Same thing goes the other way. Who decided you can say they need to take responsibility?
I never said they "need" to. But I fail to see how their failure to do so makes it my responsibility.
The answer is society made the choice. We've decided to go the correct way- to help out our fellow man. Thus we created the social programs we have. Boohoo, you have to buy a compact instead of an SUV so some kids can eat. Forgive me if I don't mourn your loss.
Well, considering that the most recent polls indicate that not only will Bush will be re-elected, but the Republicans will also improve on their majorities in the House and the Senate, I'd say it looks to me like "society" has changed it's mind.
You want people to take responsibility? Start with yourself. You are a member of society. As a member of society, you have a responsibility to help your fellow man. That means giving money and time to those in need. You dont' like it? Too bad- its your responsibility as a human being.
I'd really like to know who died and left you in charge of running around and telling us what our responsibilities are.
There is no "society", there are only individuals and families. --Margaret Thatcher
Fuck you for saying that just because their parents couldn't afford to send them to college that they don't deserve to go. Fuck you for condemning unprivileged people to having less opportunity for education than upper-middle class kids.
They may well "deserve" to go, but does that mean someone like me, who doesn't have a college degree, "deserves" to have their money confiscated to pay for it?
If your parents don't have enough money to provide you with the money to get you the education you feel you "deserve", I suggest you take the matter up with them. They are, after all, the people who decided to have kids without having the means to support them in the manner in which they'd like to be accustomed.
I didn't force them to fuck, don't for me to foot the bill for the consequences.
A fiscal conservative's first priority is reduced spending. Anyone who calls them self a fiscal conservative because they call a vote for a tax increase a vote to reduce the deficit is a fraud. Kerry's health plan is less than half of the new spending he is proposing, and how can he get credit for both being better for health care and better fiscally because his health plan won't pass? The only spending Kerry has voted to cut recently is the $87 billion to support our troops.
Well, give Kerry credit for at least voting against some spending bills - Bush hasn't vetoed a damn thing since he's been in office.
Don't presume to tell me what I want and what my motivations are. It's very much in our nation's interest to have meaningful debates, and that's why you can't have a line-up of two-dozen or more candidates on the stage at once. How meaningful is a 90 minute debate that has two dozen competing participants?
That's what we call a straw man. You could restrict the debates to candidates who were on the ballot of enough states to theoretically win enough electoral votes to be elected. That happens to be six candidates, in this case. Considering that six candidates or better are frequently accomodated during primary debates, there's no reason they couldn't be accomodated during presidential debates, as well.
It's a excellent opportunity to provide a considerable drain on the earth's resources for one's own benefit over a very brief period of time while at the same time producing absolutely nothing to benefit society.
So tell us this - exactly what benefit to "society" do you contribute that gives you standing to critique the activities of others?
The truly scary part is that it's only just begun. We have about 25 years of Boomers to survive before their voting block begins to, quite literally, die off. If you think it's bad now, it's only going to get worse for the forseeable future. Assuming we survive that long.
What you left out is, one of the reasons we're in the jam that we're in is because of boomers spending a lifetime voting themselves fat government benefits. Somebody's going to have to pay the taxes to subsidize those Social Security and Medicare benefits. Guess who.
The factory workers worked in the factory because working a person to death takes years and starving them to death takes weeks. You don't dispute my claim that the labor workers performed was slowly killing them. And yet you seem to believe that the employer and employee freely entered into an agreement where the employer retained most of the value of the labor and the employee got to sacrifice his health for the right to keep eating.
Fact: the average life expectancy of an adult male in Europe increased from 20 years in 1800 to 40 years in 1900. The population of Europe during that time doubled, and the United States expanded from a costal agricultural society to the worlds premier industrial power spaning the entire continent. While I acknowledge that the primitive capitalism of the early 19th century was brutal and exploitive by today's standards, the fact is, it provided a better standard of living for the average person than anything available up to that point. If it hadn't, it wouldn't have survived. You might also want to expain why, if industrialization and capitalism were so exploitive, how it was that their rise was accompanied by the greatest increase of population in history up to that point. Kind of rough to increase your population when it's allegedly dieing like flies, do ya think, or dontcha?
Nevermind, we've already established it's "dontcha".
I'm not even going to respond to rest of your post, given that you've already demonstrated yourself to be too intellectually lazy to verify your facts before opening your mouth. I've got better things to do with my time than provide you with an education.
Poor people's property. That's the key. He was standing up to a government that was taking money from those who could least afford it. Do you think he would have been viewed as a hero if he took money from the government and gave it to Dukes, Earls, and Lords?
That's an over simplification. What services were the poor receiving in return for their support of the government? Nothing. They were simply being extorted for living, breathing, and going about their business. In our time, the reverse is true. Through the democratic system, the poor are able to extort the rich minority for simply living, breathing, and going about their business (and you ought to know, since that's exactly what you're advocating). I'll point out that in our time, Ronald Reagan is considered a hero by many for allowing our modern equivilent of Dukes, Earls, and Lords to keep their own money. Enough, in fact, to have gotten him elected president twice.
Lyndon Johnson was wrong.
No, he was right. We've been referred to as a society by many, many learned people.
I think our founders would disagree - look at our Constitution. Not only is the word "society" not found in there, neither are the words "nation" or "country". What is described there, is a "union" of sovereign states.
This is a Good Thing. Note that most rich countries are small countries with homogenous cultures, such as Switzerland, Sweden and Hong Kong. Most large countries with diverse cultures, such as Russia, China and India, are chronicly poverty-stricken. We are the exception. The reason we are an exception is that operatively, due to our federalist system, we are not "a" country or "a" society at all, but an aggregation of 50 small countries and a multitude of societies which largely govern themselves.
It always cracks me up that you advocates of the "Common Good" never seem to be able to recognize that in order to serve the common good, you first have to have a consensus on what the common good is. In a country with a population of under 9 million, with a homogenous culture, such as Sweden, that type of consensus might be reached. In a country of over 280 million, with radicaly diverse cultures and societies, that kind of consensus is unlikely to ever emerge. All you ever get is various factions battling for dominance over each other. As much crying as liberals do about the benefits of "diversity", it is, in fact, the biggest obstacle to acheiving their political goals.
And in public restrooms, urinals are approximately two feet from each other, so your bathroom at home should have a row of urinals two feet apart?
Hey, that'd be great during football games when all my beer buddies are over! I don't think the wife'll go for it, though.
That's the advantage of having governments build roads: They can plan and build where appropriate, not just where some rich guy can collect the most tolls.
Surely you jest. Do you really think governments allocate resources based on the "greatest good for the greatest number"? Take a look at the state of Illinois - where are most state development funds spent? In the poorer, rural downstate regions, or in the commercial areas around Chicago, which I submit has plenty and enough of a tax base to subsidize it's own development? I have a friend who's a town planner in Massachusettes. She tells me concessions are granted to businesses for locating in her town, such as tax breaks and agreements to provide public infrastructure, such as roads, as a matter of course. Tell me, where would a rich guy get the most bang for his buck? Having to purchase the properties from their owners for his building projects at market price, or influencing government to use eminent domain to force buyers to sell at whatever price the government decides is "fair"?
It happens all the time. For an example, do a quick Google on Donald Trump. Or, in the state of Illinois, try "Peotone Airport".
And in the previous 2 elections, neither the Republican
Let's put aside the fact that it would be impossible to figure out who actually benefits from it,
In this case, I think it's quite clear who the one and only beneficiary was: John Ashcroft. Do you have a problem with sending him the bill for his prudish indulgence?
as well as the fact that you've created a world where everyone who thinks they have done me some "service" are now sending me bills.
I have no idea where that came from. Why would that happen any more than now? How do you bill someone for a service they didn't contract to recieve?
In fact, the only case that I know of where you're forced to pay for services you didn't ask for, is government services, through taxes. That's one bill that isn't negotiable, whether you were satisfied with the service or not.
Say I'm a very wealthy individual. I want the statue's boobies draped. How much do I have to want it in order to make it happen? Not much. I'm rich enough that I can simply speak the word, and some hireling will take care of all the details.
Now say I'm a very poor person. Scraping together $1000 would be a huge deal. It might even be impossible. Yet I'm as horrified by the sight of Justice as anyone. Because I'm living in a libertarian system, my opinion matters zero, because I don't have the capital to enforce it.
If what you're saying is that wealth gives you the ability to make choices not available to you otherwise, I'd agree. When has that ever not been true?
But in this case, it's a spurious argument. Justice's boobies got covered not because a rich person desired it, or a poor person desired it, but because a politician with the power to enforce his whims desired it. Not only that, he has the power to stick the taxpayers with the bill for it.
Personally, I think it was stupid. I expect Hugh Hefner does too, and he's a far, far richer man than I. But for all his money, how much influence was he able to exercise over the decision?
Under a system where dollars are essentially votes--which is what I feel you are proposing--the opinions of the rich matter, and the opinions of the poor don't.
*sigh* How is that any different than now? Who do you think government really caters to? You with your shitty one vote, or PAC's and special interest groups and corporations and wealthy individuals that contribute to politicians? That's the whole point here - take away the power of the politicians to hold sway over your life. Nobody is going to pay for influence that a politician doesn't have.
If our goal is to maximize the happiness of the most people,
Who said that it was? It sure isn't my goal!
It isn't? I thought that the reason you were pushing libertarianism was because you thought it the most just, equitable system, and that everyone would be better off living under its precepts.
Not quite. We have the system we have now because, obviously, some people benefit from it. But it clearly isn't to everyone's advantage. Likewise, a libertarian alternative would be more to some people's advantage, and less to other people's advantage. The idea isn't to make everyone happy (obviously, that would be a fool's errand under any political system), but it would certainly more justly distribute rewards and punishments. Which is why I am fairly confident you will never see a libertarian system - justice is the last thing most people want. It would require them to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
And no, my goal isn't "to maximize the happiness of the most people". My goal is to empower them to make their own choices. Whether they make choices that make them happy is up to them. Happiness isn't my gift to give them (nor yours), they'll have to manage that on their own.
Now, are you saying that the only reason you're promoting libertarianism is because you believe that you could cash in big time? If so, I'm ignoring any further displays
No, I want a government that spends responsibly, taxes adequately to cover the spending, and does not meddle in people's lives.
Dude, when a government takes it upon itself to decide how much of your wealth you "deserve", it is meddling in your life.
Unfortunately, the Republicans spend vastly more than is covered by taxes, cut taxes anyway, and then waste time meddling in people's lives by trying to outlaw gay marriage and abortion while pushing legislation that gives them secret police powers to spy on us without even getting warrants.
I have no problem agreeing with that statement.
He was considered a heroic figure because he stood up to an oppressive ruling class who was making the lives of the average person miserable.
As the other poster pointed out, he stood up to a government that was forcibly redistributing other people's property. In other words, he was defending private property, not negating the right to it. However, in the popular conception, he is remembered as "robbing from the rich, and giving to the poor", as if that were a just and noble pursuit in it's own right. Unfortunately, that conception is used by people like yourself to justify what amounts to parasitism on the part of the poor.
The people of the United States, which Lyndon Johnson referred to as "Great Society."
Lyndon Johnson was wrong. The United States is a country, not a "society". Which is why most of his Great Society programs fell on their faces and wound up getting repealed by subsequent administrations. Like you, Johnson was unable to understand the distinction between the population inhabiting a given political jurisdiction, and a society, which exists apart from and prior to any political institution.
When they aren't needed?
What determines "need"?
Flooding and erosion are some examples when you block rainwater's access to the ground under the roads.
I think it might be time for you to go out and look at a road. Most of them are paved with a crown, which allows the water to run off to the sides.
Quality of life for people living near the roads.
Uh, I think most people consider access to roads a feature rather than a bug. And as I pointed out before, in most cases roads are built in parallel by design, anyway. How many miles do you usually have to drive on any given road to cross any number of roads that are built parallel to each other? Again, as I pointed out, in any city, they will be approximately one block away from each other.
No ones taxes went up -- yet. But they will and by a lot as we, and future generations, have to pay down the debt accrued under this administration.
I grant that that's an entirely possible outcome, but it isn't necessarily a forgone conclusion. I heard the same kind of bitching and moaning under Reagan, and within 12 years Democrats were crying about how Clinton left us a budget surplus (which actually never materialized, it was merely projected). Note that I've never said I was a fan of the Bush administration.
Then why did you ask: "Do you favor tax penalties for people who's hard work creates value?"
Perhaps I made an erroneous assumption - I assumed if you own something like a car, a house, or a computer, you would grant that an Evil Rich corporation or individual had provided you with something of value.
If, however, you live in the woods in a lean-to, I'm prepared to retract the statement.
But you ignore the fact that conservative states like Utah with very low populations get one governor and two senators just like populous states like California and New York.
The last time I checked, both California and New York had Republican governors. Proving that, even in those bastions of parasitism, there are still sufficient votes to elect Republicans.
I chose the Presidential election because that's the one office that all Americans c
So do you admit that the haves can become have-nots by misfortune and no fault of their own?
Of course they can. I can get run over by a bus through no fault of my own, too.
If that happens, is it okay if my relatives send you the bill for my funeral? After all, if it's not my fault I get killed, that means it's a total stranger's responsibility to cover my expenses, right?
Then you don't believe in the Declaration of Independance and the basic principles of Constitutional Government?
In the first place, the Declaration of Independence is just that - a declation of independence. It has no standing whatever in law. It is not the Constitution.
In the second place, even if it did, the Declaration merely states we have a pre-existing (unalienable) right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it state that these rights are dependent on the government, and it certainly doesn't guaruntee that it's the government's responsibility to make a single soul happy, let alone "maximize the happiness of most people". It simply states that we all have the right to pursue happiness, it doesn't state that happiness is birthright, nor that the government's job is to provide it.
Maybe you should try reading those venerable documents before arguing their contents.
What about the CS grads who started in 1997 when the market was heating up? Their senior year, the bubble has burst, and they can't get a job. The people who graduated a year or three before them got a little experience and were among the first to lose jobs. What jobs are available go to those with 10 years, then 5, 3, 2, even a year of experience. The new grads are just screwed because of bad luck?
Well guy, it's like this - I wound up in I/T because I majored in music and philosophy, and I hate machines. Them's the breaks.
Since we've sunken to name calling, I'll be blunt: I am more intelligent, informed, and ethical than you will ever be.
Um, okay. If you say so.
What saddens me is that people like you, who care only for themselves and not a wit for their fellow man, get to place votes which affect us all.
I wouldn't worry about it, as I usually vote for the candidate most likely to go away and leave me alone. You're the one who wants a government that constantly meddles in our lives and our wallets. I submit I have more to worry about from you're vote than you do from mine.
There is a reason that Robin Hood is viewed as a heroic figure by millions. You need to do some soul searching when you detest him.
If a thief is your idea of a role model, I submit you need to do some soul searching yourself. So much for your alleged ethical superiority. Some people considered Al Capone to be a public benefactor as well. I'm not one of them.
Because we are a society, not a bunch of pack animals that abandon the weak among us to die (as you would do).
Exactly, what "society" are you refering to? The Amish? The Hutterites? The Native Americans? You seem to have a problem distinguishing between political jurisdictions and society. As a country, we are not "a" society, we are an aggregate of societies, many of which have little to do with each other. I can assure you, your government programs are of little value to the Amish, since they don't participate in them. Likewise, unless you are Amish yourself, the doings of Amish society probably don't affect you in the least. As Margaret Thatcher put it, "There is no "society", there are only individuals and families".
Because Bob's road has a toll of $4 and Tom thinks that he can make money by building a parallel road with a toll of $3. Then Joe thinks that he can undercut them both for $2.50 and then buy them out when they go under. And then there are three side-by-side toll roads.
See? Competition is a wonderful thing for the consumer. And what's the problem with parallel roads? Go to any city and you'll find plenty of 'em, exactly one block away from each other. That's why they call 'em blocks.
That $400+billion dollar deficit this year will be paid down by people shitting money out their asses. Just because Bush is willing to spend us into unfathomable debt doesn't mean no one will ever have to pay.
Oh, I agree - but you said it yourself, that's a problem with spending beyond our means, not an inherent problem with the tax reduction.
And that still doesn't answer my question - whose taxes went up?
So who are you to decide who's "creating value"? You said that the rich create value, so what value is he creating by inheriting money?
The point is, I don't presume to decide who's creating value, I'm contented to let everyone decide what's valuable themselves, and spend their money accordingly. I assume that a lot of people believe Microsoft creates value, because they give them a lot of money in exchange for their products. Apparently a lot of people think Anheuser-Busch creates value, because a lot of people drink Budwiser. Personally, I think it tastes like piss, but just because I don't like it doesn't mean I want to stop Anheuser-Busch from selling their product, or that I'm going to decide they don't "deserve" their money and insist the government confiscates it to give to the poor. What value their product has is between them and their customers. It's none of my business. Nor your's, for that matter.
I'm trying to get through to you that a person's value to society is not measured by the size of their paycheck.
Society, my ass! "Society" doesn't write any paychecks. And there's no such thing as an intrinsic "value to society". Let me ask you this: when you hire a kid to mow your lawn, do you pay him according to his "value to society", or do you pay him according to what having your lawn mowed
I need $1000 to fund the draping of the naked breasts of a judicial statue. Who is it better for me to take that $1000 from? The rich guy, who would have used it to upgrade from coach to first class on his annual vacation to Bermuda? Or the poor guy, who would have used it to make rent and utilities for two months, and maybe buy a bus pass because his rustmobile finally gave up the ghost?
How about charging a flat fee to everyone who's a beneficiary of the service?
When I go to buy a loaf of bread, no one asks me how much money I have. A loaf of bread costs what a loaf of bread costs. And if I want a loaf of bread, I have to pay what it costs whether I'm Bill Gates or Joe Ditchdigger.
If our goal is to maximize the happiness of the most people,
Who said that it was? It sure isn't my goal!
soak the rich seems like a sensible economic policy.
In that case, I propose we re-implement the institution of slavery. While I acknowledge that some individuals will have their right to liberty compromised, there can be little doubt that the benefits accrued to the majority will justify the sacrifice on the part of the enslaved. Indeed, the South has never recovered economicly as a result of it's eradication. Besides, if the slaves want to live in this society and enjoy it's benefits, then they obviously have a moral obligation to make this small sacrifice in the interest of the Common Good.
If our goal is to maximize the happiness of the most people, slavery seems like a sensible economic policy.
As is typical for right-wingers who believe capitalism is the be-all-end-all of existence, you ignore what you can't easily answer:
To answer your question, I favor tax policies which do the least harm. I favor tax policies which make it possible for the working poor to better their lives. I favor tax policies which don't take food off of tables. I favor tax policies which allow a middle-income family to send their children to good colleges. That means getting the lion's share of the money from the people who can most afford it. If it's a choice between taking money from someone who then won't be able to afford health insurance or taking money from a millionaire, I favor a tax policy which takes from the millionaire.
What's wrong with that view?
Actually, I can answer it easily, the problem being I don't really want to waste about 6 posts teasing out what you really mean by "tax policies which do the least harm", because, what you are positing has nothing to do with tax policy, per se, that is, equitably distributing the legitimate cost of government doing the things it has a Constitutional authorization to do, such as providing a common defense and running the post office.
What you are actually saying is that you favor Government by Robin Hood - you propose to confiscate wealth from those who justly acquired it to provide goods and services for those who didn't.
I favor tax policies which make it possible for the working poor to better their lives.
Since the working poor already pay little if anything in taxes already, tax policy has little if anything to do with their condition. So I have to assume that "tax policy" is merely a euphemism for "wealth transfer".
Please explain why you think the poor should have first claim over everybody else? Why does being poor amount to a right to other people's property?
I favor tax policies which allow a middle-income family to send their children to good colleges. That means getting the lion's share of the money from the people who can most afford it.
I favor people taking responsibility for their own actions and living within their means. Meaning if you can't afford to feed, clothe, educate and supply your children with health care, don't have them.
Exactly, where do you get the idea that "the people who can most afford it" should be responsible for other people living beyond their means?
If it's a choice between taking money from someone who then won't be able to afford health insurance or taking money from a millionaire, I favor a tax policy which takes from the millionaire.
I favor everybody paying for what they consume. The fact that Bill Gates may have an ungodly amount of money doesn't make him your daddy. You are still responsible for meeting your own obligations.
What's wrong with that view?
I'll tell you what's wrong with that: what you're saying is that if I make good decisions, such as pursuing a lucrative career, you want to share in my success without having to make the sacrifices I made to pursue that success. If we're going to be re-distributing the consequences of my decisions and actions, why don't we be a little more equitable about it?
Try this on for size: if, instead of working my ass off and earning a pile of money, I decide to get myself royaly drunk, get in my car and run over an old lady. Are you equally willing to share my jail cell with me as you are to share my wealth if I make good decisions rather than bad ones?
I didn't think so. What you're saying is, you want the benefits of my efforts without having to incur any of the costs of them. Conversely, you are also saying you want me to incur the costs of your decisions and actions, without having any of the benefits. It doesn't do a damn thing for me if you decide to propogate your DNA, but you still expect me to absorb the cost of it's education and health care. Not a good deal from my perspective.
The life expectancy of human beings in the wild was about 35 years. The early industrial revolution benefitted those who bought the products of industry, not those who manufactured them. This wasn't because of necessity, but because factory owners didn't think clean, safe working conditions and working employees less than they were physically capable would do anything for their bottom line.
Slave labor was outlawed in Britain a long time before it was in the United States.
If those factory laborers didn't think working in the factories was an improvement over the available alternatives, what were they doing there?
You're deluded if you think public services like roads and public safety could be privatized without serious negative consequences.
And with what evidence were you planning on backing up that assertion with?
Pure libertarianism, as you promote it, strikes me as nothing more than veiled contempt for anyone who makes less money than you.
I see. And what do you suppose I feel for anyone who makes more money than I do?
You also fall into a logical trap when you believe that, because a person like Bill Gates owns a multibillion dollar company, that they are necessarily creating value, or that they deserve to be compensated proportionately.
I don't recollect that I used the word "deserve" anywhere. The point is, he aquired his money justly through lawful, voluntary transactions with private parties. Whether he "deserves" his money or not is of no concern to me, any more than whether or not Britney Spears "deserves" to be cute, or Arnold Schwarzenegger "deserves" to have a physique like Adonis, or whether some people "deserve" to live to be 100 or others "deserve" to die before they reach adulthood. The point is, he acquired it legitimately, and it is not my job in life, or yours, to go running around like God Himself insuring everybody gets what they "deserve", which is an arbitrary and subjective value judgement, at best.
It's as though you look at a $300B company like Microsoft, and automatically assume that those $300B would simply not exist were it not for Microsoft.
In no way did I assume that $300B value couldn't, or wouldn't, exist without Microsoft to create it. If Microsoft didn't exist, it's possible Apple, or Commodore, or Atari, or Borland, or IBM would have created it.
But whether they could have or would have is irrelavent. The point is, Microsoft did.
In fact, it's far more complicated. First, had Bill Gates never been born, computers would still be around, they would still be doubling in power every year and a half, they would still have operating systems, and computer use and intercommunication would still be energizing the economy.
That's purely speculation. In fact it's possible that wouldn't have happened at all without Microsoft. Remember, by making it's DOS operating system available to all comers, Microsoft forced hardware vendors to compete on value and price, which in turn drove down prices, which in turn increased demand, which in turn created markets for ancillary products and services (such as networks, peripherals, etc.). It is questionable whether this "virtuous cycle" would have been initiated had the computer market been left to proprietary vendors, which other than IBM clone manufacturers, was all of them.
In order to calculate the real value of Microsoft to the economy, you can't just look at its market cap. You have to ask how its anticompetitive practices are hindering the development of the computer industry. You have to ask about the costs of its desktop monopoly. You have to ask about the real value of new versions of Office, which serve primarily to break compatability with older versions.
You also have to ask if those markets in which Microsoft holds a monopoly would even exist, at least to the extent that they do, were it not for Microsoft.
Because our society provides the entire infrastructure needed for them to gain wealth. It provides roads for transporting the goods that they produce and use.
I fail to see why creating roads needs to be government function. Private airlines and railroads are also available to transport goods. In fact, government subsidizing the highway system was one of the things that backrupted many railroads. And I fail to see why the wealthy should be any more responsible for the upkeep of infrastructure than anyone else.
The public roads are available to anyone. The fact that a businessman was smart enough to take better advantage of an infrastructure that was built just as much for your benefit as for his, it doesn't follow that he owes you anything for it.
It provides them with police protection so that they aren't constantly in fear of kidnapping, murder, etc.
Oh, give me a break! Who's in a better position to afford his own security, you or Bill Gates? Obviously, he can afford his own security. Maybe you should be reimbursing him for having to pay for yours as well?
So you never went to a public school? You never went to a museum the received federal funds? Your teachers weren't educated in public schools? Your parents never got a tax credit that helped pay for your education? You didn't get to school using taxpayer funded roads, sidewalks, public transportation, etc.? My, you must have an interesting story to tell.
You haven't explained why those things are necessarily a function of government. There are plenty of privately funded schools, museums, roads and forms of transportation. The fact that I've used some that were publicly funded doesn't necessarily mean they had to be, or should be.
Untrue. It costs money to run the government. If tax policies are such that the rich are not as burdened as the middle-class and poor, then they policies are helping to make them wealthier. If the taxes force many lower-income people to seek out part-time work, there is a labor glut which drives down wages, helping make the wealthy wealthier when they hire people at the deflated wages.
Well then, the obvious solution to that is to cut taxes so that low income people aren't put in that position.
Come to think of it, most lower income people aren't paying income taxes anyway. So how does giving the rich a tax cut harm the poor again?
And don't tell me that you are entitled to keep everything that you are paid, because you are not. It's not "your money", despite what the Bushies would have you believe. If you want to live in this society, then you are legally and morally obligated to contribute to it in the form of taxes.
Sez who?
Yes, it is my money, despite what parasites like you would have me believe. If I have no claim to it by virtue of working for it, you certainly have even less claim to it by virtue of not working for it.
Don't give me this bullshit about "hard work" by the wealthy. You want to see hard work? Go watch coal miners at work. Watch garbage collection people. Watch janitors. Watch the single mother of two who works for 8 hours as a waitress and then works another 4 hours as a maid in a hotel. Watch someone who is doing manual labor at a construction site. Don't waste my time with stories about some guy sitting in an air-conditioned office.
You're in serious need of a class in economics.
Not all "hard work" necessarily creates value. Simply because you work hard doesn't necessarily mean you're entitled to compensation for it. You can spend your days digging a hole to China in your back yard, but while digging a hole to China may be hard work, it creates no value to anyone. Nobody is going to pay you anything to do it.
So let me re-phrase that: Do you favor tax penalties for people who's hard work creates value?
Most of the examples you provided were work that produces little value. Which is why it's lowly compensat
If you let the economy go its own way, you end up with Industrial-revolution Britain, where the working class had a live expectancy of 20 years.
And what was life expectancy before the industrial revolution?
What you're managing to ignore, here, is that while life may have been nasty, brutish and short at the dawn of the Industrial Era, it was still a vast improvement over what came before it.
Or you end up with open warfare between unionizers and police forces, as America saw at the turn of the century.
Yes! And this time, I hope the police win!
Besides, because roads just build themselves, and the police and fire department don't need to be paid. They fund themselves by magic!
Peas and carrots don't plant, grow and harvest themselves, either. But I can always find them available at the grocery store, without taxpayer funding, thankyouverymuch!
The more we get taxed, the more our society fails to suck.
Fails to suck for who? I can see that it would suck less for the guy on the receiving end of the hand-out. It sucks quite a bit more for the guy who works to create the wealth.
Consider Bill Gates -- he makes billions of dollars a year.
The operative word is he makes billions of dollars a year. That is, he creates billions of dollars of wealth. It doesn't just drop on his head, he gets it in exchange for creating products that people want to buy.
Now pretend we tax away all but a million dollars of it. He's not really suffering, since a million dollars is still an enormous sum of money. Yet we now have enough tax money to give jobs to 10000 civil servants (assuming each one requires 100000 in salary, office rent, etc). Frankly, I'll happily make Bill Gates subsist at the millionaire level to create 10000 jobs.
If Bill Gates doesn't create that wealth in the first place, you don't have fuck-all. Exactly, why should Bill Gates work to subsidise 10000 civil servants? What do they do for him? Why should Bill Gates be forced to be a milch-cow for people that add no value to the economy?
How dare you think that they should reap the greatest benefit from our society and not pay the most in taxes?
Explain how they reap the greatest benefit from "our society"? I get my money by selling my labor to an employer, who is not "society", but a specific group of individuals. Everyone else is free to market their skills and labor just like I am. Some do better, some do worse. But the fact that some individuals have more valuble skills or ideas than others doesn't mean they owe "society" the time of day. I got my skills at my own expense, not "society's".
You just want tax policies that make the wealthy wealthier while leaving average Americans struggling to make ends meet.
Um, tax policies don't make anyone wealthier besides the government. Money the government doesn't tax isn't a gift, it's money you earned that you get to keep.
I take it you favor tax policies that penalize people for hard work and success?
You are probably happy that there has been an ever-widening disparity between the haves and the have-nots.
As a matter of fact, yes, I'm delighted!
$0 is still worth $0. So if there's a ever-widening disparity between $0 and max-dollars, that means that means more wealth is being created, and the potential for acquiring wealth is greater than ever. If people are able to earn ever greater sums of wealth relative to $0, that's a Good Thing!
You probably think that it's great that CEO salaries have been skyrocketing while workers' salaries are spiralling downwards.
As far as I know, companies are paying CEO's with their own money, not with mine, so, truthfully, I don't give a rat's-ass what they pay them.
And slavery was outlawed a long time ago. If you don't like what you're getting paid, you're free to find an employer who is willing to pay you more. If you can't find an employer who will pay you more, that's a pretty good sign you're already earning what you're worth.
Then you've no objection to MS taking, say, Kerberos, adding proprietary closed-source info to it, incorporating it into the next OS, and by force of numbers causing it to become the 'standard' version, with all other Pre-existing versions becoming broken in the eyes of millions?..
For the umpteenth time, what stops them from re-implementing Kerberos as closed source software, and doing the same thing now? The GPL only prevents someone from using the actual code. It doesn't prevent anyone from re-implementing an idea as a closed source program. That's entirely outside of the scope of either GPL or BSD.
The problem isn't that the original code is free, or isn't free, or that MS's version is or isn't free. The problem is that THERE IS A FORK THAT WILL NEVER BE ALLOWED TO MERGE BACK.
So what?
A major point of Free software is to reduce the amount of wheel reinvention. Everybody gets to see and use everybody else's code. BSD-to-commercial forks provide a major impediment to that.
BSD provides an incentive to commercial interests to actually invest in improving the code base, because they can actually make money on investing in those improvements, rather than having to give away their competitive advantage. Why do you think Apple chose BSD over Linux as the base of OS X? Who's put a comparable investment into developing Linux? (Hint: IBM doesn't count. IBM put their money into advertising and making Linux run their own proprietary software and hardware. They certainly didn't invest in building Linux into a world-class operating environment like Apple did with BSD. Neither has anyone else.)
MS TCP-users were not able to take advantage of the advances to the BSD stack, and are now stuck with a crippled version. This is the whole point.
How would the GPL have changed that? If the BSD stack had been GPL'd, Microsoft would simply have developed their own stack (which they subsequently have, anyway), and it would still be broken.
Anyway, apparently the stack isn't too badly broken, because if it were unusable, people would be using something besides Windows. I don't see them migrating in droves, do you? You can call Windows crippled if you like, and you might have a point. But it's pretty obvious it isn't crippled enough to prevent millions of people from getting their work done on it. As they say, enough is as good as a feast.
Only a virgin to these things would think that they're not legally manipulated, extrapolated, and interpolated in the courtroom.
And exactly how does the GPL prevent that from happening now?
They cannot ever hope to compete with the industry muscle, experience, and financial backing that Redmond can offer in a patent race.
They can't do it now, either. How does the BSD license change that?
It sounds to me like what you're saying is that you're afraid that, if Microsoft produced a version of Linux, they'd produce a version that was superior to everyone else's, and blow their competition out of the water. Is that what you're afraid of? That Microsoft would build a better Linux than any these "open" companies, and pound them in the marketplace?
Slashdot Mirror
Also from a Democrat point of view- "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country"- John F. Kennedy
Yeah. In other words, "Ask not what I can do for you, but what you can do for me".
Same thing goes the other way. Who decided you can say they need to take responsibility?
I never said they "need" to. But I fail to see how their failure to do so makes it my responsibility.
The answer is society made the choice. We've decided to go the correct way- to help out our fellow man. Thus we created the social programs we have. Boohoo, you have to buy a compact instead of an SUV so some kids can eat. Forgive me if I don't mourn your loss.
Well, considering that the most recent polls indicate that not only will Bush will be re-elected, but the Republicans will also improve on their majorities in the House and the Senate, I'd say it looks to me like "society" has changed it's mind.
Too bad - must suck to be a liberal!
hehehehe!
You want people to take responsibility? Start with yourself. You are a member of society. As a member of society, you have a responsibility to help your fellow man. That means giving money and time to those in need. You dont' like it? Too bad- its your responsibility as a human being.
I'd really like to know who died and left you in charge of running around and telling us what our responsibilities are.
There is no "society", there are only individuals and families.
--Margaret Thatcher
Fuck you for saying that just because their parents couldn't afford to send them to college that they don't deserve to go. Fuck you for condemning unprivileged people to having less opportunity for education than upper-middle class kids.
They may well "deserve" to go, but does that mean someone like me, who doesn't have a college degree, "deserves" to have their money confiscated to pay for it?
If your parents don't have enough money to provide you with the money to get you the education you feel you "deserve", I suggest you take the matter up with them. They are, after all, the people who decided to have kids without having the means to support them in the manner in which they'd like to be accustomed.
I didn't force them to fuck, don't for me to foot the bill for the consequences.
A fiscal conservative's first priority is reduced spending. Anyone who calls them self a fiscal conservative because they call a vote for a tax increase a vote to reduce the deficit is a fraud. Kerry's health plan is less than half of the new spending he is proposing, and how can he get credit for both being better for health care and better fiscally because his health plan won't pass? The only spending Kerry has voted to cut recently is the $87 billion to support our troops.
Well, give Kerry credit for at least voting against some spending bills - Bush hasn't vetoed a damn thing since he's been in office.
Don't presume to tell me what I want and what my motivations are. It's very much in our nation's interest to have meaningful debates, and that's why you can't have a line-up of two-dozen or more candidates on the stage at once. How meaningful is a 90 minute debate that has two dozen competing participants?
That's what we call a straw man. You could restrict the debates to candidates who were on the ballot of enough states to theoretically win enough electoral votes to be elected. That happens to be six candidates, in this case. Considering that six candidates or better are frequently accomodated during primary debates, there's no reason they couldn't be accomodated during presidential debates, as well.
It's a excellent opportunity to provide a considerable drain on the earth's resources for one's own benefit over a very brief period of time while at the same time producing absolutely nothing to benefit society.
So tell us this - exactly what benefit to "society" do you contribute that gives you standing to critique the activities of others?
The truly scary part is that it's only just begun. We have about 25 years of Boomers to survive before their voting block begins to, quite literally, die off. If you think it's bad now, it's only going to get worse for the forseeable future. Assuming we survive that long.
What you left out is, one of the reasons we're in the jam that we're in is because of boomers spending a lifetime voting themselves fat government benefits. Somebody's going to have to pay the taxes to subsidize those Social Security and Medicare benefits. Guess who.
Thanks a lot, boomers
The factory workers worked in the factory because working a person to death takes years and starving them to death takes weeks. You don't dispute my claim that the labor workers performed was slowly killing them. And yet you seem to believe that the employer and employee freely entered into an agreement where the employer retained most of the value of the labor and the employee got to sacrifice his health for the right to keep eating.
Fact: the average life expectancy of an adult male in Europe increased from 20 years in 1800 to 40 years in 1900. The population of Europe during that time doubled, and the United States expanded from a costal agricultural society to the worlds premier industrial power spaning the entire continent. While I acknowledge that the primitive capitalism of the early 19th century was brutal and exploitive by today's standards, the fact is, it provided a better standard of living for the average person than anything available up to that point. If it hadn't, it wouldn't have survived. You might also want to expain why, if industrialization and capitalism were so exploitive, how it was that their rise was accompanied by the greatest increase of population in history up to that point. Kind of rough to increase your population when it's allegedly dieing like flies, do ya think, or dontcha?
Nevermind, we've already established it's "dontcha".
I'm not even going to respond to rest of your post, given that you've already demonstrated yourself to be too intellectually lazy to verify your facts before opening your mouth. I've got better things to do with my time than provide you with an education.
Poor people's property. That's the key. He was standing up to a government that was taking money from those who could least afford it. Do you think he would have been viewed as a hero if he took money from the government and gave it to Dukes, Earls, and Lords?
That's an over simplification. What services were the poor receiving in return for their support of the government? Nothing. They were simply being extorted for living, breathing, and going about their business. In our time, the reverse is true. Through the democratic system, the poor are able to extort the rich minority for simply living, breathing, and going about their business (and you ought to know, since that's exactly what you're advocating). I'll point out that in our time, Ronald Reagan is considered a hero by many for allowing our modern equivilent of Dukes, Earls, and Lords to keep their own money. Enough, in fact, to have gotten him elected president twice.
Lyndon Johnson was wrong.
No, he was right. We've been referred to as a society by many, many learned people.
I think our founders would disagree - look at our Constitution. Not only is the word "society" not found in there, neither are the words "nation" or "country". What is described there, is a "union" of sovereign states.
This is a Good Thing. Note that most rich countries are small countries with homogenous cultures, such as Switzerland, Sweden and Hong Kong. Most large countries with diverse cultures, such as Russia, China and India, are chronicly poverty-stricken. We are the exception. The reason we are an exception is that operatively, due to our federalist system, we are not "a" country or "a" society at all, but an aggregation of 50 small countries and a multitude of societies which largely govern themselves.
It always cracks me up that you advocates of the "Common Good" never seem to be able to recognize that in order to serve the common good, you first have to have a consensus on what the common good is. In a country with a population of under 9 million, with a homogenous culture, such as Sweden, that type of consensus might be reached. In a country of over 280 million, with radicaly diverse cultures and societies, that kind of consensus is unlikely to ever emerge. All you ever get is various factions battling for dominance over each other. As much crying as liberals do about the benefits of "diversity", it is, in fact, the biggest obstacle to acheiving their political goals.
And in public restrooms, urinals are approximately two feet from each other, so your bathroom at home should have a row of urinals two feet apart?
Hey, that'd be great during football games when all my beer buddies are over! I don't think the wife'll go for it, though.
That's the advantage of having governments build roads: They can plan and build where appropriate, not just where some rich guy can collect the most tolls.
Surely you jest. Do you really think governments allocate resources based on the "greatest good for the greatest number"? Take a look at the state of Illinois - where are most state development funds spent? In the poorer, rural downstate regions, or in the commercial areas around Chicago, which I submit has plenty and enough of a tax base to subsidize it's own development? I have a friend who's a town planner in Massachusettes. She tells me concessions are granted to businesses for locating in her town, such as tax breaks and agreements to provide public infrastructure, such as roads, as a matter of course. Tell me, where would a rich guy get the most bang for his buck? Having to purchase the properties from their owners for his building projects at market price, or influencing government to use eminent domain to force buyers to sell at whatever price the government decides is "fair"?
It happens all the time. For an example, do a quick Google on Donald Trump. Or, in the state of Illinois, try "Peotone Airport".
And in the previous 2 elections, neither the Republican
Let's put aside the fact that it would be impossible to figure out who actually benefits from it,
In this case, I think it's quite clear who the one and only beneficiary was: John Ashcroft. Do you have a problem with sending him the bill for his prudish indulgence?
as well as the fact that you've created a world where everyone who thinks they have done me some "service" are now sending me bills.
I have no idea where that came from. Why would that happen any more than now? How do you bill someone for a service they didn't contract to recieve?
In fact, the only case that I know of where you're forced to pay for services you didn't ask for, is government services, through taxes. That's one bill that isn't negotiable, whether you were satisfied with the service or not.
Say I'm a very wealthy individual. I want the statue's boobies draped. How much do I have to want it in order to make it happen? Not much. I'm rich enough that I can simply speak the word, and some hireling will take care of all the details.
Now say I'm a very poor person. Scraping together $1000 would be a huge deal. It might even be impossible. Yet I'm as horrified by the sight of Justice as anyone. Because I'm living in a libertarian system, my opinion matters zero, because I don't have the capital to enforce it.
If what you're saying is that wealth gives you the ability to make choices not available to you otherwise, I'd agree. When has that ever not been true?
But in this case, it's a spurious argument. Justice's boobies got covered not because a rich person desired it, or a poor person desired it, but because a politician with the power to enforce his whims desired it. Not only that, he has the power to stick the taxpayers with the bill for it.
Personally, I think it was stupid. I expect Hugh Hefner does too, and he's a far, far richer man than I. But for all his money, how much influence was he able to exercise over the decision?
Under a system where dollars are essentially votes--which is what I feel you are proposing--the opinions of the rich matter, and the opinions of the poor don't.
*sigh* How is that any different than now? Who do you think government really caters to? You with your shitty one vote, or PAC's and special interest groups and corporations and wealthy individuals that contribute to politicians? That's the whole point here - take away the power of the politicians to hold sway over your life. Nobody is going to pay for influence that a politician doesn't have.
If our goal is to maximize the happiness of the most people,
Who said that it was? It sure isn't my goal!
It isn't? I thought that the reason you were pushing libertarianism was because you thought it the most just, equitable system, and that everyone would be better off living under its precepts.
Not quite. We have the system we have now because, obviously, some people benefit from it. But it clearly isn't to everyone's advantage. Likewise, a libertarian alternative would be more to some people's advantage, and less to other people's advantage. The idea isn't to make everyone happy (obviously, that would be a fool's errand under any political system), but it would certainly more justly distribute rewards and punishments. Which is why I am fairly confident you will never see a libertarian system - justice is the last thing most people want. It would require them to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
And no, my goal isn't "to maximize the happiness of the most people". My goal is to empower them to make their own choices. Whether they make choices that make them happy is up to them. Happiness isn't my gift to give them (nor yours), they'll have to manage that on their own.
Now, are you saying that the only reason you're promoting libertarianism is because you believe that you could cash in big time? If so, I'm ignoring any further displays
No, I want a government that spends responsibly, taxes adequately to cover the spending, and does not meddle in people's lives.
Dude, when a government takes it upon itself to decide how much of your wealth you "deserve", it is meddling in your life.
Unfortunately, the Republicans spend vastly more than is covered by taxes, cut taxes anyway, and then waste time meddling in people's lives by trying to outlaw gay marriage and abortion while pushing legislation that gives them secret police powers to spy on us without even getting warrants.
I have no problem agreeing with that statement.
He was considered a heroic figure because he stood up to an oppressive ruling class who was making the lives of the average person miserable.
As the other poster pointed out, he stood up to a government that was forcibly redistributing other people's property. In other words, he was defending private property, not negating the right to it. However, in the popular conception, he is remembered as "robbing from the rich, and giving to the poor", as if that were a just and noble pursuit in it's own right. Unfortunately, that conception is used by people like yourself to justify what amounts to parasitism on the part of the poor.
The people of the United States, which Lyndon Johnson referred to as "Great Society."
Lyndon Johnson was wrong. The United States is a country, not a "society". Which is why most of his Great Society programs fell on their faces and wound up getting repealed by subsequent administrations. Like you, Johnson was unable to understand the distinction between the population inhabiting a given political jurisdiction, and a society, which exists apart from and prior to any political institution.
When they aren't needed?
What determines "need"?
Flooding and erosion are some examples when you block rainwater's access to the ground under the roads.
I think it might be time for you to go out and look at a road. Most of them are paved with a crown, which allows the water to run off to the sides.
Quality of life for people living near the roads.
Uh, I think most people consider access to roads a feature rather than a bug. And as I pointed out before, in most cases roads are built in parallel by design, anyway. How many miles do you usually have to drive on any given road to cross any number of roads that are built parallel to each other? Again, as I pointed out, in any city, they will be approximately one block away from each other.
No ones taxes went up -- yet. But they will and by a lot as we, and future generations, have to pay down the debt accrued under this administration.
I grant that that's an entirely possible outcome, but it isn't necessarily a forgone conclusion. I heard the same kind of bitching and moaning under Reagan, and within 12 years Democrats were crying about how Clinton left us a budget surplus (which actually never materialized, it was merely projected). Note that I've never said I was a fan of the Bush administration.
Then why did you ask: "Do you favor tax penalties for people who's hard work creates value?"
Perhaps I made an erroneous assumption - I assumed if you own something like a car, a house, or a computer, you would grant that an Evil Rich corporation or individual had provided you with something of value.
If, however, you live in the woods in a lean-to, I'm prepared to retract the statement.
But you ignore the fact that conservative states like Utah with very low populations get one governor and two senators just like populous states like California and New York.
The last time I checked, both California and New York had Republican governors. Proving that, even in those bastions of parasitism, there are still sufficient votes to elect Republicans.
I chose the Presidential election because that's the one office that all Americans c
So do you admit that the haves can become have-nots by misfortune and no fault of their own?
Of course they can. I can get run over by a bus through no fault of my own, too.
If that happens, is it okay if my relatives send you the bill for my funeral? After all, if it's not my fault I get killed, that means it's a total stranger's responsibility to cover my expenses, right?
Then you don't believe in the Declaration of Independance and the basic principles of Constitutional Government?
In the first place, the Declaration of Independence is just that - a declation of independence. It has no standing whatever in law. It is not the Constitution.
In the second place, even if it did, the Declaration merely states we have a pre-existing (unalienable) right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Nowhere does it state that these rights are dependent on the government, and it certainly doesn't guaruntee that it's the government's responsibility to make a single soul happy, let alone "maximize the happiness of most people". It simply states that we all have the right to pursue happiness, it doesn't state that happiness is birthright, nor that the government's job is to provide it.
Maybe you should try reading those venerable documents before arguing their contents.
What about the CS grads who started in 1997 when the market was heating up? Their senior year, the bubble has burst, and they can't get a job. The people who graduated a year or three before them got a little experience and were among the first to lose jobs. What jobs are available go to those with 10 years, then 5, 3, 2, even a year of experience. The new grads are just screwed because of bad luck?
Well guy, it's like this - I wound up in I/T because I majored in music and philosophy, and I hate machines. Them's the breaks.
Cry me a river, already!
Since we've sunken to name calling, I'll be blunt: I am more intelligent, informed, and ethical than you will ever be.
Um, okay. If you say so.
What saddens me is that people like you, who care only for themselves and not a wit for their fellow man, get to place votes which affect us all.
I wouldn't worry about it, as I usually vote for the candidate most likely to go away and leave me alone. You're the one who wants a government that constantly meddles in our lives and our wallets. I submit I have more to worry about from you're vote than you do from mine.
There is a reason that Robin Hood is viewed as a heroic figure by millions. You need to do some soul searching when you detest him.
If a thief is your idea of a role model, I submit you need to do some soul searching yourself. So much for your alleged ethical superiority. Some people considered Al Capone to be a public benefactor as well. I'm not one of them.
Because we are a society, not a bunch of pack animals that abandon the weak among us to die (as you would do).
Exactly, what "society" are you refering to? The Amish? The Hutterites? The Native Americans? You seem to have a problem distinguishing between political jurisdictions and society. As a country, we are not "a" society, we are an aggregate of societies, many of which have little to do with each other. I can assure you, your government programs are of little value to the Amish, since they don't participate in them. Likewise, unless you are Amish yourself, the doings of Amish society probably don't affect you in the least. As Margaret Thatcher put it, "There is no "society", there are only individuals and families".
Because Bob's road has a toll of $4 and Tom thinks that he can make money by building a parallel road with a toll of $3. Then Joe thinks that he can undercut them both for $2.50 and then buy them out when they go under. And then there are three side-by-side toll roads.
See? Competition is a wonderful thing for the consumer. And what's the problem with parallel roads? Go to any city and you'll find plenty of 'em, exactly one block away from each other. That's why they call 'em blocks.
That $400+billion dollar deficit this year will be paid down by people shitting money out their asses. Just because Bush is willing to spend us into unfathomable debt doesn't mean no one will ever have to pay.
Oh, I agree - but you said it yourself, that's a problem with spending beyond our means, not an inherent problem with the tax reduction.
And that still doesn't answer my question - whose taxes went up?
So who are you to decide who's "creating value"? You said that the rich create value, so what value is he creating by inheriting money?
The point is, I don't presume to decide who's creating value, I'm contented to let everyone decide what's valuable themselves, and spend their money accordingly. I assume that a lot of people believe Microsoft creates value, because they give them a lot of money in exchange for their products. Apparently a lot of people think Anheuser-Busch creates value, because a lot of people drink Budwiser. Personally, I think it tastes like piss, but just because I don't like it doesn't mean I want to stop Anheuser-Busch from selling their product, or that I'm going to decide they don't "deserve" their money and insist the government confiscates it to give to the poor. What value their product has is between them and their customers. It's none of my business. Nor your's, for that matter.
I'm trying to get through to you that a person's value to society is not measured by the size of their paycheck.
Society, my ass! "Society" doesn't write any paychecks. And there's no such thing as an intrinsic "value to society". Let me ask you this: when you hire a kid to mow your lawn, do you pay him according to his "value to society", or do you pay him according to what having your lawn mowed
I need $1000 to fund the draping of the naked breasts of a judicial statue. Who is it better for me to take that $1000 from? The rich guy, who would have used it to upgrade from coach to first class on his annual vacation to Bermuda? Or the poor guy, who would have used it to make rent and utilities for two months, and maybe buy a bus pass because his rustmobile finally gave up the ghost?
How about charging a flat fee to everyone who's a beneficiary of the service?
When I go to buy a loaf of bread, no one asks me how much money I have. A loaf of bread costs what a loaf of bread costs. And if I want a loaf of bread, I have to pay what it costs whether I'm Bill Gates or Joe Ditchdigger.
If our goal is to maximize the happiness of the most people,
Who said that it was? It sure isn't my goal!
soak the rich seems like a sensible economic policy.
In that case, I propose we re-implement the institution of slavery. While I acknowledge that some individuals will have their right to liberty compromised, there can be little doubt that the benefits accrued to the majority will justify the sacrifice on the part of the enslaved. Indeed, the South has never recovered economicly as a result of it's eradication. Besides, if the slaves want to live in this society and enjoy it's benefits, then they obviously have a moral obligation to make this small sacrifice in the interest of the Common Good.
If our goal is to maximize the happiness of the most people, slavery seems like a sensible economic policy.
As is typical for right-wingers who believe capitalism is the be-all-end-all of existence, you ignore what you can't easily answer:
To answer your question, I favor tax policies which do the least harm. I favor tax policies which make it possible for the working poor to better their lives. I favor tax policies which don't take food off of tables. I favor tax policies which allow a middle-income family to send their children to good colleges. That means getting the lion's share of the money from the people who can most afford it. If it's a choice between taking money from someone who then won't be able to afford health insurance or taking money from a millionaire, I favor a tax policy which takes from the millionaire.
What's wrong with that view?
Actually, I can answer it easily, the problem being I don't really want to waste about 6 posts teasing out what you really mean by "tax policies which do the least harm", because, what you are positing has nothing to do with tax policy, per se, that is, equitably distributing the legitimate cost of government doing the things it has a Constitutional authorization to do, such as providing a common defense and running the post office.
What you are actually saying is that you favor Government by Robin Hood - you propose to confiscate wealth from those who justly acquired it to provide goods and services for those who didn't.
I favor tax policies which make it possible for the working poor to better their lives.
Since the working poor already pay little if anything in taxes already, tax policy has little if anything to do with their condition. So I have to assume that "tax policy" is merely a euphemism for "wealth transfer".
Please explain why you think the poor should have first claim over everybody else? Why does being poor amount to a right to other people's property?
I favor tax policies which allow a middle-income family to send their children to good colleges. That means getting the lion's share of the money from the people who can most afford it.
I favor people taking responsibility for their own actions and living within their means. Meaning if you can't afford to feed, clothe, educate and supply your children with health care, don't have them.
Exactly, where do you get the idea that "the people who can most afford it" should be responsible for other people living beyond their means?
If it's a choice between taking money from someone who then won't be able to afford health insurance or taking money from a millionaire, I favor a tax policy which takes from the millionaire.
I favor everybody paying for what they consume. The fact that Bill Gates may have an ungodly amount of money doesn't make him your daddy. You are still responsible for meeting your own obligations.
What's wrong with that view?
I'll tell you what's wrong with that: what you're saying is that if I make good decisions, such as pursuing a lucrative career, you want to share in my success without having to make the sacrifices I made to pursue that success. If we're going to be re-distributing the consequences of my decisions and actions, why don't we be a little more equitable about it?
Try this on for size: if, instead of working my ass off and earning a pile of money, I decide to get myself royaly drunk, get in my car and run over an old lady. Are you equally willing to share my jail cell with me as you are to share my wealth if I make good decisions rather than bad ones?
I didn't think so. What you're saying is, you want the benefits of my efforts without having to incur any of the costs of them. Conversely, you are also saying you want me to incur the costs of your decisions and actions, without having any of the benefits. It doesn't do a damn thing for me if you decide to propogate your DNA, but you still expect me to absorb the cost of it's education and health care. Not a good deal from my perspective.
The life expectancy of human beings in the wild was about 35 years. The early industrial revolution benefitted those who bought the products of industry, not those who manufactured them. This wasn't because of necessity, but because factory owners didn't think clean, safe working conditions and working employees less than they were physically capable would do anything for their bottom line.
Slave labor was outlawed in Britain a long time before it was in the United States.
If those factory laborers didn't think working in the factories was an improvement over the available alternatives, what were they doing there?
You're deluded if you think public services like roads and public safety could be privatized without serious negative consequences.
And with what evidence were you planning on backing up that assertion with?
Pure libertarianism, as you promote it, strikes me as nothing more than veiled contempt for anyone who makes less money than you.
I see. And what do you suppose I feel for anyone who makes more money than I do?
You also fall into a logical trap when you believe that, because a person like Bill Gates owns a multibillion dollar company, that they are necessarily creating value, or that they deserve to be compensated proportionately.
I don't recollect that I used the word "deserve" anywhere. The point is, he aquired his money justly through lawful, voluntary transactions with private parties. Whether he "deserves" his money or not is of no concern to me, any more than whether or not Britney Spears "deserves" to be cute, or Arnold Schwarzenegger "deserves" to have a physique like Adonis, or whether some people "deserve" to live to be 100 or others "deserve" to die before they reach adulthood. The point is, he acquired it legitimately, and it is not my job in life, or yours, to go running around like God Himself insuring everybody gets what they "deserve", which is an arbitrary and subjective value judgement, at best.
It's as though you look at a $300B company like Microsoft, and automatically assume that those $300B would simply not exist were it not for Microsoft.
In no way did I assume that $300B value couldn't, or wouldn't, exist without Microsoft to create it. If Microsoft didn't exist, it's possible Apple, or Commodore, or Atari, or Borland, or IBM would have created it.
But whether they could have or would have is irrelavent. The point is, Microsoft did.
In fact, it's far more complicated. First, had Bill Gates never been born, computers would still be around, they would still be doubling in power every year and a half, they would still have operating systems, and computer use and intercommunication would still be energizing the economy.
That's purely speculation. In fact it's possible that wouldn't have happened at all without Microsoft. Remember, by making it's DOS operating system available to all comers, Microsoft forced hardware vendors to compete on value and price, which in turn drove down prices, which in turn increased demand, which in turn created markets for ancillary products and services (such as networks, peripherals, etc.). It is questionable whether this "virtuous cycle" would have been initiated had the computer market been left to proprietary vendors, which other than IBM clone manufacturers, was all of them.
In order to calculate the real value of Microsoft to the economy, you can't just look at its market cap. You have to ask how its anticompetitive practices are hindering the development of the computer industry. You have to ask about the costs of its desktop monopoly. You have to ask about the real value of new versions of Office, which serve primarily to break compatability with older versions.
You also have to ask if those markets in which Microsoft holds a monopoly would even exist, at least to the extent that they do, were it not for Microsoft.
Admittedly, it's unfair to look only a
Because our society provides the entire infrastructure needed for them to gain wealth. It provides roads for transporting the goods that they produce and use.
I fail to see why creating roads needs to be government function. Private airlines and railroads are also available to transport goods. In fact, government subsidizing the highway system was one of the things that backrupted many railroads. And I fail to see why the wealthy should be any more responsible for the upkeep of infrastructure than anyone else.
The public roads are available to anyone. The fact that a businessman was smart enough to take better advantage of an infrastructure that was built just as much for your benefit as for his, it doesn't follow that he owes you anything for it.
It provides them with police protection so that they aren't constantly in fear of kidnapping, murder, etc.
Oh, give me a break! Who's in a better position to afford his own security, you or Bill Gates? Obviously, he can afford his own security. Maybe you should be reimbursing him for having to pay for yours as well?
So you never went to a public school? You never went to a museum the received federal funds? Your teachers weren't educated in public schools? Your parents never got a tax credit that helped pay for your education? You didn't get to school using taxpayer funded roads, sidewalks, public transportation, etc.? My, you must have an interesting story to tell.
You haven't explained why those things are necessarily a function of government. There are plenty of privately funded schools, museums, roads and forms of transportation. The fact that I've used some that were publicly funded doesn't necessarily mean they had to be, or should be.
Untrue. It costs money to run the government. If tax policies are such that the rich are not as burdened as the middle-class and poor, then they policies are helping to make them wealthier. If the taxes force many lower-income people to seek out part-time work, there is a labor glut which drives down wages, helping make the wealthy wealthier when they hire people at the deflated wages.
Well then, the obvious solution to that is to cut taxes so that low income people aren't put in that position.
Come to think of it, most lower income people aren't paying income taxes anyway. So how does giving the rich a tax cut harm the poor again?
And don't tell me that you are entitled to keep everything that you are paid, because you are not. It's not "your money", despite what the Bushies would have you believe. If you want to live in this society, then you are legally and morally obligated to contribute to it in the form of taxes.
Sez who?
Yes, it is my money, despite what parasites like you would have me believe. If I have no claim to it by virtue of working for it, you certainly have even less claim to it by virtue of not working for it.
Don't give me this bullshit about "hard work" by the wealthy. You want to see hard work? Go watch coal miners at work. Watch garbage collection people. Watch janitors. Watch the single mother of two who works for 8 hours as a waitress and then works another 4 hours as a maid in a hotel. Watch someone who is doing manual labor at a construction site. Don't waste my time with stories about some guy sitting in an air-conditioned office.
You're in serious need of a class in economics.
Not all "hard work" necessarily creates value. Simply because you work hard doesn't necessarily mean you're entitled to compensation for it. You can spend your days digging a hole to China in your back yard, but while digging a hole to China may be hard work, it creates no value to anyone. Nobody is going to pay you anything to do it.
So let me re-phrase that: Do you favor tax penalties for people who's hard work creates value?
Most of the examples you provided were work that produces little value. Which is why it's lowly compensat
If you let the economy go its own way, you end up with Industrial-revolution Britain, where the working class had a live expectancy of 20 years.
And what was life expectancy before the industrial revolution?
What you're managing to ignore, here, is that while life may have been nasty, brutish and short at the dawn of the Industrial Era, it was still a vast improvement over what came before it.
Or you end up with open warfare between unionizers and police forces, as America saw at the turn of the century.
Yes! And this time, I hope the police win!
Besides, because roads just build themselves, and the police and fire department don't need to be paid. They fund themselves by magic!
Peas and carrots don't plant, grow and harvest themselves, either. But I can always find them available at the grocery store, without taxpayer funding, thankyouverymuch!
The more we get taxed, the more our society fails to suck.
Fails to suck for who? I can see that it would suck less for the guy on the receiving end of the hand-out. It sucks quite a bit more for the guy who works to create the wealth.
Consider Bill Gates -- he makes billions of dollars a year.
The operative word is he makes billions of dollars a year. That is, he creates billions of dollars of wealth. It doesn't just drop on his head, he gets it in exchange for creating products that people want to buy.
Now pretend we tax away all but a million dollars of it. He's not really suffering, since a million dollars is still an enormous sum of money. Yet we now have enough tax money to give jobs to 10000 civil servants (assuming each one requires 100000 in salary, office rent, etc). Frankly, I'll happily make Bill Gates subsist at the millionaire level to create 10000 jobs.
If Bill Gates doesn't create that wealth in the first place, you don't have fuck-all. Exactly, why should Bill Gates work to subsidise 10000 civil servants? What do they do for him? Why should Bill Gates be forced to be a milch-cow for people that add no value to the economy?
How dare you think that they should reap the greatest benefit from our society and not pay the most in taxes?
Explain how they reap the greatest benefit from "our society"? I get my money by selling my labor to an employer, who is not "society", but a specific group of individuals. Everyone else is free to market their skills and labor just like I am. Some do better, some do worse. But the fact that some individuals have more valuble skills or ideas than others doesn't mean they owe "society" the time of day. I got my skills at my own expense, not "society's".
You just want tax policies that make the wealthy wealthier while leaving average Americans struggling to make ends meet.
Um, tax policies don't make anyone wealthier besides the government. Money the government doesn't tax isn't a gift, it's money you earned that you get to keep.
I take it you favor tax policies that penalize people for hard work and success?
You are probably happy that there has been an ever-widening disparity between the haves and the have-nots.
As a matter of fact, yes, I'm delighted!
$0 is still worth $0. So if there's a ever-widening disparity between $0 and max-dollars, that means that means more wealth is being created, and the potential for acquiring wealth is greater than ever. If people are able to earn ever greater sums of wealth relative to $0, that's a Good Thing!
You probably think that it's great that CEO salaries have been skyrocketing while workers' salaries are spiralling downwards.
As far as I know, companies are paying CEO's with their own money, not with mine, so, truthfully, I don't give a rat's-ass what they pay them.
And slavery was outlawed a long time ago. If you don't like what you're getting paid, you're free to find an employer who is willing to pay you more. If you can't find an employer who will pay you more, that's a pretty good sign you're already earning what you're worth.
Then you've no objection to MS taking, say, Kerberos, adding proprietary closed-source info to it, incorporating it into the next OS, and by force of numbers causing it to become the 'standard' version, with all other Pre-existing versions becoming broken in the eyes of millions?..
For the umpteenth time, what stops them from re-implementing Kerberos as closed source software, and doing the same thing now? The GPL only prevents someone from using the actual code. It doesn't prevent anyone from re-implementing an idea as a closed source program. That's entirely outside of the scope of either GPL or BSD.
The problem isn't that the original code is free, or isn't free, or that MS's version is or isn't free. The problem is that THERE IS A FORK THAT WILL NEVER BE ALLOWED TO MERGE BACK.
So what?
A major point of Free software is to reduce the amount of wheel reinvention. Everybody gets to see and use everybody else's code. BSD-to-commercial forks provide a major impediment to that.
BSD provides an incentive to commercial interests to actually invest in improving the code base, because they can actually make money on investing in those improvements, rather than having to give away their competitive advantage. Why do you think Apple chose BSD over Linux as the base of OS X? Who's put a comparable investment into developing Linux? (Hint: IBM doesn't count. IBM put their money into advertising and making Linux run their own proprietary software and hardware. They certainly didn't invest in building Linux into a world-class operating environment like Apple did with BSD. Neither has anyone else.)
MS TCP-users were not able to take advantage of the advances to the BSD stack, and are now stuck with a crippled version. This is the whole point.
How would the GPL have changed that? If the BSD stack had been GPL'd, Microsoft would simply have developed their own stack (which they subsequently have, anyway), and it would still be broken.
Anyway, apparently the stack isn't too badly broken, because if it were unusable, people would be using something besides Windows. I don't see them migrating in droves, do you? You can call Windows crippled if you like, and you might have a point. But it's pretty obvious it isn't crippled enough to prevent millions of people from getting their work done on it. As they say, enough is as good as a feast.
Only a virgin to these things would think that they're not legally manipulated, extrapolated, and interpolated in the courtroom.
And exactly how does the GPL prevent that from happening now?
They cannot ever hope to compete with the industry muscle, experience, and financial backing that Redmond can offer in a patent race.
They can't do it now, either. How does the BSD license change that?
It sounds to me like what you're saying is that you're afraid that, if Microsoft produced a version of Linux, they'd produce a version that was superior to everyone else's, and blow their competition out of the water. Is that what you're afraid of? That Microsoft would build a better Linux than any these "open" companies, and pound them in the marketplace?