"Common Good"? Hogwash.

[arnisador]

Roosevelt was a nut case

I'd be careful about throwing stones at this point.

Explain to me where it's right to take what someone legally earns and divy it up amongst those who didn't earn it. You can't, not without somehow trying to justify theft in fancy words and "make me feel good" bull.

It's practical. People without money will steal to get food. You could be the victim. You may not like that, but the Custom of the Sea isn't fair either...yet it happens when people get thirsty and hungry.

It's also the govt. that has developed via this "experiment in democracy" of which you are a willing participant. You'd be free to emigrate to Canada. Trying to make changes here instead is great and I am all for that, but complaining that a group you are a voluntary member of, that has its own systems of rules for changing the laws, is stealing from you is nonsense. In a nation of 350 million, not everyone is going to be happy about every aspect of the country. You like the free speech but dislike the welfare. Deal with it.

Simple idea

Indeed...

You will never convince me otherwise.

Luckily our system doesn't require your assent for every law passed.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I didn't say morality doesn't matter Bill, putting words in my mouth. Go ahead, steal now, steal later, it's still stealing, glad to see you advocating it. Unless hard work and earning is a crime rather than theft now.

I'm not advocating anything, so who is putting words in whose mouth?

No I don't care what someone else does with his or her life as long as it does not hurt me physically or financially. But if they do there are laws about that.

Millions starving will hurt your financially. No law will protect you.

A guess the morality of a religious man goes out the window when convenient. But then the "common good" was always used as an excuse to take the unearned ... Russian Revolution anyone?

My religion is a very different thing from my morality, but in any case, I did not advocate anything as I said. I simply said what would happen if millions were starving. You say they can't affect the economy, and what happens to others is none of your business. I say they can, and while it may be none of your business, it can very well affect you. If that's not enough reason to care, then by all means don't. However, if it doesn't bother you now, it should bother you later if it should happen that my prediction comes true. Right?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Explain to me where it's right to take what someone legally earns and divy it up amongst those who didn't earn it.

It isn't right. There's no right about it. It's wrong.

It is also a) not likely to change and b) practical from the standpoint of protecting ourselves by protecting the basis of our society.

Enlightened self interest says that as contradictory as it sounds, social and economic stability benefits everyone - at the very least it can be demonstrated that social and economic instability harms everyone.

You can't, not without somehow trying to justify theft in fancy words and "make me feel good" bull.

I don't see what's so fancy about doing what is best for oneself. The short view is to say "This is mine, I worked for it and nobody else is entitled to it." And it is certainly true in a purely capitalist society. The longer view recognizes that if the economy is severely damaged by millions out of work with no taxpayer-financed financial safety net, you will be damaged too.

And that doesn't make me feel good, either. It sucks doesn't it?

But it's interesting. I see the same argument from folks here on MT with regard to 'fighting back' if mugged. Let's say they could surrender their wallet and walk away unharmed - but they are not going to do that, because in their words 'why should I have to give in to a crook?'

Well, nobody should have to give in to a crook, just like nobody should have to pay their hard-earned money in taxes just to have it end up buying Hostess Ho-Ho's for some rummy who refuses to work. But if it's self-defense we're interested in, and not cutting off our noses to spite our faces, then sometimes it is smarter to give the wallet to the mugger or to pay the taxes so Joe Sixpack can avoid working for another week - because it represents a longer-term value proposition for us.

If you're going to fight a mugger when you know you could walk away, because of the principle of the thing, or if you're going to fight against paying taxes to fund social services for the sick lame and lazy, then I would suggest you're not really interested in what's best for your own long-term interests, but more into what political values you hold. Rather be right and dead than wrong and alive? It's your choice, of course, but I tend to go with the odds favor my survival.

Social services to me are not about feeling sorry for anyone. They're about making the smart choice to protect my society, upon which almost all of my happiness and survival depend.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I'd be careful about throwing stones at this point.



It's practical. People without money will steal to get food. You could be the victim. You may not like that, but the Custom of the Sea isn't fair either...yet it happens when people get thirsty and hungry.

It's also the govt. that has developed via this "experiment in democracy" of which you are a willing participant. You'd be free to emigrate to Canada. Trying to make changes here instead is great and I am all for that, but complaining that a group you are a voluntary member of, that has its own systems of rules for changing the laws, is stealing from you is nonsense. In a nation of 350 million, not everyone is going to be happy about every aspect of the country. You like the free speech but dislike the welfare. Deal with it.


Indeed...

Luckily our system doesn't require your assent for every law passed.

Read about his blatant "I'll do what I damn well please" attitude as President. You might think otherwise.

It's practical that I submit to a lot of things.
Practical doesn't always mean right.

System doesn't require my approval, that's fine. But don't white wash a turd and tell me it's a taco. Your government is stealing from you, is contemplating stealing more from you, so that others don't have to work for a living. You're fine with that. I'm not.

But, lets make this fair then. Lets drop the income tax on everyone making under say, $35,000 a year. Less than that, you pay, nothing.

Everyone else, anything you earn over 35k, is Uncle Sams to pass out to the under 35kers.

35k is a decent buck, quite livable.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's practical that I submit to a lot of things.
Practical doesn't always mean right.

No, but when right means getting a raw deal, what's the point?

Your government is stealing from you, is contemplating stealing more from you, so that others don't have to work for a living. You're fine with that. I'm not.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm not fine with it. There is a balance that must be kept. Too much in the way of social netting and everything falls apart. Too little and it's the same.

But, lets make this fair then. Lets drop the income tax on everyone making under say, $35,000 a year. Less than that, you pay, nothing.

Everyone else, anything you earn over 35k, is Uncle Sams to pass out to the under 35kers.

35k is a decent buck, quite livable.

Everyone making less than 35K now is pretty much paying nothing in taxes, aren't they? I'm not sure.

 

[Omar B]

No, millions starving won't affect me. 3 million dead in N Korea last year of starvation, I didn't bat an eye, Somalia, Zimbabwe, nope, not my concern. It's a shame, but it's for them, their governments (through proper infrastructure and ensuring individual rights) and whoever wants to be a philanthropist. At this point I can't help, but when I am rich enough I will, my money is not for others to dispense with as they see fit to feed whoever.

You are probably the first person I've seen to have separate columns for their religion and their morality. Though I've seen many people in jail invoke the name of god/gods.

You keep bringing up people's starving "affecting me" what sort of effect are you hinting at? They produce nothing, they trade nothing so they are not an economic factor (or they would not be starving) so it's not as if their buying or not buying is going to affect me. Printing and handing out money to pay bills and feed people pretty much is the Zimbabwe model where there is an inflation rate of 2000000% because Mugabe took land, factories and interests from people who produced and gave to friends in the name of the common good. He's also got a great facet of his plan that's concerned with seizing lands in The Congo to continue with this same plan. Now they have 1 Billion dollar bills that are simply called 1$ but it's worth even less. Similar stories are happening in Somalia, N Korea and a mirad of other countries.

Taking from one and giving a group in the name of common good pretty much is the beginning of destroying a country. Slow and inexhorable or fast breakneck, it'll happen when money (value) is devalued by handing it out to those who did not earn it.

 

[arnisador]

Read about his blatant "I'll do what I damn well please" attitude as President. You might think otherwise.

Was there ever a good president of the U.S., in your estimation?

It's practical that I submit to a lot of things.
Practical doesn't always mean right.

Oh, I agree. I studied, put myself through 8 years of college, worked long hours to get where I am at the expense of time with my family, and don't enjoy seeing the difference between my alleged salary and my actual pay stub. But, I get it. I like not speaking German, for example, which is both gendered and declined, both of which I find very annoying. Hence, I don't regret money spent on the armed forces. Welfare and state-supported medical care for people who don't work but could isn't something I like in the abstract but it is practical--hungry people steal things. Welfare etc. for the truly needy is a form of insurance and makes sense. No one who needs social security or state-supported medical care or the like turns it down, proving that the only people opposing it are those who don't think they'll need it.

System doesn't require my approval, that's fine. But don't white wash a turd and tell me it's a taco. Your government is stealing from you

Nonsense. Your continued presence here is assent to the system. Try to change it if you like, but comparing taxes in a representational system to stealing is 100% BS. Calling it stealing is a way of whining about it because you feel powerless to change it--not because it's true.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Just for the record, if you say it's not right that we set a limit on what people earn, yet think taxes on income are ok, then you don't realize we're already doing that.

You make 60k, pay 10% to US. You're only allowed to keep 90%.


I want to be like Gates. Other than nerdy I mean. I want to be in a position where I can say "Keep pissing me off US and I'll move the entire operation off shore and you can kiss the millions in corporate and other taxes good by. Microsoft, the evil monopoly that bought all new gear for the local Fire Department, saving local tax payers a ton o cash. I want to be so damn rich I could cut a check and buy New Orleans and fix in 6 months what the US Gov hasn't figured out in 4+ years. But I want to make that call, not some paper pusher in DC who demands I do it because of some ******** idea that I 'owe' them.

The fact that I'm currently not effected by this stuff, don't matter. I'm going to be eventually, and damn it, I want to keep every last cent I earned.
Unless I choose to give it away. Control over ones property is the key point.

With that, I bid y'all good night, I'll pop in on Monday if I survive the Expo. LOL!

 

[arnisador]

No, millions starving won't affect me.

People stealing for meth money is a hell of a problem where I live. I wonder what they'd do if they needed food?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Was there ever a good president of the U.S., in your estimation?

Washington.
Adams.
Jefferson.
Kennedy.

Couple more.

Not FDR. Not Carter. Neither Bush. Not Clinton. Not Obama.
Def. not Lincoln.

 

[Omar B]

People stealing for meth money is a hell of a problem where I live. I wonder what they'd do if they needed food?

I know man. I always find it funny people who always have money enough for drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, gambling. Weird huh?

I like beer but I only have a drink when I'm watching football, I like weed but I could not tell when was the last time I smoked. Oddly enough, I spend all my time working.

 

[Sukerkin]

I am not an economics expert, but I am aware that most economics experts disagree on just about everything.

I am, or, more accurately, I was and, as with most areas of human investigation, it is quite true that there are competing theories that vie for credability.

The problem we have at present is that none of them work terribly well - at least not for those of us down towards the bottom end of the econmic ladder because the systems have been skewed towards aiding those at the top.

I'm also a qualified professional in the field of history, which helps to give a perspective on matters such as this also. Most people who have been arguing for 'freedom' from tax, resentment for assisting those they feel to be redundant and expressing a desire to 'make their own way' should invest in a time machine and get themselves back to a time when societies were organised along lines more suited to that way of thinking.

Those ways have been tried for a long time, ladies and gentlemen - there is a very good, underlying, reason why societies are no longer structured in such a fashion ...

 

[Sukerkin]

It's a lovely theory, but I don't think anyone should depend on SS providing the lions share (or in a few years any) of their retirement fund.

One of the few areas Omar and I agree on.

The State Pension is there to stop our elderly dying in droves when winter comes and is not some princely sum. That's why I contribute to the Second State pension (which is voluntary) and also have one main private pension and two secondary ones.

Whether they'll be enough we shall have to wait and see and take the roll of the dice that the self-serving bastards in the free market financial sector don't wreck the Stock Market just at the point when I retire.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh and on a total aside here, Omar, I cannot mandate your choice of Economists to listen to any more than I can mandate any other choice you make but, especially Friedman, the ones you name are a good example of taking a bad idea to it's logical conclusion. That sort of no-morality, no-society, Monetarist thinking is what got the Western world into the state it's in now - even Friedman had a 'death-bed' enlightenment and repudiated his own theory a few years before he passed on.

We've had several threads on Economics here at MT, so I'm not going to drone on, reiterating my thoughts on the subject again - especially as I've just realised that the femme fatale that is the Study has dragged me in again :lol:.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You keep bringing up people's starving "affecting me" what sort of effect are you hinting at? They produce nothing, they trade nothing so they are not an economic factor (or they would not be starving) so it's not as if their buying or not buying is going to affect me.

I'm not hinting, I am stating it directly. Millions starving will affect you (and me) in many ways.

First, everyone in an economy participates in it. That means the poor, even though they have little, buy things. Think Wal-Mart. If millions are starving, they cannot buy things. That affects companies that sell, and it affects companies that make things. It leads to more unemployment, which exacerbates the problem. At a very basic level, it is important that people keep consuming.

Second, as I've pointed out, people who are literally starving are dangerous. They may be religious and they may have morals, but few will starve quietly to death in a corner while there is food for their family in the local grocery store. Given a high enough misery index, people will begin to do what they think they have to in order to survive. I was alluding to this when I joked about breaking in to your house and eating you; sorry, I should have been more clear. History is replete with examples of small societies (stranded parties of people) who turned to murder and cannibalism to survive. Law, morals and religion go out the window when actual life and death are on the line. But whether people will break into your house and eat you, or just start swarming local stores and simply taking what they want, as social order breaks down, it will indeed affect you. It will affect all of us.

You speak of Somalia and other nations like that where starvation is rampant. You're right, that mostly doesn't affect us in a manifest way. The people who live there do not take part in our local economy, nor in the global economy in a major way. Our economies are not tied together by trade, and the Somalis, for example, don't really have an alternative to starving, when there is nowhere near them where they could go and steal food either.

As I said, I am not an economist, nor am I an expert on economies. What I do know is pretty simple stuff, like the fact that economies require companies to make goods, people to sell goods, and people to buy goods. If there is not a balance between them, they will seek equilibrium by reducing what they do to match the others. Fewer buyers means fewer manufacturers, which means fewer employees, and so on. I used to believe it was best if government did not attempt to apply a steadying hand to that balance. I still believe the lightest of touches is all that is required, too much is as destructive as too little. And yes, that light touch is in the form of taxes that take from you (and me) and give it to the undeserving. I believe that is actually of benefit to me as long as the balance is kept.

 

[Omar B]

Yes, and you keep pointing out that. I'm wondering how many other ways you can state that if I don't allow men to feed off of me now they'll do it later by force. But as always, you're right Bill, examples, books and references to where it's actually happened be damned. Simply stating that if those who don't produce will seize by force is a great argument, especially here in the US where we have the law, police and military. But as always, your right, take it now, take it later, as long as nobody has to plan and think of their own future.

Starving people are dangerous. But since the thread is about brotherly love and common good, not about starving zombie hordes and marauding bands styled off of Cormac Mcarthy's "The Road" I cant really solve that problem here.

Sukerin, you make some valid points. Tell me, what economic model/models you subscribe to. I would like to look more into that side since you are learned in that area and get back to you.

 

[Makalakumu]

You didn't plan for your retirement so I think you should get cracking on it. Sadly many people are like yourself and don't plan. There is a story about some small animal who played all summer and starved in the winter.

The problem with this line of thinking is that the Central Bank is continually confiscating part of our income through inflation. For middle class people, the effect of losing buying power year after year after year makes it nigh impossible to save very much. The government has under reported inflation for fifty years and people just don't realize that they are being hit by this hidden tax. When one couples this with the income the government outright confiscates, it's no wonder that people are left impoverished at the end of their lives.

 

[Makalakumu]

Money's value comes from those who produce and those who trade.

Money's value is actually determined by how much is in circulation. Money is created when people take out loans. People take out more loans when they cannot save enough to purchase goods. People cannot save enough to purchase goods because of limited incomes, heavy tax burdens, and backdoor income confiscation due to inflation. Private industries exert downward pressure on incomes. Governments exert upward pressure on taxes. The Central Bank determines inflation. At every step of the way, we see that the regular person has very little impact on the value of money.

 

[shinbushi]

The best way to help the poor is not to be come one of them.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Yes, and you keep pointing out that. I'm wondering how many other ways you can state that if I don't allow men to feed off of me now they'll do it later by force. But as always, you're right Bill, examples, books and references to where it's actually happened be damned. Simply stating that if those who don't produce will seize by force is a great argument, especially here in the US where we have the law, police and military. But as always, your right, take it now, take it later, as long as nobody has to plan and think of their own future.

You want an example? OK...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution

 

[Makalakumu]

Whilst I support many traditional libertarian ideals, I can never be a true believer in the philosophy because I have never seen the ideology effectively deal with the Tragedy of the Commons. At best, they deny that this actually happens, which, IMO, is a gross abuse of logic. One really has to ignore a lot of evidence in order to claim that.

The bottom line is that the human animal operates like any other animal when it comes to shared resources. It's boom and bust...which is great when one is booming sucks when busting. Human social structure is the one thing that has allowed our species to reach equilibrium at various times in history.