Federation vs. US principles

[DevilEyes]

Furthermore, what is society 'due'?
If the rich person who works to earn their money does not deserve it, what has 'society' done to deserve the money?

Um, providing the very conditions and institutions for that person to gain that money? As well as the conditions for them to use that money to get what they want, be it material goods, power, status?

So if I come to your home and take the money from your wallet, you would be happy if I told you "At least I didn't take your stereo and TV." I think not.

No matter how small the theft is, nothing gives the state the right to take it.

Correct, but absolutely beside the point, since we're talking about taxing, not theft.

Why?

And how does this justify theft?

 

[iguana_tonante]

(A) to hold us to a higher standard than yourself is self-contradictory and illogical (see the collective works of Al Franken)

I'm not holding anybody to a higher standard than myself. I think my posts have been polite and respectful, even if sometimes nipping. And if you think that having a laugh comparing my dislike of Rand to genital crushing is offensive, I think you should take time to relax more.

(B) I find it amusing that you would lecture us on not being reasonable and civil--and then bait us at every opportunity. One might call it "Orwellian".

You are giving me too much Machiavellian credit. I'm not lecturing anyone. I'm not baiting anyone. I am engaging in a discussion. Expect disagreement.

Again, this is the European scale I'd referred to in the beginning of this debate.

There is no "European scale" and "American scale". There is a multivariate political spectrum in which American politics and European politics have different centres of gravity.

The terms Left and Rightwere coined during the French Revolution

And used ever since more or less in the same way all over the world. Except for you, it seems.

It's worth noting that the French Revolution was a miserable faliure

Wait, what? The French Revolution, for all its issues and derailments, is one of the founding events of the modern era, and it shaped the development of secular democracy, liberal principles and participatory citizenship.

because they had proclaimed a faulty concept of rights--the rights of society, rather than the rights of the individual as proclaimed by the Founders.

The main reason why the French Revolution experienced much more struggles than the American one was that it was put trough old rivalries, population density, economic dearth and foreign military ventures, while the US had a clean state on a new territory rich in resources to begin with. To ascribe it to some ideological differences is the mark of the "mythology" I was talking before.

No self-respecting Conservative would link himself with monarchism, or theocracy.

And no true Scotsman would refuse a healthy serving of haggis.

Conservatism and free-market capitalism do NOT have a "historical connection" with monarchists, aristocrats, and theocrats.

It would be nice if you informed your fellow Conservatives of that.

It wasn't just "our own neighborhood." Every single member of the Greatest Generation I have asked about these matters have concurred.

Mmh, a bunch of old people agreeing things were better in their days. How surprising.

Good sir...would you kindly source your claims that Singapore is an "almost fascist" society?

I think I already did. Two times. While you have yet to answer my question.

If you want to play cute and use titles, at least you should get it right and call me Doctor. But I would rather talk like adults and stick to issue instead of feigning "respect" with titles while dodging questions.

iguana_tonante...the very fact that you are debating me, and the rest of us, proves that you do not believe that all politics is subjective.

Arguing that an issue is subjective is not the same thing as arguing that all opinions are equally correct and applicable. Relativism is not the same thing as nihilism.

To paraphrase Aristotle, I can prove the Law of Non-Contradiction right now: all you have to do is open your mouth and say something.

I don't think you are doing what you think you are doing.

Every time you contradict what I say, and assert that your point of view is more valid, you therefore imply that your POV is more logical, and more true--because truth, by its very nature, is exclusive. "A" cannot equal "non-A".

I advise you to look about fuzzy logic. Politics and social interaction are definitively instances where black-and-white Bayesian logic is too simplistic.

Indeed, your constant assertions that Conservatism is based on groupthink, wheras Liberalism/"Progressivism" is based on actual historical knowledge, proves, again, that you do not believe that all politics are subjective.

I never did such a thing. I argued that your position is based on a mythological interpretation of historical facts, not that all conservatives share that belief.

Ah. The Al Franken Method:

Not at all. I stand by my assertion. I offered a different interpretation. Which was, historically, more valid that the one presented.

His book is filled with "jokes", BTW.

I hope they are funny.

Not at all. As Samuel Adams said of this notion of a "community resource pool":

Well, shocking to say, but I disagree with Samuel Adams on this issue.

So what your are saying is that, in weeding out internal logical contradictions...Objectivism therefore is impractical?

I am saying that non-Euclidean geometries might be internally consistent, but it doesn't mean they are valid alternatives to use when building a house.

I think you're taking a lot of things for granted. If a philosophy is not logically consistant with itself...then why should it be taken seriously?

Because it works. While you are building castles in the sky, people are trying to find solutions here on Earth.

And if he lives in a society, he takes on the right of partaking in the community resource pool, and the duty to contribute to it.

No, he has the right to offer his own resources to another person in exchange for his. Otherwise he is taking the product of another man's labour.

There are some resources that can't be denied and can't be bought. To give a coarse example, the very presence of other human beings gives you protections against wild beasts. Are you paying them for that? Because if you are not, that's theft. And you should remove yourself from any human community immediately.

It seems like you are arguing that "all taxation is theft".

Of course, because it is.

Well, let's just say that I rather strongly disagree with that.

Emotion, as you astutely realise, is a pre-rational evolutionary mechanism for driving us towards positive behaviour (that which benefits us). We are now capable of thought, recognising what is in our long-term rational self-interest.

Pre-rational doesn't necessarily mean non-rational. I am the first to argue for logic and robustness when discussing science and mathematics, but here we are not talking about set theory, we are talking about people and society. Such topics needs to be addressed with a more flexible approach.

Objectivism is based on reality, it is the only philosophy I know of that does not have its head in the clouds.

Well, I would say that having its head in the clouds is the only thing that Objectivism ever had, since it was never considered seriously and never tried in reality.

Maybe I was mistaken, but I read what iguana stated (at least in this thread) as meaning that all political opinion is based on groupthink and emotion - including his/her own.

Emotions, internal logic, practical concerns and historical examples. All valid perspectives to consider when deciding on politics. Using only one is dangerous and in my opinion limiting.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

It is convenient for the powerful to discourage capitalism, the greatest system of social mobility known to man. The aristocracy tried to prevent capitalism because it threatened their position in society - they could not longer oppress society, they had to compete on terms of ability not just privilege.

Erm....the wealthy in this country DO discourage capitalism, according to your own definition. Because I've got news for you - 'ability' has less and less to do with making a living all the time, these days, and it is in fact becoming more and more about privilege all the time! Because very ABLE workers are being replaced DAILY these days - with much LESS 'able' workers in other countries, who are willing to work for pennies on the dollar. And this is being done by the very CEOs all over this country who CAUSED this massive economic circle-fuck to begin with (I mean, it wasn't the skilled rank & file workers of the banking industry or auto industry who made the decisions leading to this disaster - it was the big guys!), and who retain their jobs despite their responsibility, due to the privilege provided to them by the old boys network and their political connections....and by their own wealth. A wealth which provides them with the means to protect themselves legally and 'spin' the responsibility for this disaster onto someone else.

In case you are unaware of the situation, in order to make themselves richer through short-term profits leading to HUGE bonuses, CEOs all over this country have shipped thousands upon thousands of professional jobs overseas during the past few years. Even within companies which continued to post huge profits during this ongoing recession.

This greed has displaced hundreds of thousands of highly trained, highly educated workers who have 'done everything right' their entire careers. They have paid for, worked hard for, and received advanced degrees and certifications, paid their dues by tirelessly working long hours, and have long, proven track records of success in their fields - engineering, software development, accounting, finance, project management, and other professional fields. These people are not 'lazy' as you assert. They are not unmotivated. In fact, quite the opposite - most have worked very long and very hard over the years for every PENNY they have earned. They have paid every tab entitled 'DUES' they have ever had presented to them for decades, and have done everything they could to bring about their own success and financial stability.

But these CEOs, who in their unmitigated GREED, think more about their current year bonus than they do about the long-term health of their own companies and the economic health of this country in general, have laid these workers off by the hundreds of thousands and have hired 'workers' in India or Brazil in their stead - workers with not even a quarter of the skills or education - OR work ethic. The ONLY thing they have going for them is that they are willing to 'work' (if you could call 'showing up most days' 'work') for pennies.

And what do you think happens as a result of this? I've lived it, so I know. The remaining American workers in the company end up with the responsibility for 'getting it done'...and end up doing 3 people's jobs because the Indian doesn't know (or care) how to do the work....but is in another country, and is thus 'out of sight, out of mind' of the guys at the top. But the Americans left in the company have no choice but to do 3 people's work, because there are no other jobs for them to go to - no alternatives for them, because their former co-workers, who are just as highly skilled as they are, are flooding the job market with all of that talent and skill the company let go. So now we are left with a bunch of unemployed highly skilled professional workers...and a serious morale problem among the remaining Americans left in the company, who are now working 80 - 100 hour weeks and haven't had a raise in 3 years (due to 'the economy' don't you know ) while the big guys' bonus checks get higher and higher by MILLIONS a year (apparently, they are exempt from 'the economy' excuse).

I speak from experience here, as this is exactly what happened in my Fortune 100 company - and what continues to happen to this day. The people hired to 'replace' American workers are not more highly trained. Not more highly skilled. Not more highly educated. They are simply CHEAP. But those in charge know that if they make the remaining Americans responsible for getting the work done, it will get done - even though the 'replacements' have not a single CLUE. Management looks the other way, knowing full well that the replacements are clueless. They just spout the party line, claiming falsely that the Americans have plenty of 'help', knowing FULL WELL that this is not the case at all, but also knowing that they have the remaining Americans over a barrel in a lousy economy. They know full well that the Americans are simply having to work still MORE hours (in my case, over 85 hours per week) to make up for the lack of work product being generated by their so-called 'help' in frakkin' INDIA. But they know the Americans will do it, simply because having a job - ANY job - in this economy is better than the alternative of losing one's house and savings and ability to send their kids to college. Because hundreds of thousands of professional jobs are GONE. As in, FOREVER. Never to return. Thanks to nothing more than simple greed.

Retraining? What 'retraining'? What do you propose? That a highly trained software engineer or CPA get 'retrained'? For what? Working at McDonalds? Wallmart? Because those are the only jobs available. And even to work at McDonalds or Wallmart they have to lie, because no Mcdonalds or Wallmart manager will hire a guy with a masters degree in accounting, or engineering, or whatever to work for $8 per hour in an attempt to save his bloody HOUSE.

This economic downturn and high unemployment is not a result of incompetence on the part of workers. Your assumption there is false, and not even remotely in keeping with what we know about why this happened. This economic downturn is the result of greed and incompetence on the part of those in control - the CEO bankers who made the decisions in favor of risky credit, which CAUSED this crash. And the downturn is only exacerbated by the CEO tech company magnates and others who made (and continue to make) the decisions to favor cheap labor over quality labor, knowing that the remaining quality labor would have no choice but to pick up the slack for the incompetent cheap labor in the piss-poor job market and work those 80 to 100 hour weeks.

THESE are the guys who have destroyed this economy...but being the elitists that they are, the old boyz club all stand around patting each other on the back and telling each other how wonderful they are, as they systematically destroy everyone but themselves and the wealthy investors who reap the short term benefits of putting an entire class of hard-working and highly skilled people on the bread line.

I have no idea what you expect the middle class professionals of this country to do - people who have put 20+ years of their lives into companies, only to have their job shipped overseas to some clueless nitz who has less than half the education, certifications, and necessary skills (while in reality, their remaining co-workers are having to find a way to pick up the work).

But I assure you - WHATEVER the problem is here, it is NOT lack of training, skill, education, or motivation on the part of these folks that has them on the unemployment line. It is not even that the person now supposedly 'doing' their job is more qualified. Because they are NOT. I myself know highly trained fellow CPAs who lost their jobs and where told to train their 'replacement' in India, only to discover that this 'replacement' had never taken an accounting course in their life - they didn't even know a frakkin' debit from a credit!

Our only solace, as accountants, is the knowledge that this economy will only get worse as a result of these sorts of boneheaded 'management' decisions and that some day, we as a country will HAVE to wake up. Because some day one of these 'replacements' who doesn't know a frakkin' debit from a credit will make a massive mistake....and some overworked American will not catch it; or one of these big guys will commit fraud and no one auditing them is actually...oh...trained as an auditor.....and we will end up with another Enron. Or several Enrons. Yes...we highly trained and experienced CPAs will STILL be standing on the unemployment line, but at least we will have the satisfaction of knowing we were right, anyway. And if we are REALLY lucky, we might even get to see a couple of these guys end up in jail. And maybe then someone will FINALLY figure out that these greedy bastards who insist upon surrounding themselves with the incompetent and cheap, are the ones at fault for everything that has happened in this country's economy.

This is all about the privileged rich and greedy taking advantage of the bad economy - a bad economy that THEY created, by the way - to screw their own hard working and very able workers in favor of their own bonus checks. I can only hope that some day, it will come back to roost for them too. But as things stand now, we are on the way to nothing less than a mode of feudalism, as best I can determine. A place where there will be the rich and the poor...and no one in between....and the poor being under the complete control of the rich, and subject to their every whim.

Even Ken Lay, through all of the millions he stole from his Enron employees 401(k)s, was able to spend enough on high-priced lawyers to avoid jail until he croaked. True, his wife whined endlessly about having to (*sigh*) sell one of their EIGHT houses to pay their legal bills. But the guy was able to stay out of jail.

Bummer that we accountants were robbed of watching THAT asswipe get his comeuppance.

But hey...I'm sure we are reading it wrong and that it was REALLY the fault of all of those incompetent Enron employees that lost their life savings.

In fact, I think they should all be required to reimburse Ken Lay's widow for the loss of that 8th house! I mean, it's the least those incompetent low-life Enron employees could do!

 

[Rush Limborg]

Indeed, your constant assertions that Conservatism is based on groupthink, wheras Liberalism/"Progressivism" is based on actual historical knowledge, proves, again, that you do not believe that all politics are subjective.

Maybe I was mistaken, but I read what iguana stated (at least in this thread) as meaning that all political opinion is based on groupthink and emotion - including his/her own.

Which makes it worse. Frankly...I don't even know what he's arguing for.... It seems as if he's simply arguing against the Right. But again...if it's all subjective groupthink...why argue that his POV is more valid than ours?

Erm....the wealthy in this country DO discourage capitalism, according to your own definition.

Many of them do. I refer you to George Soros.

But anyhow...it's what I refered to before when I mentioned Corporatism. What we have currently in the US is a kind of "Crony Capitalism", in which the Big Businesses--especially those with a certain political clout--are propped up as "too big to fail". Laws are passed to favor some over others...that sort of thing.

This is the straw man the Left constantly bashes, wherin the system is rigged in favor of The Big Guy, while The Little Guy is the helpless victim.

But again, this is due to government intervention. Whether it props up the rich (Corporatism, "Crony Capitalism"), or props up the poor (Socialism, Welfare Statism), still, government rigging the private sector is not compatable with true Capitalism--the economy of a free society.

 

[iguana_tonante]

Which makes it worse. Frankly...I don't even know what he's arguing for.... It seems as if he's simply arguing against the Right. But again...if it's all subjective groupthink...why argue that his POV is more valid than ours?

I will give it a second (or third, or fourth) try, in the unlikely even that I didn't make myself clear earlier.

I am arguing (between other things that have nothing to do with this) that no political philosophy is free from emotional appeal or subjective perspectives. Politics are born in specific timeframes, nurtured by unique people, reinforced by time and groupthink, and hardened by constant opposition.

Politics is too complex an issue to be reduced to mere logic and mathematics, and as such it ultimately subjective. That doesn't mean that I think all positions are the same. There are personal, social, historical, even psychological reason to prefer one to the other. I argue that the "liberal" position is more beneficial to both the general public and the single individual. When people present opposing arguments, I will defend my position.

At the same time, I know that my position is influence by my own upbringing, education, social status, wealth, etc. Still, I think it's the best course of action, and I will defend it as such.

I don't really know why it's so difficult to understand that you can know that your opinion is subjective, and still hold that opinion. I guess some people doesn't have enough familiarity with a relativistic worldview.

When asked to comment about a literary work, I will give my opinion on its merits. Why? Literary worth is a subjective issue, and it cannot be quantitatively determined. So, are we doomed to say that War and Peace has the same literary value of Twillight? Thankfully, no. Plot logic, character development, historical significance, and even emotional appeal are all valid criteria for judging it, even if they are not strictly quantitative.

As much I could see, you (and others) seem to be under the impression that you hold your political position due to some incontrovertible logic, completely free from emotional appeal. This is a mistake. When you refer to the levying of taxes as "theft", you are making an emotionally charged statement, just as Marx's position that all private property is "theft". Same with "lazy" workers and "too much" government. Actually, even when you call opposing views "illogical", you are making an emotional appeal, because there is no way to making a quantitative judgement of a political position. Thus my request of a proof of that statement using formal symbolic logic, the only way to determine the truth value of a predicate. You are crowing yourself with the laurel of logic, but you have not earned the right to wear it. You are still wresting here in the emotional, subjective mud as much as everybody else.

I hope I made myself clear this time.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Finally, you did--although, your word of condemnation at the end was quite unneccesary.

Still...you do articulate your POV quite well--when pressed to do so, of course--in a manner more impressive than some others I have clashed with.

My compliments.

 

[TheGodBen]

No, he has the right to offer his own resources to another person in exchange for his. Otherwise he is taking the product of another man's labour.

It's typically the wealthy that are taking the product of other men's labour. Let's just say that there's a CEO of a major multinational company, a computer manufacturer or something, and he earns $6 million a year including bonuses and various others perks of the job. Meanwhile, down at the bottom levels of the company, factory workers or something, you have people earning $20,000 a year. The CEO's work is hard, he has had to do a lot of work in order to get to where he is, and a lot rests on his decisions. But is the work he is doing really worth 300 times more than the people working in the factory that also work hard in less than desirable conditions? That CEO is taking the product of another man's labour and using it to furnish his houses.

Yeah, there are real innovators that create something unique and amazing and they earn billions of dollars from it, but most of the super-wealthy are being paid unjustifiable sums of money that others earned for them.

Emotions do not help you determine the best course of action, they get in the way. I am not saying that in an ironic, sci-fi geek kind of way, I mean it sincerely.

Your ideas might fly for a society of robots, but we're not robots. You forget that the whole point of the Kirk/Spock/McCoy triumvirate was that Kirk had to make his decisions based on a combination of logic (Spock) and emotion (McCoy), because that's how humans make decisions.

Emotion, as you astutely realise, is a pre-rational evolutionary mechanism for driving us towards positive behaviour (that which benefits us). We are now capable of thought, recognising what is in our long-term rational self-interest.

Yes, and most of us realise that libertarianism isn't the way to go. Of course, we all disagree with one another as to what the right way to go is...

liberalism dreams of a magical future, conservatism dreams of a mythical past.

I'm a liberal and I don't imagine a magical and perfect future, I think that Gene was off his rocker on that one. I just want there to be a fairer future, one where reward is based upon ability rather than what family you were born into to.

If you have nothing to offer other individuals, you can retrain.

How are you going to retrain if you've taken away the means by which to retrain? You think that a guy that loses his manufacturing job can just read a book on accounting and get a job in a bank? Retraining can sometimes take years, how is this guy to afford that when he has no money?

Incompetence does not justify theft.

Seriously, people would take you a lot more seriously if you stopped referring to taxation as theft.

You seem to care that people do not drop dead. I am sure you would be kind and compassionate enough to contribute to a charity that looked after them.

Giving to charity is an appeal to emotion. I thought that you were down on that sort of thing?

If someone is successful, it is their right to pass the wealth they created on to their descendants who may or may not be utterly feckless. Your appeal to emotion is irrelevant.

Let that feckless kid earn his own damn money, otherwise he's just using the product of another man's labour. I thought that you were down on that kind of thing?

Give away? No, I am sure it would not hurt. You are not talking about giving some away, you are talking about the state seizing it. I am sure that many rich people would be happy to give away their money to give people access to healthcare or education... in fact many already do.

And yet the US still has problems with millions of people unable to afford healthcare or third level eduction. Charity isn't working, it isn't enough and it never has been. To insist that a system that has failed to adequately help the poor for thousands of years is the right way to go is a sign of insanity. It's certainly not logical.

Either way, it is their choice to give away their money or not - you have no right to take it from them by force.

Okay, but if I go to that person's house and rob all their stuff then they have no right to call the police as they haven't paid for that service, and I'm now the legal owner of their stuff.

If you want to live within a society with rules and order to protect you, then you're going to pay for it. If not, then you don't deserve the protections that society provides.

Not at present, the present unemployment rate is the result of damaging government intervention in the economy.

The present unemployment rate in my country is is due to a multitude of factors, most of which are due to government inaction and lack of regulation.

You have to extend your analysis, why is there no work...?

Because inflation wasn't controlled so the cost of living went up, which made the country uncompetitive for foreign multinationals, so they relocated to Eastern Europe where the cost of living was lower. At the same time, all the banks acted in a retarded manner and loaned out money to developers that built buildings that people didn't need and nobody was willing to buy. So construction stopped and people in the construction industry lost their jobs, and people in the banks lost their jobs, and the banks stopped lending to small businesses, so people in small businesses lost their jobs.

There is nothing wrong with being ruthless. However, dishonesty is contrary to capitalism, it is fraud and is illegal.

But it works, so people use it anyway.

Why should you have to live in exile to avoid people stealing your money?

Because "every man for himself" is not a legitimate strategy, if you tried doing in war then you'd be slaughtered. Living within society has many benefits, but it takes work to maintain, and if you want to live in that society you're going to pay to maintain it. If you don't want to pay then you're not a real member of society.

Furthermore, what is society 'due'?
If the rich person who works to earn their money does not deserve it, what has 'society' done to deserve the money?

All of the technology and and comforts in your daily life are products of society. If you want to swing naked from a tree then be my guest, I happen to like things like the internet, which was designed in part by the US military, a publicly funded organisation.

 

[Rush Limborg]

No, he has the right to offer his own resources to another person in exchange for his. Otherwise he is taking the product of another man's labour.

It's typically the wealthy that are taking the product of other men's labour. Let's just say that there's a CEO of a major multinational company, a computer manufacturer or something, and he earns $6 million a year including bonuses and various others perks of the job. Meanwhile, down at the bottom levels of the company, factory workers or something, you have people earning $20,000 a year. The CEO's work is hard, he has had to do a lot of work in order to get to where he is, and a lot rests on his decisions. But is the work he is doing really worth 300 times more than the people working in the factory that also work hard in less than desirable conditions?

As a matter of fact--yes.

Especially considering how the decisions he makes are 300 more influential to the company's progress than the decisions of the minimum-wage worker.

I'm a liberal and I don't imagine a magical and perfect future, I think that Gene was off his rocker on that one. I just want there to be a fairer future, one where reward is based upon ability rather than what family you were born into to.

Than why support a welfare state?

How are you going to retrain if you've taken away the means by which to retrain? You think that a guy that loses his manufacturing job can just read a book on accounting and get a job in a bank? Retraining can sometimes take years, how is this guy to afford that when he has no money?

Get another job that doesn't require that long a retraining period.

Giving to charity is an appeal to emotion. I thought that you were down on that sort of thing?

Let that feckless kid earn his own damn money, otherwise he's just using the product of another man's labour. I thought that you were down on that kind of thing?

There's a difference between a man giving, of his own free will, the product of his labor...and having the government taking it from him to use as a handout, whether he wanted it given to others or not.

And yet the US still has problems with millions of people unable to afford healthcare or third level eduction.

And it's all after "free" public education...Medicare...Medicaid....

Sadly, the government programs created to combat poverty consistently fail to do so. I think folks on the Left are looking for solutions in the wrong place.

If you want to live within a society with rules and order to protect you, then you're going to pay for it. If not, then you don't deserve the protections that society provides.

That's why the Right supports tax dollars going to the military, police, fire departments, etc.

The present unemployment rate in my country is is due to a multitude of factors, most of which are due to government inaction and lack of regulation.

Because inflation wasn't controlled so the cost of living went up, which made the country uncompetitive for foreign multinationals, so they relocated to Eastern Europe where the cost of living was lower. At the same time, all the banks acted in a retarded manner and loaned out money to developers that built buildings that people didn't need and nobody was willing to buy. So construction stopped and people in the construction industry lost their jobs, and people in the banks lost their jobs, and the banks stopped lending to small businesses, so people in small businesses lost their jobs.

The subprime lending crisis was caused by the government forcing the banks to make loans that couldn't be paid back. As you said, the lending was retarded--so what businessman would do it of his own free will?

It was due to the government getting the mindset that everyone should have a "right to a home". In the U.S., it was called the Community Reinvestment Act.

It doesn't work.

Furthermore, what is society 'due'?
If the rich person who works to earn their money does not deserve it, what has 'society' done to deserve the money?

All of the technology and and comforts in your daily life are products of society. If you want to swing naked from a tree then be my guest, I happen to like things like the internet, which was designed in part by the US military, a publicly funded organisation.

Don't you pay for internet service?

 

[Vurok]

There are some resources that can't be denied and can't be bought. To give a coarse example, the very presence of other human beings gives you protections against wild beasts. Are you paying them for that? Because if you are not, that's theft. And you should remove yourself from any human community immediately.

That is a fairly poor example, I am sure you can do better. Furthermore, my presence would be equal compensation to you. Secondly, you are offering that protection freely - or rather it is a positive externality of us living closely.

Well, let's just say that I rather strongly disagree with that.

Why?

Pre-rational doesn't necessarily mean non-rational. I am the first to argue for logic and robustness when discussing science and mathematics, but here we are not talking about set theory, we are talking about people and society. Such topics needs to be addressed with a more flexible approach.

Care to express why? Or are you content with this bromide?

Well, I would say that having its head in the clouds is the only thing that Objectivism ever had, since it was never considered seriously and never tried in reality.

Never considered seriously? Fallacy of widespread belief.

It is true to say that the political consequences of Objectivism have never been fully explored, however, some of its principles have find some degree of expression through history to great success - I presume you accept the superiority of capitalism as an economic system.

Emotions, internal logic, practical concerns and historical examples. All valid perspectives to consider when deciding on politics. Using only one is dangerous and in my opinion limiting.

Logic and the aid of historical examples can lead to a successful outcome.
How can emotions lead to a rational outcome?

As much I could see, you (and others) seem to be under the impression that you hold your political position due to some incontrovertible logic, completely free from emotional appeal. This is a mistake. When you refer to the levying of taxes as "theft", you are making an emotionally charged statement, just as Marx's position that all private property is "theft".

Not at all, I backed up the claim that taxation is theft with proof, based on mans' rights to his own life and by extension the product of his own labour. Taking something that belongs to someone else that is not given freely is theft.

 

[Vurok]

In case you are unaware of the situation, in order to make themselves richer through short-term profits leading to HUGE bonuses, CEOs all over this country have shipped thousands upon thousands of professional jobs overseas during the past few years. Even within companies which continued to post huge profits during this ongoing recession.

They did not do it out of choice, but out of competition. They have saved money, enabling them to lower their prices and remain competitive.

This greed has displaced hundreds of thousands of highly trained, highly educated workers who have 'done everything right' their entire careers. They have paid for, worked hard for, and received advanced degrees and certifications, paid their dues by tirelessly working long hours, and have long, proven track records of success in their fields - engineering, software development, accounting, finance, project management, and other professional fields. These people are not 'lazy' as you assert. They are not unmotivated.

I did not say they were lazy. I said that working hard is irrelevant. All that matters is whether they can offer something to someone, if they convince someone to voluntarily part with their cash. If you can, good for you. If you can't, tough, it doesn't matter how hard you work - only the value that you offer.

But these CEOs, who in their unmitigated GREED, think more about their current year bonus than they do about the long-term health of their own companies and the economic health of this country in general, have laid these workers off by the hundreds of thousands and have hired 'workers' in India or Brazil in their stead - workers with not even a quarter of the skills or education - OR work ethic. The ONLY thing they have going for them is that they are willing to 'work' (if you could call 'showing up most days' 'work') for pennies.

If their work ethic is so poor, as you allege, then their businesses will undoubtedly suffer. This will cause them to lose profits and ultimately to re-hire American workers.

So now we are left with a bunch of unemployed highly skilled professional workers...

If they are highly skilled they will have something to offer another employer or will be able to set-up their own business.

and a serious morale problem among the remaining Americans left in the company

No smart business wants to lower morale, this will reduce profits.

those in charge know that if they make the remaining Americans responsible for getting the work done, it will get done

So why do they continue to pay people who are not doing the job??? That is illogical. They would sack the new employees and just get you to do the job.

This economic downturn and high unemployment is not a result of incompetence on the part of workers.

I didn't say it was. I stated that the downturn and unemployment was due to government intervention in the economy.


The essence of your entire rant is that simply working hard is enough, and regardless of the economic circumstance, you deserve to keep your job and live a comfortable middle-class life. This is a very, very common misconception. It is not about how hard you work, but what value you can offer someone else who would be willing to pay you for it, for most people that is their labour. That is not my opinion or ideology, that is simply economic reality.

 

[Vurok]

Argh, wrote long reply then electricity went out. I will have to be brief now, apologies in advance.

It's typically the wealthy that are taking the product of other men's labour. Let's just say that there's a CEO of a major multinational company, a computer manufacturer or something, and he earns $6 million a year including bonuses and various others perks of the job. Meanwhile, down at the bottom levels of the company, factory workers or something, you have people earning $20,000 a year. The CEO's work is hard, he has had to do a lot of work in order to get to where he is, and a lot rests on his decisions. But is the work he is doing really worth 300 times more than the people working in the factory that also work hard in less than desirable conditions? That CEO is taking the product of another man's labour and using it to furnish his houses.

No, labour theory of value is a fallacy. Company shareholders are willing to pay a CEO such sums because that is what he/she is worth to their company, they add that much value.

Yeah, there are real innovators that create something unique and amazing and they earn billions of dollars from it, but most of the super-wealthy are being paid unjustifiable sums of money that others earned for them.

It is not for you to determine what is justifiable. It is up to the shareholders to determine what they deem justifiable with their own money.

Your ideas might fly for a society of robots, but we're not robots. You forget that the whole point of the Kirk/Spock/McCoy triumvirate was that Kirk had to make his decisions based on a combination of logic (Spock) and emotion (McCoy), because that's how humans make decisions.

Emotion does not help make decisions, we have evolved the capacity of thought.

I'm a liberal and I don't imagine a magical and perfect future, I think that Gene was off his rocker on that one. I just want there to be a fairer future, one where reward is based upon ability rather than what family you were born into to.

You have still not justified the state taking wealth.

How are you going to retrain if you've taken away the means by which to retrain?

Save money for a rainy day.

Seriously, people would take you a lot more seriously if you stopped referring to taxation as theft.

I would take you more seriously if you bothered to criticise my argument rather than delivering tired ad hominem attacks.

Giving to charity is an appeal to emotion. I thought that you were down on that sort of thing?

No it is not. firstly, appeal to emotion means you are making an emotional statement not an actual argument. secondly, one can give to charity for logical decisions - ie giving to cancer charity may help you if you develop cancer later in life, or if you value education, giving to an educational charity is logical and in your rational self-interest.

Let that feckless kid earn his own damn money, otherwise he's just using the product of another man's labour. I thought that you were down on that kind of thing?

I am not defending the feckless kid, but the right of the parent who earned their money to do what they want with it. You have still not justified the state taking the money.

And yet the US still has problems with millions of people unable to afford healthcare or third level eduction.

a) the numbers you hear in the media are a lie
b) many chose not to pay for it because they are young, fit and healthy and accept the risk
c) there are many ways to make it affordable through reducing stupid government rules like banning selling across states

Charity isn't working, it isn't enough and it never has been.

Therefore theft is justified?
If you are so compassionate, give your own money, don't use force to take others'.
The more government, the less charity.

To insist that a system that has failed to adequately help the poor for thousands of years is the right way to go is a sign of insanity. It's certainly not logical.

It is logical, I don't accept your emotional premise. Why is helping the poor logical?

Again... you have still not justified the state taking people's money.

Okay, but if I go to that person's house and rob all their stuff then they have no right to call the police as they haven't paid for that service, and I'm now the legal owner of their stuff.

Never said there should be no police.

Individuals have the right of self-defense, to avoid descending into barbarism, we surrender that right to the state, who has courts to arbitrate disputes and protect people.

That still doesn't justify taxation. I would give voluntarily to a police fund - it is in my rational self-interest.

The present unemployment rate in my country is is due to a multitude of factors, most of which are due to government inaction and lack of regulation.

I don't have the time to teach you economics... I'm sorry.

Because inflation wasn't controlled so the cost of living went up,

Inflation cannot be controlled by government -especially when it is caused by government intervention, credit expansion policy which artificially inflates the money supply.

At the same time, all the banks acted in a retarded manner and loaned out money to developers that built buildings that people didn't need and nobody was willing to buy.

They acted contrary to their own interests partially at the behest of government and partially because government created conditions that made uneconomic ventures seem profitable.

Living within society has many benefits, but it takes work to maintain, and if you want to live in that society you're going to pay to maintain it. If you don't want to pay then you're not a real member of society.

Why can't I make a voluntary contribution?
What right do you have to seize it by force?

All of the technology and and comforts in your daily life are products of society.

No, they are not. They are products of individuals and businesses. I pay for them through voluntary transactions.

things like the internet, which was designed in part by the US military, a publicly funded organisation.

The internet came about through the needs of university scientists and I pay for the internet already.
The military is a legitimate function of government, but it does not require taxation - I would voluntary contribute to military funding.

What percentage of government spending goes on military, courts and the police?

 

[Admiral Shran]

The subprime lending crisis was caused by the government forcing the banks to make loans that couldn't be paid back. As you said, the lending was retarded--so what businessman would do it of his own free will?

It was due to the government getting the mindset that everyone should have a "right to a home". In the U.S., it was called the Community Reinvestment Act.

It doesn't work.

Exactly!

I don't know what happened in Europe, but here in the U.S. the problems started when the government forced banks to make stupid decisions.

I don't know why people insist on thinking that private businesses would decide to make such self-defeating decisions of their own free-will.

I also don't get the idea that less regulation is what caused the finanical collaspe. Regulatory agencies increased their power, funding, influence, and numbers under George W. Bush. So, if anything, more regulation caused it. Bush may have given lip service to lessening regulations, but in fact he increased them.

The problem is that regulation tends to be ineffective and forces businesses to do things that are counter-intuitive and unnecessary.

 

[neozeks]

Get another job that doesn't require that long a retraining period.

Save money for a rainy day.

Common, people, are you listening to what you are saying?
It's easy posting here on the forum, but the world doesn't work that way. What if there are no other jobs that require less retraining? How are you supposed to save if you already spend all your money just to scrape an existance from day to day? Please, answer.

And it's all after "free" public education...Medicare...Medicaid....

Sadly, the government programs created to combat poverty consistently fail to do so. I think folks on the Left are looking for solutions in the wrong place.

You're just moving the goalposts here. However flawed they are (in the US, it's not my fault you people don't know how to set up those things properly ) they still do a hell of a lot more than charity.

That's why the Right supports tax dollars going to the military, police, fire departments, etc.

I think this distinction you make is illogical (there, I used the word). I'll probably never in my life need the services of the police or firefighters. Why should I pay for them through taxes then? Because they provide order and protection to the whole of society and that benefits me too. And occasionally I might need them too and it sure is good and cost-efficient not having to hire my own bodyguards and firefighters.

So, public education, universal healtcare, social security? Same thing. Aside from personal benefit, in the case I need them, they also provide for an educated, healthy, well-off population, meaning a population that is more productive and more able to pay for things, meaning it all benefits society, meaning it benefits me as a part of that society.

I don't get what's so hard about that. Good God, people, it was Bismarck that invented universal healthcare and social security! Hardly a lefty.

Never said there should be no police.

Individuals have the right of self-defense, to avoid descending into barbarism, we surrender that right to the state, who has courts to arbitrate disputes and protect people.

That still doesn't justify taxation. I would give voluntarily to a police fund - it is in my rational self-interest.

The military is a legitimate function of government, but it does not require taxation - I would voluntary contribute to military funding.

That is absurd and unworkable. What if it turns out most people wouldn't contribute willingly to such things? As it most probably would - lots of people would say, hey, what's the chance of me needing police? Better to spend the money on something else. And then if it turns out they do need it, what do you do? Deny them help? Let their house burn down? Check if they have paid for the service? Provide it anyway and let the burden fall on those that have payed into your fund?
Such things are simply too important to be left to chance and voluntary rational self-interest.

 

[TheGodBen]

As a matter of fact--yes.

Especially considering how the decisions he makes are 300 more influential to the company's progress than the decisions of the minimum-wage worker.

Yeah, and when the companies crash and burn, like so many did recently, these guys either kept their jobs and salaries or retired with the so-called golden parachutes. If those guys did such a crappy job, why doesn't the company take the money back for screwing things up so royally?

Than why support a welfare state?

Because it is fairer.

Get another job that doesn't require that long a retraining period.

What jobs? The low-skilled jobs are gone, they went to Eastern Europe. The jobs that stayed, the ones that are still investing in the country, are high-skilled jobs. You can't just go from working on a building site for 20 years into a new career in electronic engineering, you need training first.

And it's all after "free" public education...Medicare...Medicaid....

Programs whose range is limited when compared to many on this side of the Atlantic.

Sadly, the government programs created to combat poverty consistently fail to do so. I think folks on the Left are looking for solutions in the wrong place.

Because the US always has to compromise on these things and come up with diluted measures whose effects are castrated. Countries in Europe, particularly the Scandinavian countries, are often found in studies to have lower poverty rates and greater social mobility than in the United States, because they don't implement them half-heartedly.

That's why the Right supports tax dollars going to the military, police, fire departments, etc.

Ah yes, of course, you support paying for the protections society brings you personally, but refuse to pay for the parts designed to bring economic protection.

The subprime lending crisis was caused by the government forcing the banks to make loans that couldn't be paid back. As you said, the lending was retarded--so what businessman would do it of his own free will?

It was due to the government getting the mindset that everyone should have a "right to a home". In the U.S., it was called the Community Reinvestment Act.

It doesn't work.

Once again, you prove that you're not really Irish.

The Irish crash wasn't caused by regulation, it was caused by the banks and lack of regulation, several independent reports have already been published and that is the conclusion they all came to. The banks were making tonnes of money from developers during the boom years, so they were printing money for developers that were building new houses and retail units when we didn't have the population to warrant them. Nobody bought them, the developers went bust, they couldn't pay money back to the banks, the banks had all loaned money to one another due to funky accounting, and the whole banking system almost collapsed. It was mass stupidity by the private companies, nobody forced them to do this stuff.

It wasn't government regulation that caused this, the government was pushing deregulation for a decade prior to the crash, while the financial regulator didn't monitor the banks closely enough to see what was going on. The frustrating thing was that independent economists were warning the government that there was a property bubble that was going to burst and that they had to do something about it, but the government did nothing because they didn't want to risk economic growth. Smart thinking on their part.

Thankfully, the party that pushed for deregulation collapsed around the same time that the bubble burst so we don't have to deal with them any more, and it's looking likely that the main government party will be hammered in the 2012 election.

Don't you pay for internet service?

Yes, but I don't claim that I owe society nothing. I'm thankful that I live in a society that values science and technology, and I'm willing to pay my fair share to remain a part of it.

No, labour theory of value is a fallacy. Company shareholders are willing to pay a CEO such sums because that is what he/she is worth to their company, they add that much value.

Your point was that people shouldn't profit from the work of others, but that CEO (and the board, and the shareholders) does. I'm not saying that everyone should be paid equally, I don't believe that for a second, I'm just pointing out that your position is hypocritical.

Emotion does not help make decisions, we have evolved the capacity of thought.

Communists think that their point of view is logical too, that all people should be treated equally and that the position saying "No, it's my money! Get your own!" is an emotional one.

You have still not justified the state taking wealth.

Yes, I have. Because I wouldn't be here right now if it wasn't for the welfare state. My father would have lost his job when I was a young child, and with no disability benefit my family wouldn't have been able to pay the mortgage. We would have become homeless, or be forced to rent a small apartment. My sister would have had to leave school in order to work and support the family, as would my brother and I once we reached 14 or 15. I certainly wouldn't have gone to college, I certainly wouldn't be doing a masters degree right now, I wouldn't have internet access. Hell, I probably would have difficulty spelling words correctly. I'd probably work in a factory or something, except I wouldn't right now because those jobs went to Eastern Europe. I don't know, I might be living on the streets.

I know that some of you might consider this a good thing as I wouldn't be cluttering up this website with my stupid thoughts, but I'd like to think that in the end my contribution to society will be more than what I took from it.

Save money for a rainy day.

Yes, because people in low wage jobs are well known for having masses of disposable income to save.

I would take you more seriously if you bothered to criticise my argument rather than delivering tired ad hominem attacks.

I apologise, but it's the truth. If I walked into a store and picked up a packet of chewing gum and tried to walk out without paying, who is committing the theft; me, or the store owner for trying to make me pay? I may not like that some of that money is going to fund the exorbitant wages of whoever runs the chewing gum company, but that doesn't matter, because not paying for it is theft.

If you want to be a part of society then you pay for it, if you don't want to pay then buy a boat and live out in international waters. Or Somalia. Nobody pays taxes in Somalia, and just look at the wonderful country they have.

No it is not. firstly, appeal to emotion means you are making an emotional statement not an actual argument. secondly, one can give to charity for logical decisions - ie giving to cancer charity may help you if you develop cancer later in life, or if you value education, giving to an educational charity is logical and in your rational self-interest.

Funding a welfare system is done for exactly the same reasons, so either a welfare system is logical, or charity is illogical. Sorry, I'm calling hypocrisy again.

I am not defending the feckless kid, but the right of the parent who earned their money to do what they want with it. You have still not justified the state taking the money.

Yes, I have: Me.

a) the numbers you hear in the media are a lie

What about the numbers collated by UNICEF?

b) many chose not to pay for it because they are young, fit and healthy and accept the risk

And many more just can't afford it.

Therefore theft is justified?

It's not theft.

If you are so compassionate, give your own money, don't use force to take others'.
The more government, the less charity.

I've already pointed out that charity doesn't provide nearly enough and it never has throughout the entirety of human history. Why would I care if there's less money going into an ineffective system?

It is logical, I don't accept your emotional premise. Why is helping the poor logical?

Because half of poor people have above average intelligence, and one of them could be the doctor that saves your life one day.

Again... you have still not justified the state taking people's money.

Hello, it's me again!

Never said there should be no police.

Why not? The police force is a gigantic government monopoly, surely private security is the way to go?

That still doesn't justify taxation. I would give voluntarily to a police fund - it is in my rational self-interest.

But not everyone would pay, and some would choose to pay more than others and expect special favours in return. That's the reason why we don't allow such a system when it comes to something as vital as law and order.

Inflation cannot be controlled by government -especially when it is caused by government intervention...

Whoa there! The government can't have an impact upon inflation, except when they do?

They acted contrary to their own interests partially at the behest of government and partially because government created conditions that made uneconomic ventures seem profitable.

Interesting fact; my country was ranked as the 4th most economically free in the world back in 2006, we were even ahead of the US. Now we're 7th. You know why? Because deregulation caused my country's economy to crash and the government had to step in and take control to stop it getting worse.

Why can't I make a voluntary contribution?
What right do you have to seize it by force?

I don't, but the elected representatives of the people do.

No, they are not. They are products of individuals and businesses. I pay for them through voluntary transactions.

Individuals and businesses that work as part of a society.

The internet came about through the needs of university scientists and I pay for the internet already.

Universities are a product of society, of people coming together and saying "Hey, let's learn stuff!"

The military is a legitimate function of government, but it does not require taxation - I would voluntary contribute to military funding.

Ah yes, a militia that's funded by the wealthy. That has never caused trouble in the past.

What percentage of government spending goes on military, courts and the police?

Less, if I had my way.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Once again, you prove that you're not really Irish.

The Irish crash wasn't caused by regulation, it was caused by the banks and lack of regulation, several independent reports have already been published and that is the conclusion they all came to. The banks were making tonnes of money from developers during the boom years, so they were printing money for developers that were building new houses and retail units when we didn't have the population to warrant them. Nobody bought them, the developers went bust, they couldn't pay money back to the banks, the banks had all loaned money to one another due to funky accounting, and the whole banking system almost collapsed. It was mass stupidity by the private companies, nobody forced them to do this stuff.

Let me get this straight...your private banks have the power to print money?

Sheesh. And I thought the Fed was bad.

It wasn't government regulation that caused this, the government was pushing deregulation for a decade prior to the crash, while the financial regulator didn't monitor the banks closely enough to see what was going on. The frustrating thing was that independent economists were warning the government that there was a property bubble that was going to burst and that they had to do something about it, but the government did nothing because they didn't want to risk economic growth. Smart thinking on their part.

Thankfully, the party that pushed for deregulation collapsed around the same time that the bubble burst so we don't have to deal with them any more, and it's looking likely that the main government party will be hammered in the 2012 election.

Again...what businessman truly out to make a profit would make such stupid decisions if they weren't working under a gun?

But other than that...I'd say your problem is right there with the printing power of private banks. We have something similar--the Federal Reserve--and that has done more harm than good. Namely--it overloaded the market back in '29...and the rest is history.

I'd say that's the problem over there. Not deregulation...but banks being given direct control over the money supply.

What right do you have to seize it by force?

I don't, but the elected representatives of the people do.

And there...is the tyranny of the majority--a democracy, in the true sense of the word...which invariably leads to Totalitarianism. It is the French Revolution, all over again.

I believe it was Benjamin Franklin who said, "When the people find they can vote themselves money...that will herald the end of the republic."

 

[Plantis]

I believe that the U.S. foreign policy should be based on "Commerce with all, Alliance with none."

You are writing like Ferengi. They are in love with Profit.

 

[TheGodBen]

Let me get this straight...your private banks have the power to print money?

Sheesh. And I thought the Fed was bad.

It's a figure of speech, and I seriously doubt you didn't know that.

Again...what businessman truly out to make a profit would make such stupid decisions if they weren't working under a gun?

Stupid businessmen. What, you think that only smart people get to work in banks?

When I went to secondary school, we were separated into 5 different classes based on an aptitude test we took when we applied, and I was in the top class, naturally. For the first three years the curriculum was set so I had a science class and business studies class. For the last two years we were given choices on what subjects we wanted to do, and I choose to specialise in science subjects. The amazing thing is that 90% of the people in those sciences classes were the smartest people from the top class, while the dumber people in the top class, and most of the people in the lower classes, chose business subjects. Yes, this is an anecdote and I'm not saying that all people that work in the financial sector are idiots, but a lot of them are.

During the boom years, developers were building new houses and retail outlets and people were buying them, and the banks that were loaning money to the developers were making a return on their investment. So they kept on loaning money to the developers expecting a return on their investment without bothering to realise that we're a small country and only needed so many houses and stores. Properties exceeded saturation point, property prices fell, the developers lost money in sales, they couldn't repay the banks, and the banks were so interconnected that letting one of them collapse could have brought them all down.

Independent economists were warning the government that there was a property bubble on the brink of bursting, and the government should force the financial regulator to step in and stop the banks from funding construction. But construction was fuelling economic growth, and the government didn't want to risk losing growth, so it all exploded in everyone's faces.

I'd say that's the problem over there. Not deregulation...but banks being given direct control over the money supply.

Ireland doesn't have a central bank any more, as a member of the euro we handed control to the European Central Bank. Our mint can't print money unless they tell us to.

And there...is the tyranny of the majority--a democracy, in the true sense of the word...which invariably leads to Totalitarianism. It is the French Revolution, all over again.

So, you want a tyranny of the minority? We had those before and it took us a very long time to get rid of them.

 

[Rush Limborg]

^I'd rather have no tyranny at all. Don't tell me those are the only two choices.

As for the stupid bankers...honestly? Stupid bankers were getting what was coming to them. Had our governments let the stupid bankers fail, rather than propping them up with bailouts--they would've been weeded out, so that the smart bankers and businessmen could clean up the mess made, and emerge stronger, as a reward for their intelligence.

That's how the free market works. Not survival of the fittest, per se--but rather, survival of those who know what they're doing. The dumb ones fail and collapse, and the smart ones clean up the mess and take charge.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I believe that the U.S. foreign policy should be based on "Commerce with all, Alliance with none."

You are writing like Ferengi. They are in love with Profit.

Plantis (BTW--welcome to the BBS! ), to be honest, the Ferengi are not a Capitalist society. Observe the iron fist the FCA Liquidators hold over Ferengi businesses--specifically, all the regulations and "by-laws" Brunt discusses with Quark in "Family Business". I'd hardly consider the FCA capable of existing in a truly free market.

Again, they are the embodiment of Corporatism and "Crony Capitalism" (the straw man the Left constantly attacks as "Capitalism"). For proof of this, see the episodes "The Nagus" and "Profit And Lace".

 

[neozeks]

As for the stupid bankers...honestly? Stupid bankers were getting what was coming to them.

The problem is that those stupid bankers have such an influence on the economy that when they do something disastrously stupid the people that are hurt the most are actually ordinary people that had absolutely nothing to do with the stupidity. That's why regulation is neccessary.