GENIUS FORUMS

snowbunny wrote:lurkers keep in mind that I am now very wary of a specific member here looking to bash me any chance he gets, so I will go on the offensive elsewhere, as it were

Well, you could have chosen a different alias...

Yeah, I like yours. Maybe if I was part of the in crowd, then I could get mine changed to something else, and I could put, R.I.P. Snow Bunny in my signature.

Ryan R. wrote:Moreover, People should only pay for services if they use it, it makes much more sense for the people who use a toll highway to pay for its maintenance and upkeep, why should someone who doesn’t use a strip of highway be forced to pay for its upkeep in the form of taxes?

That may work with bridges and highways, but what about every other road? How about this? A federal tax on your odometer? That way, we could be sure that people are charged proportionately to their actual road usage. We already have that, roughly, with tax on gasoline, though.

What if you, in your heart of hearts, decide that killing is the most heinous possible crime or sin. Can you refuse to pay taxes because it supports a standing army?

Ryan, you are not complaining that you are paying for services you are not using. You are rather disenfranchised because you feel powerless as to how the money you pay is being spent. There is a big difference. Because if you pay for things you never use, I guarantee that you use things that you don't pay for. If you took every dime you make in your entire life and spent it on the construction of just one road, you might get five or ten miles, depending on what kind of road we're talking about. Then what? Die broke at an old age not ten miles from where you started.

It's called a society. If you live in it, then to some degree, you have chosen it.

It balances out. If it doesn't, it's up to you to see that it does.

Brokenhead,

It balances out. If it doesn't, it's up to you to see that it does.

Well that is why we are debating which political system functions better – libertarianism or liberalism.


liberalism:

Big government with an abundance of social services and programs, which means higher taxes and spending,

Libertarianism:

Small, limited government, and whatever services can be done privately should be, which will lower taxes and give people more disposable income to allow them to spend their money on services as they need them.

Basically, depending on how you balance liberal and libertarian ideals, then this will dictate how high taxes are, which determines how much economic progress and prosperity there is. Not to mention that a country with lower taxes usually has higher rates of technological innovation and scientific discovery.

then this will dictate how high taxes are, which determines how much economic progress and prosperity there is.

False.

Not to mention that a country with lower taxes usually has higher rates of technological innovation and scientific discovery.

Also false.

Ryan R. wrote:Not to mention that a country with lower taxes usually has higher rates of technological innovation and scientific discovery.

I'm not convinced of that. Lower taxes than what? A communist state? Didn't the Soviet Union keep pace with us for more than half a century? Granted, that was at the expense of little things, like food for the masses. A lot of technological spinoff happened as a result of the space-race, which was government-subsidized until nearly the turn of the century.

But I do see what you are saying. The Libertarian agenda seems too... what's the word I'm looking for? Marginal. It seems too marginal for the US. Okay, maybe New Hampshire. But where are all the successful Libertarian societies? Bear with me, politics has not been main area of interest in life. I only know something about it because I have to. I have never seen the US as any kind of Utopia, even a potential one. And I am aware that various pundits rate places to live and the US is rarely no.1. But it's usually in the top ten, all around. Just tell me where to travel to see a well-functioning Libertarian society first-hand.

I just checked and you are in Novia Scotia. Yikes. Canada is not your basic Libertarian template, is it?

Well, US Americans are not likely to venture that far right, either. We have some basic ways of doing things sometimes. We had been discussing paying for roads that you use. I remember travelling down south in the US on long stretches of highway that had the shells of old toll booths every so many miles, the idea being that once the road had been paid for, whichever state it was then stopped collecting tolls. There was apparently nothing left over in the budget to tear down and remove the toll booths.

Scandinavian nations have high taxes, and they have plenty of prosperity, technology, innovation, etc.

The also have the highest quality of life index in the world, while the US has one of the lowest scores of all developed nations.

brokenhead: You want your cake and eat it, too?

Nick: [W]hat's the point of having cake if you can't eat it?

brokenhead: Ya know, I never got that expression either, Nick.

Yeah, it took me a while to work it out, but in the end it turns out to be pretty darn straightforward. Once you've eaten your cake, you no longer "have" (possess) it because it no longer exists. People who want to have their cake and eat it too are people who want to possess something at the same time as consuming it, or, more generally, are people who want to enjoy the benefits of both A and B whereas B entails an absence of A. It did seem to apply to Nick's words, which were that he wants socialisation of basics services ("A", which requires the support of taxation - i.e. an absence of no-taxes, "B") but at the same time he wants B - lack of taxation. But if you look a little closer, you might see that he wrote specifically about a lack of income taxes and payroll taxes and that if I recall correctly he has elsewhere advocated sales taxes instead, so in the end your criticism isn't quite valid.

Pardon me for not responding to the substance of this thread but I'm at a point in my life where I'm really struggling to find a consistent position on a lot of these things, and I don't have anything strong to contribute. I'm very much enjoying the exchanges though - there are a lot of good points being made by all contributors.

Yeah, it took me a while to work it out,

Come on! I'm just a lowly woman, and I've known what that motto means since the early 80s. Are you kids morons or what?

LOL

Shahrazad wrote:

Yeah, it took me a while to work it out,

Come on! I'm just a lowly woman, and I've known what that motto means since the early 80s. Are you kids morons or what?

Yeah, Shah, I knew what it meant, but it's a stupid way of putting it. It should be "You want to eat your cake and have it, too."

And it's not a motto. It's a saying.

Sheeesh...

My motto is "To hell with everyone, and especially you!"

Nah, just playing. I actually don't add the exclamation point.

Oh, Nick:

Leyla, I never said capitalism, the free market, or anything else for that matter would "solve everything".

Are you always so defensive, like a woman? I never said you said that, I simply pointed out why the comment was directed at you. The problem is, actually, your dogmatic mindset.

What I explained through out this thread is an alternative form of Government compared to the one's in existence now, and the ones that existed in the past.

Yes, I know you think you have come up with a brand new idea based on history books. Ever read or studied any serious socio-economic theories?

And while I understand and appreciate your argument it really it doesn't mean anything to the actual ideas I'm trying to express.

The current socio-economic theories implemented in western society mean nothing to the ideas you’re trying to express, even though those ideas relate in a large part to current socio-economic theory? Have you considered that that might be a problem? You know, with the idea of causality, n’ all . . .

You are a lover of smoke-filled pipedreams and don’t understand my argument at all, which is why you resort to all manner of obfuscation and finger-pointing to avoid actually addressing it. Nice try, but I ain’t paid to labour over your rubbish on your behalf. Step up to the plate, or just step off.

So instead of turning this into an argument over semantics and trying to continually argue your point against mine, I think it would serve us both best if you read over everything I've said and actually try to understand exactly what I'm trying to express.

Ye gods! I don’t think so. I don’t actually need to understand your apparently uniquely alternative idea for a form of government to make points about existing socio-economic conditions in relation to specific statements you have made. If your ideas are consistent, then my argument either supports or negates it; if they are well-formed, it shouldn't be too hard to argue with them, or express reasoned agreement, whenever they are challenged, in whatever way. Your attempt to reduce it to “semantics,” therefore, is a pathetic attempt to avoid it. Really pathetic, actually.

It's not that hard, I guarentee you will know exactly what I'm talking about.

See above. You are free to pull out of the discussion with me at any time, but not at the expense of my intelligence, you manly-man, you.

~

Ryan, I do have some comments on your earlier post. Will post soon.

Shahrazad wrote:Come on! I'm just a lowly woman, and I've known what that motto means since the early 80s. Are you kids morons or what?

Yes, yes, Sher, you've already demonstrated that you're 100% conscious. No need to rub it in.

Brokenhead,

Yeah, Shah, I knew what it meant, but it's a stupid way of putting it. It should be "You want to eat your cake and have it, too."

The correct phrase was "You can't have your cake and eat it, too".

And it's not a motto. It's a saying.

Oh, there's a difference? Thanks for instructing me.

Can I call it a proverb?

Laird,

Yes, yes, Sher, you've already demonstrated that you're 100% conscious. No need to rub it in.

I disagree. I've convinced you that I'm conscious, but there are still about 50 people that are unconvinced.

-

Brokenhead,

I just checked and you are in Novia Scotia. Yikes. Canada is not your basic Libertarian template, is it?

Canada is very comfortable because the government provides so many social programs and services. However, big business is heavily taxed, the individual is heavily taxed, and most goods and services are heavily taxed, and the affect on the country is that big business has less money to invest in R&D, and individuals have less disposable income to start their own projects, so creativity is at a relatively lower level than many developed nations. However, I admit we have a very high standard of living here, but our R&D suffers for it. The truth is that Canada imports most of its technology from the US and Asia. And some of our leading companies are from the US, and they simply bring their innovation and discoveries into our country.

Unidian,

Scandinavian nations have high taxes, and they have plenty of prosperity, technology, innovation, etc. The also have the highest quality of life index in the world, while the US has one of the lowest scores of all developed nations.

The US also has very low tax rates for big business, which translates into much more money for R&D, and so the US is a leader in Science and technological innovation around the world, which makes millions of lives much more rewarding.

Japan is probably the best example of a world leader in science/technological R&D, but some of their social programs suffer quite a bit as a result. For example: they have a poor track record with paying out welfare claims, which has resulted in some citizens starving to death. However, they only starved to death because they were too proud to seek assistance, as they were soup kitchens and Christian non-profits available to them.

Leyla, you are just like Victor. All you care about is arguing your point, no matter the relevance, instead of actually trying to understand the person you are arguing with. This is why I thought it was pretty funny when you two were going at it a while back; Leyla: "fish live in the sea you moron!", Victor: "No you idiot Mt. Everest is the highest peak!".

Edit: I was off-my-face drunk when I wrote this post and on sober reflection I wouldn't have made it.

Edit2: Argh, now I feel mean-spirited for editing this post out. Originally it read something like: "That's actually pretty funny Nick. I don't know whether it's true or not, but it's pretty funny. You have more substance than I've given you credit for." The reason that I edited it out is that it might have given the impression that I was taking sides in the Leyla-Nick debate, when really I'm pretty neutral on it, and also that it might have given the impression that in general I think that Nick's philosophy is substantial, which I don't (mostly due to his chauvinism and his beliefs in enlightenment). On the other hand, taken quite literally, I'm happy enough for it to stand - Nick did surprise me by saying something funny that indicated more of a capacity for abstract observation than I've seen from him before - so I'll leave things at this edit.

Nick "Supremely Relevant & Wise" Treklis wrote:

Leyla, you are just like Victor. All you care about is arguing your point, no matter the relevance, instead of actually trying to understand the person you are arguing with. This is why I thought it was pretty funny when you two were going at it a while back; Leyla: "fish live in the sea you moron!", Victor: "No you idiot Mt. Everest is the highest peak!".

So glad you're finding the forum entertaining.

Now, would you like to explain why, if my point is so irrelevant to the point you were trying to make, you cannot treat the two as separate discussions?

Ryan,

L: Yes. So, my question is, when we consider a CEO’s (for Ryan‘s) bonuses or a company’s/investor profit margins, under what circumstances can we agree on an abuse of power relative to wage earners and, if we can‘t agree that there even could be anything considered as such, why not, exactly? Where is the distinction between high taxes and profits, and abuses of power?

R: When taxes are so high that they put a strain on the middle-class, then we know there is a problem. And it maybe not just taxes, as it could be excessive spending that extends beyond the taxes, and so the value of the dollar suffers, which also affects the living conditions of the middle-class.

In the CEO case, suppose the CEO made a crucial business decision that increased profits for that year by 20 billion. Well, the CEO could still give employees raises and bonuses, invest in the company, keep shareholders happy, and still take a bonus for himself that could be in the millions. It all comes down to whether or not the CEO can balance the needs of the employees with the needs of the shareholders, while increasing the abstract worth and competitive edge of the company, while fulfilling his own needs.

Apparently, I am irredeemably “irrelevant” but, as you know, I am caused to be so. Since, then, I must assume that certain others are better endowed than I in this regard, I would appreciate your kindness and good grace in entertaining my problem with the above. I read it, and I don’t think you actually answered the questions I asked, which had, I thought quite specifically, to do with the distinction between abuses of power by a corrupt dictator and abuses of power by a CEO. By it I intended to seek your views on how these particular abuses might impact welfare and, thus, taxation. If I am not mistaken, you only discussed such abuses of power in the first paragraph through government spending and taxation. And, well, you didn’t address the question at all in your example of the CEO.

I do note at this point that there is a following paragraph that I have not read (but which I am about to reply to) that might contain further clarification . . .

L: Actually, I'm not arguing capitalism v. socialism with you. I'm really not sure how I can make my point any clearer, which is that capitalism creates a welfare class, too. Seriously, what's the problem with that argument? Why have I "missed your point" (which I in fact acknowledged) for making it?

R: Okay, well I agree with you that capitalism creates a welfare class because the value of low skilled labor does not adequately meet the requirements for a middle-class quality of living. However, capitalism works around that – Some business owners now build low cost housing complexes to fill that demand. And let us not forget that these same people live in an excessive state of poverty because most have bad habits that can be avoided. IE: smoking, drinking, other drugs, gambling, and materialism.

Basic low cost housing and food can be sustained with many low-skilled jobs if people were simply more wise with their money.

This situation only highlights the problem in capitalism, in my view. Only when the commodity (the actual product that is bought and sold upon which surplus value is gained by the capitalist) is people, class structure is created (even your very own, Ryan. Why should you be so succoured into believing in it?) The guy (either individually or as a company/investors) who has loaned the business owner money would be the “super-capitalist”* here, and the distinction between the worker and business owner would merely be the degree of economic relation of their respective work to production. Guess who, one way or another and if both the social and economic theory is intelligently applied, never loses? That’s right. Those who “own” the means of production. There's the rub, Ryan! How else to own labour power than by capital? It doesn't matter a jot to the astute capitalist if 1,000, 10,000, 1, 2, 3 mil even, live in poverty. Humans come and go. There is, in terms of production, an inexhaustible supply.

PS: *aka, landowners, landlords, etc.

Ryan Rudolph wrote:Basically, depending on how you balance liberal and libertarian ideals, then this will dictate how high taxes are, which determines how much economic progress and prosperity there is. Not to mention that a country with lower taxes usually has higher rates of technological innovation and scientific discovery.

Making it a matter of which system has a better economic efficiency (or some such) is missing the point entirely. I would expect a Libertarian system to be less efficient in some ways. A well-run dictatorship could be very efficient. Freedom is not free.

For me, it's about what are the proper functions of government - what it should and should not be allowed to do- and that is a question that goes way beyond economics. It is fundamentally a moral question, because governments often back up their decisions through the use of force or the threat of force (e.g., the police).

In theory, it may be possible to form a government in a moral way. In practice, all states involve some degree of coercion, both in being formed and in maintaining themselves. The question is, how much of this coercion should the government be allowed? And my answer is, very little.

There seems to be an unstated(?) idea that the government, or "society," has a right to do things that individuals do not. I disagree with that idea. The government is an instrument for collective action. It only legitimately has the rights that are specifically ceded to it by the people. Anything beyond that is abuse and tyranny.

Leyla

and I don’t think you actually answered the questions I asked, which had, I thought quite specifically, to do with the distinction between abuses of power by a corrupt dictator and abuses of power by a CEO. By it I intended to seek your views on how these particular abuses might impact welfare and, thus, taxation.

The major distinction is that a corrupt dictator has the power to degrade and destroy the standard of living of an entire nation, whereas a corrupt CEO has the potential to degrade the standard of life for a smaller minority. This is why I view the power of corrupt governments to be much more dangerous than the corruption of CEOs. CEO’s do not weld as much economic power, their power is usually much more local. However, Corrupt CEOs can leech handouts from governments, which can lead to higher taxes and burden on the middle-class.

A corrupt or uninformed government may not understand all the true causes of welfare, and so they will increase taxes, and increase spending to accommodate the new citizens that need the service, but the high taxes, and high spending actually causes more welfare because it causes inflation, which hurts the middle-class. A corrupt CEO cannot significantly affect the national welfare or taxation rate in this manner, but his immoral behavior may cause people to quit, or his actions could cause injury or environmental pollution, which could cause people to go on welfare for health reasons, but more or less his economic power is not as far reaching in my opinion. You may have another way of looking at this, so be my guest.

Guess who, one way or another and if both the social and economic theory is intelligently applied, never loses? That’s right. Those who “own” the means of production.

But you forget that those who own the means of production also have much more responsibility, as they have a lot to gain or lose both for themselves and for employees. A Good CEO makes decisions that increases the wellbeing of both the employees and himself, and so he needs to own the means of production because employees have the freedom to leave, but he is stuck trying to keep the company successful. And without a stable and secure mode of production, there can be no secure employment for the citizens. You cannot give the means of production over to the government or the employees as that would be a huge disaster. A CEO is supposed to have all the skills necessary to make the company work, but of course this isn't always the case.

However, as people become more informed, unions demand more from their company as far as treatment and safety is concerned. Intelligent CEOS are now learning that their businesses can only succeed if they listen to their employees in the same way a president must listen to a democratically elected congress before he makes a decision. And CEOs in companies such as Google are setting a good example on how to manage the employee's needs with the companies.

It doesn't matter a jot to the astute capitalist if 1,000, 10,000, 1, 2, 3 mil even, live in poverty. Humans come and go. There is, in terms of production, an inexhaustible supply.

You’d be surprised how many CEOs have dropped this sort of Machiavellian world view in favor of a philosophy with a bit more compassion.

(the actual product that is bought and sold upon which surplus value is gained by the capitalist) is people, class structure is created (even your very own, Ryan. Why should you be so succoured into believing in it?)

You are only analyzing through two narrow opposites, the worker and the owner. However, to understand class structure fully one must examine various qualities of workers as well. I would argue that the various qualities of workers are actually more central in determining the extent of class structure, as the owner only represents a part of the process.

For instance: Class structure is perfectly justifiable in the sense that some services deserve a higher wage than others, which inevitably creates a class structure. Moreover, I don’t imagine you would agree that it would be wise decision for a government to fix wages so that a Burger King employee makes the same amount as a brain surgeon. The fact is that some functions in society require more skill, responsibility, intelligence and knowledge, and so people that do these jobs should be rewarded with higher financial incentives.

So a class structure is inevitable in this sense. However, if robots continue to replace low-skilled jobs, then the only jobs that will eventually be available are high-skilled technological jobs, however, this could create a lot of economic problems because if increasing numbers of intellectuals like Undian have the attitude that they deserve welfare, and all the unintelligent people now have nothing to do because robots will be doing their jobs, then basically a small minority of highly skilled technological workers will be stuck trying to support a majority of dependents, and a capitalist economy cannot sustain itself like that.

This is a major danger I see over the horizon. Many Intellectuals have cultivated a sort of dole morality, which is fine now, but it doesn’t seem too sustainable in the long term given where the economy is going, and and given where the species is going.

Leyla Shen wrote:Now, would you like to explain why, if my point is so irrelevant to the point you were trying to make, you cannot treat the two as separate discussions?

Go back and read everything I said, this time actually try to understand the idea I'm trying to express instead of looking for a way to argue your point. Personally I don't care to treat the two as seperate discussions because what you are trying to discuss with me right now doesn't interest me.

Dhodges,

Making it a matter of which system has a better economic efficiency (or some such) is missing the point entirely. I would expect a Libertarian system to be less efficient in some ways. A well-run dictatorship could be very efficient. Freedom is not free.

A libertarian system can be ‘free’ in the sense that most of the regulations in each state are imposed at the state level by local governments, which should reflect the consensus of what the people believe.

However, the real economic and moral danger because I do not separate the two is when you give too much power to the federal government to make sweeping regulations across the states, which do not reflect what the state governments want.

The danger of giving the president or leader at the national level too much power is that the country’s economic/moral well being is dependent on the intelligence of the leader. That is the beauty of libertarian philosophy is that it takes away political power from the president, whereas liberalism gives more power to the president, which is fine if the president is a genius in economics, psychology, philosophy, and so on, but guess what? He or she never is. Btw, none of the republican or democratic frontrunners are conservative, they are all very liberal, meaning they support bigger government, more spending, and each of them has big plans for projects they plan to do with the the tax payers money when elected.

For example:

1. Huckabee plans to amend the constitution by putting god's word into it, and introduce new federal laws to allign the people with god's values (christian) - JESUS CHRIST! someone shoot that guy!

2. John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for another 100 years - WHAT A TROOPER! GIVE EM HELL JOHN!

3. Romney bullshits so much it is difficult to know what he'll be up to if he's elected, but it won't be good.

4. Obama plans to spend more than any other president to save the starving people of Africa, which the tax payer's money.

5. And Hilary has one of the most elaborate and wide reaching 'Nanny state' proposals ever, if she gets her way, scientific creativity will stagnant like here in Canada, but yeah, at least Americans will be quite comfortable like pigs in shit.

Ron Paul is the only one that suggests that the constitution does not give him sole power to use tax money to enforce national policies based on his own moral compass.

Bitch wrote: Personally I don't care to treat the two as seperate discussions because what you are trying to discuss with me right now doesn't interest me.

Wow. I must have been mistaken. I thought you were really quite interested in what I was attempting to discuss with you. So, I’ll just close of this riveting “discussion” by highlighting the irrelevant nature of my enquiry and what prompted it:

Genius Proper wrote:

Socialism creates the need and desire for welfare with the countless negative effects it has on the lives of each and every citizen. Don't find fault with the people on welfare, find fault with the system that creates the welfare class.

If I think any part of civilization is worth keep around, I'll voluntarily donate or spend my money on it. I don't need you or the government telling me how to spend my hard earned money. Taxes that are taken off the top of my paycheck is robbery, see my post above as to why.

[If? “Don’t blame it on the welfare class, blame it on the system that creates it” and then, IF?? What‘s your definition of blame?]

And while I understand and appreciate your argument [you do???? That's a relief! I'd hate to think what would happen if you didn't--LS] it really it doesn't mean anything to the actual ideas I'm trying to express. So instead of turning this into an argument over semantics and trying to continually argue your point against mine, I think it would serve us both best if you read over everything I've said and actually try to understand exactly what I'm trying to express. [Perhaps I should put the most blatant rubbish in upper case? --LS]

Ryan: I think you are missing Nick's point that the affects of an out of control liberal socialist type of government are far worse than the affects of out of control CEOs in large companies.

Yours truly: No, I didn't, which is why I acknowledged it as a possibility. I think you are both missing my point, but I'm not overly concerned about it.

Dick, who thinks he seconds when he motions and isn't a Libertarian when he probably should be: I also second what Ryan said, that even if the scenario you described does happen, the damage is far far less than any damage the Government can inflict when it gains too much power.

Yours truly: But you were talking about a socialist government, not just government in general, and then you compare it to an individual CEO? Apples and oranges.

Dick: Leyla, chill out on the caffiene and re-read/think everything I've said. This time take it reaaaaaaaal slooooow.

Right, that last remark there, from you, was relevant . . .

[10 pages later, still waiting for the answer---talk about crickets, so much the louder for the hollowness in Dick’s head]

OK, so, I get it now. I raised an irrelevant point that had nothing to do with your point and I should go back and read everything you‘ve said, therefore.

That's it. I am never speaking to a woman again. I assume they know what they're saying when, clearly, they don't.