Tax Cuts

[Gameface]

So, basically you just want to dissolve the government and all of its powers or turn it solely into a war machine? Show me a period in the history of modern bonafide capitalism that has had an unemployment percentage of less than 4%. The entire capitalist venture has a built-in inequity, and your politics essentially just says "too bad, it's part of the game... starvation is a part of nature (or something of the kind)." In other words, you can't realistically believe in capitalism without also accepting the consequences of some poverty... history has shown us this. Moreover, if you look at capitalism more holistically, in the scope of global history, even when the center of power has been at its most affluent and "fully employed" (i.e. somewhere near 5% unemployment), they have been involved in imperial or imperial-like practices abroad that have caused sometimes rampant disease and starvation. All I'm trying to say is that you can't just sit on you hands, support capitalism, and say you can't "justify" other alternatives. That's what leads to revolutions.

This is not a statement of support for our current spending situation. I think the way this bailout process has been handled (from Bush ramrodding hundreds of billions through congress in the waning days of his tenure, to Obama's lack of oversight) will go down as one of the worst government hack jobs in history.


Dude, just because decisions are hard doesn't mean you don't have to make them.

What economic system doesn't have to deal with poverty?

You're saying that unemployment = inequality. How does that follow? I guess the next thing you're going to tell me is about the wealth gap, another thing I find to be completely irrelevant. I did mention that I'm not interested in the outcome, right? I'm trying to understand how if each and every one of us owns our own existence how do you justify any alternative to laissez-faire capitalism? If you're justifications are going to be a theoretical improvement in quality of life then you can save it. If, on the other hand, you are going to explain exactly what part of my existence belongs to you, or if you can't, what part of my existence belongs to "society," then I'd be interested to hear it and you'd stand a decent chance of changing my opinion.

 

[NAOS]

What economic system doesn't have to deal with poverty?

You're saying that unemployment = inequality. How does that follow? I guess the next thing you're going to tell me is about the wealth gap, another thing I find to be completely irrelevant. I did mention that I'm not interested in the outcome, right? I'm trying to understand how if each and every one of us owns our own existence how do you justify any alternative to laissez-faire capitalism? If you're justifications are going to be a theoretical improvement in quality of life then you can save it. If, on the other hand, you are going to explain exactly what part of my existence belongs to you, or if you can't, what part of my existence belongs to "society," then I'd be interested to hear it and you'd stand a decent chance of changing my opinion.

First off, I understand and empathize with your political hesitancy and the impossibility that you must feel with politics as it dovetails with existence. These are not easy questions, and I commend you for making it personal, I think that is the right step. I've talked with a lot of people that feel similarly to you (mainly because I, too, ran in this circle in my early 20s), and I think there are a lot of different paths that this discussion could go down. It is hard to tell exactly how you've come to be committed to this position, and that information would be necessary for me to make any headway (assuming I want to "change your mind" or something like that).

Here I'll just throw out some observations that I've picked up from your posts (I'll get to the big one first in case you want to skip most of this):

*you ask "if each and every one of us owns our own existence how do you justify...." This is a very complex statement actually, and I would assume that most people that say something like this are taking a few things for granted. Usually, the most dubious assumption is a too-strong commitment to the existence of the individual-all-alone or eternal self. Sure, our body is the pivot of our location in the world, but we needn't jump way ahead and say that the self is driving the whole process. We come into this world the most needy neotenous creatures EVER. Very simply, we depend on other people. Seriously, ALL the social sciences agree that we are thoroughly social creatures, right down to the bone (and that isn't a metaphor... sociality is a big part of our morphology). In short, there is more evidence to support the idea that I am better off if I put a good deal of energy taking care of my neighbor. The idea that we own our own existence is slipperier and faultier than you give it credit. There are very deep threads to follow here related to "self", theories of the "subject" and just what "experience" is. Of course this requires voluminous typing.

*There is a lot of misperception, due to the educational system in the US, that laissez-faire capitalism is a sort of natural system that, if it wasn't being expressed at some point in history, it must have been being suppressed by tyranny. This is an idealized/propagandized picture. Historically speaking it is VERY late to the human story, and the ideas were developed and practiced at a point when Europe was involved in some of the most atrocious imperial encounters the world has ever seen. That said, from the point of view of history, it is very easy for me to discard laissez-faire economics.

The romance of the market place, if you don't want a huge state apparatus involved in many of its aspects, is a very rural, technologically primitive place. Most people surviving within that system would spend all or most of their time in agriculture. Lessons from history.

*I'm picking up a fundamental mistrust of or lack of confidence in institutions. Again, given the political milieu here in the US since the Cold War, it is very understandable. However, I'd quickly turn this around on you and ask you to give me an example of an institutionless society. Of course, there aren't any. The whole bloody point is that it is our responsibility to be political practitioners OURSELVES. If you want democracy, then you have to DO it. Your responsibilities go FAR BEYOND voting. This is why I got into education.

*It is hard to tell what your theory of value is, and how you think wealth is created. If we take the hard line approach to "owning our own existence" and don't employ ANYBODY in the production of our goods or rely on ANYBODY for the construction of the infrastructure we use to access our materials, then, once again, we are really only talking about agriculture here. Everything else is too big; it enfolds the labor of too many people to fit into this individualistic paradigm. It might be interesting thinking for you if you were to try to wed wealth more directly to labor. Labor is what is productive, not "money" or "capital".

These all provide solid jumping off points for me to "explain exactly what part of my existence belongs to you, or if you can't, what part of my existence belongs to 'society'," but that is enough for now. If you are interested in volleying back and forth, then by all means, let's do it.

 

[The Thriller]

I don't get why conservatives/libertarians never talk about cutting military spending when they talk about making cuts.

I would much rather cut off some military base in japan or get the hell out of Iraq thus forcing some of these people to get involved in private industries here before I'd cut grandpa's medical care or some poor person's food stamps.

I get the whole idea of cutting spending. But why is military spending only brought up by the "liberals" and never by the crowd that is suddenly upset with the deficit (after being silent for 8 years)? So we'd rather cut our own benefits basically and throw billions away to foreign countries? Can't we be a little selfish here?

Seriously, could anyone give me a true response to this?

 

[DeliveryBoy]

I think, as I stated in my first post, that we need to cut spending. If it were up to me spending would decline dramatically. There would be no such thing as social security, medicare, medicaide, or subsidies for anything. Not to mention no more public schools (the apparent ideological battleground), and many other things people often assume couldn't exist without the government providing it. So in that scenario taxes could be reduced.

It'd be nice to finally end the illusion that this country isn't on the road to becoming a banana republic.

A couple of quick thoughts:

-to whoever said that letting the cuts expire would decrease revenue: the argument rests on the idea that those in the upper bracket don't have access to enough funds or capital, and that the rich in this country don't have enough money. Please, you're welcome to step out of 1983 any time you'd like.

-I love that people still think Ron Paul is anything but an egotistical lunatic. I know liberals love him for his thoughts on warspending and weed, and conservatives love him for his anti-goverment rhetoric, and libertarians love him because they're all as arrogant and smug as he is, but give me a break, people. His main redeeming quality is that he isn't as insane as his son is (as far as we know.)

-Romney as President would not be much different than Obama. The one thing he's shown time and time again is that he has no real core beliefs, and that he'll change his position at the drop of a hat. If he'd been elected, you probably would've seen something close to what was passed in the health care bill, a much smaller stimulus, and a more reckless foreign policy. And that's really about it. Oh, and the media would've been nicer to him.

-I'll worry about out of control inflation once there is any actual inflation, and we're not worried about deflation.

-Americans are the most gullible people on the planet.

 

[sirkickyass]

Don't worry about it. Helicopter Ben Bernanke is going to give you the biggest tax of your lifetime in the form of inflation so the 3 or 4 percentage bump income tax is almost irrelevant right now.

There is virtually no evidence of inflation over the last two years. At one point this last week, real yields on 5-year inflation protected treasury bonds was negative, implying deflationary pressures.

In the period since late 2008 when the Fed pushed the fed funds rate to 0% inflation has been virtually non-existent. The average rate of inflation was actually slightly negative in 2009 and the yearly inflation rate for 2010 is looking like it will end up at around 2%, which would still be lower than every year of the Bush administration except for 2002.

Furthermore, the best current studies indicate that periods of prolonged recession are correlated with falling inflation rates almost without exception.

Fears of hyperinflation are not based in the facts and have more than a little to do with the desire for the apocalypse to strike so that those presently in charge can be blamed for it.

Romney's whole background is gutting things and making them better - how can anybody argue that he wouldn't be a perfect fit if he was that same guy? That's exactly what we needed in '08 and even more so now. The question with him is if he is an establishment guy that just goes with the flow or not. Based on his record as Governor of Mass and being a member of quite a few of the elite "clubs", the answer is that he is indeed an establishment guy. But you never know if he is just playing the field so he can get a shot at the big job. He is the only name that floats with a legitimate chance to actually do something positive for this country.

I think it's clear that you like Romney for reasons that are not policy-based.

 

[sirkickyass]

Mosques near Ground Zero, suing AZ for trying to control the flood of illegals - it's clear where the current leadership is taking this country.

 

[moevillini]

I don't get why conservatives/libertarians never talk about cutting military spending when they talk about making cuts.

I would much rather cut off some military base in japan or get the hell out of Iraq thus forcing some of these people to get involved in private industries here before I'd cut grandpa's medical care or some poor person's food stamps.

I get the whole idea of cutting spending. But why is military spending only brought up by the "liberals" and never by the crowd that is suddenly upset with the deficit (after being silent for 8 years)? So we'd rather cut our own benefits basically and throw billions away to foreign countries? Can't we be a little selfish here?

Seriously, could anyone give me a true response to this?

see Gameface's post, #21

those who follow the conservative/libertarian line of thinking tend to believe the national government should play a very limited role in the everyday lives of its citizens; they view national defense as one of the only vital functions the national government should provide to its citizens (and perhaps also infrastructure such as roads and bridges)

 

[Realjazz]

NAOS, thank you for your service. Teaching is a very diffifult profession and I know I could not do it. I agree with you on a number of things, however, I do have a major problem with the amount of money we pay in taxes. I have 3 central problems.

1. While I agree that institutions are important, I think that history has shown that governments (not just ours, but all governments) do a poor job of alocating resources and there tends to be a great deal of waste. This really ticks me off because, I'm all for a strong military, an excellent educational system, quality roads, etc, however, in a system where waste is tolerated it means that a good percentage of what I pay in taxes is not going for it's designed purpose.

2. The culture in Congress has become one where the representatives, their constituents and the media cheer when a member of congress gets a "pork belly" project for their district. It's not just democrats, republicans have gotten in on the act. When Ted Stevens died last week, one of the big things they said about him was, "he brought a lot of federal projects to Alaska." Guess what? That's my money. That culture creates corruption and the above mentioned waste.

3. The size of the federal government. This is not directed specifically at the U.S. Federal Government but at any organization that reaches a certain size. In my opinion, every organization reaches a point where it is too big to effectively manage itself. I think the U.S. Federal Government hit that point decades ago. Local and State government is more representative of her constituents and better able to adapt to the needs of the people it is supposed to serve. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for dismantling the Federal Government, however, I am in favor of shrinking it back. The Federal Government is wonderful when it comes to defense, innerstate commerce, providing standards for education, food quality, worker's rights, etc. However, it needs to pass some of the important responsiblities off to the states and other local governments who will run those programs more effectively.

 

[NAOS]

NAOS, thank you for your service. Teaching is a very diffifult profession and I know I could not do it. I agree with you on a number of things, however, I do have a major problem with the amount of money we pay in taxes. I have 3 central problems.

1. While I agree that institutions are important, I think that history has shown that governments (not just ours, but all governments) do a poor job of alocating resources and there tends to be a great deal of waste. This really ticks me off because, I'm all for a strong military, an excellent educational system, quality roads, etc, however, in a system where waste is tolerated it means that a good percentage of what I pay in taxes is not going for it's designed purpose.

2. The culture in Congress has become one where the representatives, their constituents and the media cheer when a member of congress gets a "pork belly" project for their district. It's not just democrats, republicans have gotten in on the act. When Ted Stevens died last week, one of the big things they said about him was, "he brought a lot of federal projects to Alaska." Guess what? That's my money. That culture creates corruption and the above mentioned waste.

3. The size of the federal government. This is not directed specifically at the U.S. Federal Government but at any organization that reaches a certain size. In my opinion, every organization reaches a point where it is too big to effectively manage itself. I think the U.S. Federal Government hit that point decades ago. Local and State government is more representative of her constituents and better able to adapt to the needs of the people it is supposed to serve. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for dismantling the Federal Government, however, I am in favor of shrinking it back. The Federal Government is wonderful when it comes to defense, innerstate commerce, providing standards for education, food quality, worker's rights, etc. However, it needs to pass some of the important responsiblities off to the states and other local governments who will run those programs more effectively.

You bring up some interesting points. For the sake of discussion I'll just do a little bit of speculation and contextualization; these issues are, of course, more complex than we usually make them.

As for #2, this kind of celebration for federal funding is tied to a deep vein of economic thinking that goes back to, most notably, Locke. In a nutshell, land was seen as empty unless it was being put to some kind of productive use whereby it's yields were multiplied by an apparatus of human labor (I'm sure I have this mostly right, but there might be a Locke scholar here that could make it clearer... it's been several years since I've read this). The entire British Empire, and it's American offshoot, has its debts to this line of thinking. It is part of opening new markets, generating wealth, hell... it is part of authoring SPACE, which was seen as an empty homogeneous medium -- the counterpoint to Locke's tabula rasa of the human psyche.

Jumping way ahead.... Do you expect your house to be the biggest, most important investment that you can make? Do you expect that housing prices should even increase? These sorts of models for growth, which a lot of Americans get down-right pissed when they are not proceeding as planned, are fundamentally grounded in a line of thought which requires job stimulation and continued investment in an area, otherwise nobody will want to move there. There won't be any demand for your house. This is part of the reason why "pork belly" projects are celebrated; they make your "American Dream" (aka house) something that will allow you to retire. Also of note, it is only recently that your argument (at least on its face) has been holding any water. Not too long ago these sorts of projects were the icons of a generation (Hoover Dam, etc.)

#3. The federal government has become an important job farm. It has been growing rapidly since the early 1980s. What do you suppose we do with all those people that the government lays off? I'm not saying that the size of the government isn't the problem, but you create another problem right away. This is an important question, I think.

In the end, we have sticky interrelated issues including: models for growth (the very philosophy of which is beginning to crumble at its foundation), standard of living and the allocation of our time and energy (one job for your entire career? Doesn't that stink of rotting deadness?), and, most fundamentally in my opinion, a re-imagining of space/ecology. The latter becomes deeply intertwined with religious assumptions, and even Christianity is starting to react; have you heard of Creation Care?

These are just some thoughts... lots of filling-in of blanks is needed, I'm sure
NAOS

 

[moevillini]

interesting that you mentioned John Locke, I was trying to find the posts where we were discussing property rights (I think it was in a discussion on gun ownership and the 2nd amendment) - - but I guess it must've been on the old board 'cause I can't find it now - - at any rate, it is interesting to consider how the concepts of property ownership, free markets, economic development, etc. have evolved over the years

I'm not sure that stuff is covered much in history classes these days, I guess so much has happened over the last 50-75 years that some of the 18th - 19th century history has been pushed out of the curriculum

 

[Realjazz]

Those are some very interesting points. To be frank, I'm not a John Locke scholar, however, his philosophy was a major influence on many of the founding fathers and still finds students today.

I guess the point where I am is I think society is ready for the next step forward, and I don't believe that the engine necessary to drive that is found in the government. Again, I think government has it's place, heck I worked on Capitol Hill as a younger man and very much enjoyed my time there.

However, I think the values and traditions are changing. You addressed some of them. Is your home your biggest investment? In my life, no it's not. I think you and your education should be your biggest investment. Regarding standard of living, in the history of the world, other than in the decline of a civilization due to war or massive climate change (it has happened in the past as well), I can't think of a society that has accepted a lower standard of living then it's parents. I'm concerned that we are in the process of doing this. I'm not advocating avarice, but I hope that my children have a better standard of living than me in terms of possibly work/life balance, etc.

After reading your post I'm left with the feeling that I just don't agree with the game. What I mean by this is, you are most likely correct in your point that people view the world from a Lockeian perspective and are utilizing government to increase their assets and also their sense of self. My point is, what you receive from the federal government, you took directly from the pocket of someone else. That is fine when the institution is mutually benefitial, but when it only benefits you then how is that fundimentally fair? I realize that it is impossible to have a perfect adminstrator of resources, but I think we need to strive for a basic degree of fairness.

 

[NAOS]

Those are some very interesting points. To be frank, I'm not a John Locke scholar, however, his philosophy was a major influence on many of the founding fathers and still finds students today.

I guess the point where I am is I think society is ready for the next step forward, and I don't believe that the engine necessary to drive that is found in the government. Again, I think government has it's place, heck I worked on Capitol Hill as a younger man and very much enjoyed my time there.

However, I think the values and traditions are changing. You addressed some of them. Is your home your biggest investment? In my life, no it's not. I think you and your education should be your biggest investment. Regarding standard of living, in the history of the world, other than in the decline of a civilization due to war or massive climate change (it has happened in the past as well), I can't think of a society that has accepted a lower standard of living then it's parents. I'm concerned that we are in the process of doing this. I'm not advocating avarice, but I hope that my children have a better standard of living than me in terms of possibly work/life balance, etc.

After reading your post I'm left with the feeling that I just don't agree with the game. What I mean by this is, you are most likely correct in your point that people view the world from a Lockeian perspective and are utilizing government to increase their assets and also their sense of self. My point is, what you receive from the federal government, you took directly from the pocket of someone else. That is fine when the institution is mutually benefitial, but when it only benefits you then how is that fundimentally fair? I realize that it is impossible to have a perfect adminstrator of resources, but I think we need to strive for a basic degree of fairness.

I see some interesting similarities in your response as I have seen in others. Basically, you understand that there is some risk and reward, and that the propagandized version of this tale is one in which everyone wins. And still, even without challenging the fundamental relationship this ideology has with space many are questioning the fairness. I'll come back to this later.

Jumping tracks now to the relationship with space: the leading-edge of philosophy has been concerned with exactly this since at least the 1970s (cutting edge stuff found in the 60s and even late 50s; see: Gilles Deleuze). There has been some very noteworthy stuff published very recently (Doreen Massey's "For Space" is particularly relevant to this discussion) concerning this re-imagination and it is all very ethically focused. You'd see very quickly that this isn't about "zero impact/footprint" like some of the green-peace-isms that we are bombarded with, but (in a truncated sense, for the sake of this discussion), how can we ethically transform our environment so as to allow for multiple histories (instead of a single globalizing narrative) and have sustainable economic milieus?

Both of these things are questions of SCALE. In the first case, without questioning the relationship with space, you question the fairness of things that have become this large and complex. In the second case, we have to imagine what size politics would take (i.e. a retransformation of the "local"). Here, we probably have to re-draw the map.

 

[Realjazz]

I think we have hit the stage where idealogy is put into the real world and the place for "multiple histories" and sustainable economic environments is not possible because it requires too much of a risk for established people. The status quo is too easy and the alternative is all conceptual and would be a very challenging road to get there.

Beyond that, as I mentioned, I think many parts of society are interested in moving towards a different model, however, I think it has to be a bottom up initiative, not driven from the government. I think this is imperative for several reasons.

 

[NAOS]

I think we have hit the stage where idealogy is put into the real world and the place for "multiple histories" and sustainable economic environments is not possible because it requires too much of a risk for established people. The status quo is too easy and the alternative is all conceptual and would be a very challenging road to get there.

Beyond that, as I mentioned, I think many parts of society are interested in moving towards a different model, however, I think it has to be a bottom up initiative, not driven from the government. I think this is imperative for several reasons.

Yeah, all of this is still very much in the idea phase. That said, an upwelling of ideas always precedes a revolution, which seem imminent in your post (?).

Big changes are already perceivable. Anybody who doesn't think that China isn't already well on its way to being the center of the growth of capital needs to do their homework.

BTW: there are some very smart cultural theorists who believe that we actually live in a time of ideological plurality unlike any time in recent memory (World War era politics, Cold War politics... both were much more polarizing than the current milieu). For what it is worth.

 

[sirkickyass]

The only problem with your thinking is that the guys that actually understand economics have been calling for a currency crisis for years.

How many years in a row do you have to predict it before it is wrong?

This is sort of like the Mel Kiper phenomenon with NFL draft picks, he just makes a hundred mock drafts and then can claim he got them all right because he predicted a particular selection in one of those 100 mocks.

Austrians and the Erlichs have this in common: They can predict disaster for decades and will fully rush to take credit the minute it begins to occur even if it took decades and they were wrong for 20 years (in the case of the Erlich's they've been working on 30 years and are in the tradition of a prediction that has been wrong for centuries).

 

[The Thriller]

see Gameface's post, #21

those who follow the conservative/libertarian line of thinking tend to believe the national government should play a very limited role in the everyday lives of its citizens; they view national defense as one of the only vital functions the national government should provide to its citizens (and perhaps also infrastructure such as roads and bridges)

But still, do they not see that we're completely overspending in defense spending? Is it really necessary that we spend as much as the entire industrialized world combined in defense? Do they feel that military spending is somehow less corrupt than spending on the "welfare" of the country? Perhaps lobbyists and generals have their own selfish agendas and aren't necessarily these noble Patriotic knights that for some reason they're portrayed as to conservatives. Why isn't at least controlling our defensive spending and/or bringing it down to responsible levels even in the discussion when we talk about making cuts to our federal spending?

 

[NAOS]

But still, do they not see that we're completely overspending in defense spending? Is it really necessary that we spend as much as the entire industrialized world combined in defense? Do they feel that military spending is somehow less corrupt than spending on the "welfare" of the country? Perhaps lobbyists and generals have their own selfish agendas and aren't necessarily these noble Patriotic knights that for some reason they're portrayed as to conservatives. Why isn't at least controlling our defensive spending and/or bringing it down to responsible levels even in the discussion when we talk about making cuts to our federal spending?

A little historical tidbit:
Massive spending on military stuff was the major factor in the US "victory" of the Cold War. We literally spent our way, neck and neck with the Russians, into a place where the USSR went bankrupt trying to keep up. When Clinton came into office (the first post-Cold War president) he slashed military spending -- I mean, how could you not? -- and the Gingrich-led Congress and the conservative media absolutely crucified him for it.

There is a significant number of Clinton staff members in this administration. I'm sure they remember what happened in the 90s, and wouldn't want to appear weak while we are still fighting a two-front war.

 

[Gameface]

First off, I understand and empathize with your political hesitancy and the impossibility that you must feel with politics as it dovetails with existence. These are not easy questions, and I commend you for making it personal, I think that is the right step. I've talked with a lot of people that feel similarly to you (mainly because I, too, ran in this circle in my early 20s), and I think there are a lot of different paths that this discussion could go down. It is hard to tell exactly how you've come to be committed to this position, and that information would be necessary for me to make any headway (assuming I want to "change your mind" or something like that).

Here I'll just throw out some observations that I've picked up from your posts (I'll get to the big one first in case you want to skip most of this):

*you ask "if each and every one of us owns our own existence how do you justify...." This is a very complex statement actually, and I would assume that most people that say something like this are taking a few things for granted. Usually, the most dubious assumption is a too-strong commitment to the existence of the individual-all-alone or eternal self. Sure, our body is the pivot of our location in the world, but we needn't jump way ahead and say that the self is driving the whole process. We come into this world the most needy neotenous creatures EVER. Very simply, we depend on other people. Seriously, ALL the social sciences agree that we are thoroughly social creatures, right down to the bone (and that isn't a metaphor... sociality is a big part of our morphology). In short, there is more evidence to support the idea that I am better off if I put a good deal of energy taking care of my neighbor. The idea that we own our own existence is slipperier and faultier than you give it credit. There are very deep threads to follow here related to "self", theories of the "subject" and just what "experience" is. Of course this requires voluminous typing.

*There is a lot of misperception, due to the educational system in the US, that laissez-faire capitalism is a sort of natural system that, if it wasn't being expressed at some point in history, it must have been being suppressed by tyranny. This is an idealized/propagandized picture. Historically speaking it is VERY late to the human story, and the ideas were developed and practiced at a point when Europe was involved in some of the most atrocious imperial encounters the world has ever seen. That said, from the point of view of history, it is very easy for me to discard laissez-faire economics.

The romance of the market place, if you don't want a huge state apparatus involved in many of its aspects, is a very rural, technologically primitive place. Most people surviving within that system would spend all or most of their time in agriculture. Lessons from history.

*I'm picking up a fundamental mistrust of or lack of confidence in institutions. Again, given the political milieu here in the US since the Cold War, it is very understandable. However, I'd quickly turn this around on you and ask you to give me an example of an institutionless society. Of course, there aren't any. The whole bloody point is that it is our responsibility to be political practitioners OURSELVES. If you want democracy, then you have to DO it. Your responsibilities go FAR BEYOND voting. This is why I got into education.

*It is hard to tell what your theory of value is, and how you think wealth is created. If we take the hard line approach to "owning our own existence" and don't employ ANYBODY in the production of our goods or rely on ANYBODY for the construction of the infrastructure we use to access our materials, then, once again, we are really only talking about agriculture here. Everything else is too big; it enfolds the labor of too many people to fit into this individualistic paradigm. It might be interesting thinking for you if you were to try to wed wealth more directly to labor. Labor is what is productive, not "money" or "capital".

These all provide solid jumping off points for me to "explain exactly what part of my existence belongs to you, or if you can't, what part of my existence belongs to 'society'," but that is enough for now. If you are interested in volleying back and forth, then by all means, let's do it.

Thanks for your response.

The position I've taken is based on my own assessment of what is right and what is fair. I wouldn't call it a political position as much as a philosophical one, because other than discussing my views I don't advocate for their enactment. I realize that if I were to have the power to enforce my economic views and I simply did away with everything I object to while promoting my version of what is right this country would sink into chaos and disaster. So, I'm not calling for a revolution. Heck, I usually can't even bring myself to support or vote for the occasional Libertarian candidate. I'm just trying to understand how things are justified, and can't see taking things from people by force as justified unless it can be established that the people things are being taken from are not otherwise fulfilling a legitimate obligation. Who's obligated and to whom are they obligated? That question is typically glossed over as people speak of inequality and need. Just because taking people's money fills a professed need does not mean that the taking of it was justified.

The very most common criticism I've seen is that people cannot be truly independent. I agree with that statement. The question to me is not whether or not a person can exist in the modern world without cooperating and working with others, it is how these relationships are formed. It is possible for a person to voluntarily create the relationships needed for their own success? Currently the relationships are formed automatically by virtue of your citizenship in the U.S. Because I live here I am obligated to support what others arbitrarily deem to be "the common good."

I have a specific issue with the notion that people are guaranteed a comfortable existence regardless of their own contribution to making that possible. That alone opens up so many different cans of worms that I know I can't do justice to the pitfalls it creates. But, my first concern is that if everyone is provided with a comfortable life, yet not all people contribute to making it possible, there are some in our society who are paying the tab for others, whether they want to or not, and regardless of their own contribution or lack thereof to the position other people find themselves in. My next concern is with the effect this has on people's risk/reward assessment for their own efforts. Obviously some people will see that they can have nearly as comfortable a life by being less productive and/or capable then they otherwise could be by working for a low wage. So we encourage people to be less valuable than they would have been otherwise, while still guaranteeing them a positive outcome. At the extreme end of this type of thinking you would create a competition in which people scramble to prove their own lack of worth and ability, while demonstrating the greatest amount of "need" in order to be considered deserving of the most benefits. The next problem is that when one person is paying to support the lifestyle of someone else they want a say in the nature of that lifestyle. "I'm paying for it, so I should have a say in how it works!" The problem is that to some extent we all receive some benefit from the government, therefore we all owe a certain amount of accounting for why we deserve that benefit. That takes a great deal of sovereignty away from the individual without the consent of the individual. My last problem (that I'm going to mention) is that calling someone rich and another person poor is completely subjective. Often what we do is grade on the curve, saying that the top x percentage of people are rich and the bottom x percentage of people are poor. But isn't it possible that all people could have a decent quality of life? One in which they have shelter, clothing, food, education, entertainment, etc. yet still fall into the bottom percentage? Is poor a relative term, simply defining people who fall far enough below the average amount of wealth, completely divorced from actual suffering or disadvantage? Is it necessary for all people to have equal material wealth for there to be political equality? Is there any type of equality that comes from giving all people the same amount of material wealth without equality of effort and value provided by that individual?

I'd like to point out our current immigration "crisis" as an example of some of the problems our current system has. One of the main problems people express with the "flood" of illegal immigrants is that they want to come here and enjoy all of the benefits without paying for them. If we lived in a place where it was stand on your own two feet or suffer the consequences then no amount of illegal immigrants would be a threat. In fact, I doubt there would be any such thing as "illegal immigration" because the boarders would be almost completely open. Another problem is that people feel like it is the government's responsibility to protect their job as well as their wage. So immigration (illegal or legal) poses a threat to those things, therefore we need to limit the number and "type" of people who are allowed to enter. When in reality you have no more a right to your job by virtue of being born here then anyone else has. It is a job offered by someone who needs some work done. Anyone willing to do that work should have the opportunity to do it for whatever wage they agree to. Funny that conservatives take the counter view on this issue.

I don't think I fall into the tinfoil hat wearing category. The federal government is pretty good at doing a lot of things. I also trust that for the most part the people involved in making decisions believe they are doing the best they can. It isn't that I see the federal government as some sort of bogeyman, but that they exert an unbalancing influence on our society and economy. I don't like the paternalistic relationship that has developed between "the people" and "the government."

Again, thanks for your post. I'm not an expert in any of this, so to have my ideas tested and to be presented with a reasonable counter argument is very valuable to me.

 

[moevillini]

....Why isn't at least controlling our defensive spending and/or bringing it down to responsible levels even in the discussion when we talk about making cuts to our federal spending?

I don't really have any answer for this other than, at the least, it's economic stimulus. Not so much for the troops themselves, but the weapons and such. Not only that, it's a major stimulus to invention - - many of our "toys" today had origins in defense spending in one way, shape or form. For instance ENIAC, the first electronic digital computer, was developed by Army Ordnance during WWII in order to make ballistic firing calculations.

...Who's obligated and to whom are they obligated? That question is typically glossed over as people speak of inequality and need. Just because taking people's money fills a professed need does not mean that the taking of it was justified...

...The very most common criticism I've seen is that people cannot be truly independent. I agree with that statement. The question to me is not whether or not a person can exist in the modern world without cooperating and working with others, it is how these relationships are formed. It is possible for a person to voluntarily create the relationships needed for their own success?...

this is taking me back to English class my sophomore year of high school when we had to memorize John Donne's Meditation "Devotion Upon an Emergent Occasion" which begins "No man is an island...." - - and that's all I remember except for the last line - - "therefore, never seek to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee"

the gist as I recall is that we are all interconnected

(or maybe that was just what they wanted us to think....)

 

[One Brow]

1. While I agree that institutions are important, I think that history has shown that governments (not just ours, but all governments) do a poor job of alocating resources and there tends to be a great deal of waste. This really ticks me off because, I'm all for a strong military, an excellent educational system, quality roads, etc, however, in a system where waste is tolerated it means that a good percentage of what I pay in taxes is not going for it's designed purpose.

It's not just governments, though. Both large and small companies tend to be equally inefficient. So, whether you pay the government for schools or a private school system, you'll see similar levels of waste.