[ldrews]

Cyberyeti, on 2017-March-01, 14:27, said:

No, he got excommunicated

Which again is not the use of force. The church simply says we don't want you as a member anymore. That individual is free to go elsewhere for religious association.

For this to be comparable to the government, if you don't pay taxes then the government would say we don't want you to be a citizen anymore. But government doesn't do that, it confiscates property or puts you in jail.

[Cyberyeti]

ldrews, on 2017-March-01, 14:44, said:

Which again is not the use of force. The church simply says we don't want you as a member anymore. That individual is free to go elsewhere for religious association.

For this to be comparable to the government, if you don't pay taxes then the government would say we don't want you to be a citizen anymore. But government doesn't do that, it confiscates property or puts you in jail.

Putting you in jail is the equivalent of saying "you're not a member of our society any more", bear in mind being excommunicated was pretty serious in the middle ages (where in many places there was only one religion), they're not that different.

[mikeh]

ldrews, on 2017-March-01, 10:12, said:

Taxation is also about morality. Since the collection of taxes in inherently coercion, it should be, in my opinion, minimized and stringently justified, not seen as a never-ending cornucopia for centralized solutions.

Taxation is about morality.....but, lest you think that I am agreeing with you, we have a different idea about morality.

In an advanced society, the wealthy enjoy lives of astounding opulence and comfort, in ways that would literally be beyond not merely the reach but even the dreams of Emperors and Kings of not that long ago.

They have airports, built and operated at public expense, for their private jets. Their pilots probably learned to fly with financial support from the government in some way. Their private planes are inspected by taxpayer paid employees, and their passage through the skies is protected and controlled by taxpaid systems and employees.

Their food is inspected and made safe by taxpaid employees as are their medications. When their limos take them to restaurants, they are driven on roads paid for by the taxpayer. When their businesses need employees with skills, they find them amongst graduates of taxpaid schools or subsidized universities. When they want their rights protected, they are protected in the courts by tax paid judges and courthouses.

And so on, ad infinitum.

The vast majority of the top 1% in the US, and in most advanced countries, earned their wealth the old-fsshioned way: they inherited it. Or, as in the case of McCain, they married it (ditching their first wife to do so).

Very few of them are self-made, altho naturally enough it is those who get the media attention.

Thus to me, the morality lies in the need for the privileged to give back, just a bit, to the vast bulk of the not-so-lucky.

It is, in my view, the height if immorality to be wealthy and to complain about taxes.

[ggwhiz]

I couldn't be more concerned about his new agency, VOICE (victims of immigrant criminal engagement) that will publish weekly stats on the horrifying amount of crime being committed by illegal aliens. We can certainly trust this administration to get the facts right. Right?

A muslim registry is right around the corner if he succeeds in slipping this in under the radar which he appears to have done.

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-March-01, 13:21, said:

And exactly what has that got to do with our discussion? Trying to divert attention from a losing position?

I didn't take it as a discussion - simply you making assertions.

[Elianna]

jogs, on 2017-March-01, 13:46, said:

The democratic party leadership looks like a ACBL club game.

I'm impressed that your ACBL club game has Latinos and African Americans. Mine doesn't.

[jogs]

Elianna, on 2017-March-01, 17:29, said:

I'm impressed that your ACBL club game has Latinos and African Americans. Mine doesn't.

I haven't seen many Latinos among the democratic leadership. There are African Americans playing bridge in the bay area. I've had African Americans in my home games.
Also one African American's license plate is 1spade.

[ldrews]

Winstonm, on 2017-March-01, 16:39, said:

I didn't take it as a discussion - simply you making assertions.

Which you just did.

[ldrews]

mikeh, on 2017-March-01, 15:47, said:

Taxation is about morality.....but, lest you think that I am agreeing with you, we have a different idea about morality.

In an advanced society, the wealthy enjoy lives of astounding opulence and comfort, in ways that would literally be beyond not merely the reach but even the dreams of Emperors and Kings of not that long ago.

They have airports, built and operated at public expense, for their private jets. Their pilots probably learned to fly with financial support from the government in some way. Their private planes are inspected by taxpayer paid employees, and their passage through the skies is protected and controlled by taxpaid systems and employees.

Their food is inspected and made safe by taxpaid employees as are their medications. When their limos take them to restaurants, they are driven on roads paid for by the taxpayer. When their businesses need employees with skills, they find them amongst graduates of taxpaid schools or subsidized universities. When they want their rights protected, they are protected in the courts by tax paid judges and courthouses.

And so on, ad infinitum.

The vast majority of the top 1% in the US, and in most advanced countries, earned their wealth the old-fsshioned way: they inherited it. Or, as in the case of McCain, they married it (ditching their first wife to do so).

Very few of them are self-made, altho naturally enough it is those who get the media attention.

Thus to me, the morality lies in the need for the privileged to give back, just a bit, to the vast bulk of the not-so-lucky.

It is, in my view, the height if immorality to be wealthy and to complain about taxes.

Well, we do disagree. By your logic a wealthy person should not complain if a mugger robs him. After all, it just another example of someone using force or coercion to confiscate his property, of which he has a disproportionate share. The sin of envy can be used to justify all sorts of immoral actions.

[mikeh]

ldrews, on 2017-March-01, 18:13, said:

Well, we do disagree. By your logic a wealthy person should not complain if a mugger robs him. After all, it just another example of someone using force or coercion to confiscate his property, of which he has a disproportionate share. The sin of envy can be used to justify all sorts of immoral actions.

May I suggest taking a remedial course in logical thinking? A wealthy person didn't become wealthy as a side-effect of the existence of muggers, nor do the efforts of the muggers in society bestow any benefit upon the wealthy.

The main difference between us may be philosophical. I see nothing innately superior in someone born to rich parents than someone born to middle class or poor. I see no intrinsic moral entitlement in the one not present in the others. I do not think anyone to be better than anyone else merely based on the wealth of their parents.

I see no reason why those who get the most out of living in an affluent society ought not to pay more than do the poor, who, after all, don't actually experience the affluent part of 'affluent society' despite, in many cases, working far, far harder than the wealthy.

Indeed, with the ever-growing degree of economic inequality, in my view the wealthy have an ever-increasing moral obligation to the society that affords them the chance to live their lives of luxury.

Make no mistake about it: very few, if any, rich people could enjoy a comfortable life if deprived of the benefits afforded by living in a wealthy country. Even if they were to move, say, to a third world country, to live luxuriously, safely and healthily, they'd need to import much of what a NA society affords them.

Imagine being a billionaire 200 years ago. Richest person in the world. But, no refrigeration, no access to fresh out-of-season foods local to one's location, no telephone, no mass media, no internet, no radio, no health care that we'd recognize (the phrase 'catch your death of cold' meant something back then, literally), and so on. Being rich is meaningless in a vacuum. It is meaningful only within a society able, at a price, to sell one the luxuries one so craves. Well, being in a society, to any moral or civilized human, comes with obligations as well as rights.

Libertarians (and you sound as if you might be one of those) never seem to understand this. It's weird to me to converse with someone so selfish and unaware.

[ldrews]

mikeh, on 2017-March-01, 18:40, said:

May I suggest taking a remedial course in logical thinking? A wealthy person didn't become wealthy as a side-effect of the existence of muggers, nor do the efforts of the muggers in society bestow any benefit upon the wealthy.

The main difference between us may be philosophical. I see nothing innately superior in someone born to rich parents than someone born to middle class or poor. I see no intrinsic moral entitlement in the one not present in the others. I do not think anyone to be better than anyone else merely based on the wealth of their parents.

I see no reason why those who get the most out of living in an affluent society ought not to pay more than do the poor, who, after all, don't actually experience the affluent part of 'affluent society' despite, in many cases, working far, far harder than the wealthy.

Indeed, with the ever-growing degree of economic inequality, in my view the wealthy have an ever-increasing moral obligation to the society that affords them the chance to live their lives of luxury.

Make no mistake about it: very few, if any, rich people could enjoy a comfortable life if deprived of the benefits afforded by living in a wealthy country. Even if they were to move, say, to a third world country, to live luxuriously, safely and healthily, they'd need to import much of what a NA society affords them.

Imagine being a billionaire 200 years ago. Richest person in the world. But, no refrigeration, no access to fresh out-of-season foods local to one's location, no telephone, no mass media, no internet, no radio, no health care that we'd recognize (the phrase 'catch your death of cold' meant something back then, literally), and so on. Being rich is meaningless in a vacuum. It is meaningful only within a society able, at a price, to sell one the luxuries one so craves. Well, being in a society, to any moral or civilized human, comes with obligations as well as rights.

Libertarians (and you sound as if you might be one of those) never seem to understand this. It's weird to me to converse with someone so selfish and unaware.

You are right, I am a libertarian. I believe and try to adhere to the code of not initiating the use of force or coercion in any of my relationships. I seek only voluntary agreements. To me it is a moral code. If that makes you consider me selfish and unaware, so be it. It seems that you do condone and/or participate in the initiation of force and coercion to implement the type of society that you prefer. "Might makes right". To me that makes you immoral.

[y66]

From Trump is performing the role of president, not doing the job. He doesn’t want to be president, he just wants to play one on TV. by Matthew Yglesias

Quote

The Donald Trump Show is getting stale, old, and, frankly, a little bit boring.

President Trump’s big speech before Congress on Tuesday night was the epitome of the show. There was the gross hypocrisy of “the time for trivial fights is behind us,” the campy propagandism of creating a Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement office, the prepared remarks in all caps calling to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

Trump knows a thing or two about publicity stunts.

Shorn of context, to witness a president of the United States deliver a speech so devoid of the customary humility or sense of America’s role in the world would be shocking. Just as it would ordinarily be shocking to see a president attacking the media as the “enemy of the American people” or denouncing a “so-called judge” or any of the other dozen or so bizarre things that Trump does in a given week.

His campaign was fascinating from state to finish — if at times horrifying — because of the litany of similar novelties. His business — brand licensing and real estate — succeeded by the same attention seeking. His reality TV career is the same story.

But Trump is no longer a novelty candidate, a branding magnate, or a B-List TV show host. He’s now the president of the United States. He’s the subject of constant, obsessive media attention. And like any overexposed celebrity, he’s getting tiresome.

If you take any one moment from the Trump Show out of context, it’s striking. But together, Trump’s antics are now banal. He says, tweets, and does weird things. He gets attention. He pisses people off while thrilling others. Tonight, he even managed to attract attention and garner praise for slightly dialing it down. But speeches are supposed to be tools to help do the work of actually being president — learning about the issues, making decisions about trade-offs, and collaborating to get things done.

Amid the nonstop and increasingly tedious theatricality, Trump is only ever performing the role of the president; he’s never doing the job.

[barmar]

What you're all missing in this discussion of taxation, and what the taxes are used for, is the notion of the "social contract". We live together in a society, and entrust the government to manage the society for all our benefit. In order to partake of these benefits, we're expected to do our part to contribute to it as well -- there's no free lunch.

The difference between taxation and robbery is that taxation doesn't involve separate parties taking advantage of each other. In the case of taxation, we're one big group of citizens, not mugger versus victim. The tax laws were created by our elected representatives -- you can't steal from yourself. And by living in our society and taking advantage of it, you're implicitly agreeing to abide by the rules. If you violate them, the government is authorized to punish you.

I understand that pure libertarians may not agree with all facets of this. But how many of them are willing to live without a fire department if their house catches fire? In a pure free market, it wouldn't be necessary, we'd all pay someone to put out our fires, perhaps with the assistance of fire insurance. But in general, most people aren't willing to live in such a society. They may say that they want to avoid all possibilities of socialism, but I don't think most of them really want to go that far.

So the question ends up where to draw the line.

[Elianna]

jogs, on 2017-March-01, 17:53, said:

I haven't seen many Latinos among the democratic leadership.

https://en.wikipedia.../wiki/Tom_Perez (the newly elected DNC chair)

I guess our next step is to argue about what "many" means. Feel free to do so, I won't respond.

[ldrews]

barmar, on 2017-March-01, 20:25, said:

So the question ends up where to draw the line.

I agree. The question is where to draw the line. As a limited government libertarian I recognize that to live with other people a limited form of government is required. The defense of the group against outside aggressors, the fair and consistent settlement of disputes among the citizens of the group, the protection of individuals in the group from aggression by other members of the group, these are to me the essentials of such a limited government. Since the effective enforcement of the government functions ultimately depends on the use of force, anything additional must have an overwhelming justification.

Consent to this limited government should, in my opinion, be explicit and in writing. Anyone not willing to voluntarily enter into a binding agreement should be asked to leave. The age at which this agreement is presented to youth would be set at an appropriate age, say 18.

How to pay for this limited government is open to debate. Some forms of taxation would probably be required, but again minimized. Subscription fees, import tariffs, etc., are alternative ways of funding.

This is all fantasy, however. We do not live in that kind of world. But, to me, it is a worthy goal.

[mikeh]

ldrews, on 2017-March-01, 18:54, said:

You are right, I am a libertarian. I believe and try to adhere to the code of not initiating the use of force or coercion in any of my relationships. I seek only voluntary agreements. To me it is a moral code. If that makes you consider me selfish and unaware, so be it. It seems that you do condone and/or participate in the initiation of force and coercion to implement the type of society that you prefer. "Might makes right". To me that makes you immoral.

whereas the notion that 'I've got mine, Jack...so f*ck off' is a perfectly valid moral code by which to live in a society? Even when the 'mine' you've 'got' was inherited and not earned? And the 'f*ck off' applies to any attempt to make you pay for shared services, of which you consume a disproportionate share?

You libertarians both amuse and horrify me with your simplistic beliefs about both human nature and how societies function.

Ryan is a classic.....he and his family gladly accepted government assistance while he was young, but he now thinks that government assistance is evil. He's got his now, of course.

Next thing, you'll tell us how wonderful Ayn Rand was.

[ldrews]

mikeh, on 2017-March-01, 21:21, said:

whereas the notion that 'I've got mine, Jack...so f*ck off' is a perfectly valid moral code by which to live in a society? Even when the 'mine' you've 'got' was inherited and not earned? And the 'f*ck off' applies to any attempt to make you pay for shared services, of which you consume a disproportionate share?

You libertarians both amuse and horrify me with your simplistic beliefs about both human nature and how societies function.

Ryan is a classic.....he and his family gladly accepted government assistance while he was young, but he now thinks that government assistance is evil. He's got his now, of course.

Next thing, you'll tell us how wonderful Ayn Rand was.

You do carry around a lot of stereotypes, don't you? Profile much?

[akwoo]

My utopia is the anarchist one.

I think, in an ideal society, there would be no force or coercion.

On the other hand, there would also not be a notion of property, so there would be nothing wrong with burglary or theft or trespassing. (I note that, in England, it's not a crime to pick the lock of an empty house and live there, though the owners can evict you (and eviction is one of the fastest processes in civil law) once they find out.) Of course, fraud and robbery would still be wrong.

Good luck for the rich person keeping very much.

I realize ideals are just that.

I just don't see any moral justification for property, and in particular for real property. I do realize notions of property are useful for avoiding various forms of tragedy of the commons, and avoiding tragedy of the commons by regulatory methods instead of assignment of property rights would be a huge impossible mess in many cases.

[Vampyr]

barmar, on 2017-March-01, 09:58, said:

Isn't that what Obama originally wanted? But Congress wouldn't even allow such a proposal on the table. A big part of Obamacare is an extension of Medicare to more people, but many Republican governors refused to take the additional money.

This I hadn't heard of. I assume that would have been done by lowering the age of eligibility?

What I did read a lot about was the expansion of Medicaid, which would have covered people of all ages. Similarly, it was refused by many states. How do you go to the electorate and say, "the federal government offered to cover you, at no cost to the state or to you as an individual, but we said no thanks". Oh wait, the people affected are poor, and in many of these states they can't vote.

[rmnka447]

ldrews, on 2017-February-28, 19:39, said:

The U.S has had a functioning single payer health system for years, Medicare. Why not just extend Medicare to cover everyone?

But Medicare is going broke also. There are significant unfunded liabilities that are building up in it. If I recall correctly, the system is due to run out of money in about 11 years.

Since payroll taxes are the source of the revenues for Medicare and Social Security, the question would be "How much does everyone's payroll taxes have to increase to cover the additional costs associated with an expanded pool that is covered?". It wouldn't be an easy sell.