How about that DOW?

[Banana]

I will readily agree that the constitution and government powers are wildly abused by BOTH parties. But I don't see how it has to do with the point I am making. The system I think you are proposing is the feudal/property lord system.

T, FTFY.

In any system where the rich are allowed to keep EVERYTHING they make, the gap between the rich and the poor steadily widens. With NO redistribution, with NO government services, the poor get poorer, because there is no opportunity for social mobility.

On the contrary, there will be more social mobility. It's when the rich get to write the laws that effectively screws the poor. It's when the rich sits on the agency overseeing the industries that poor get screwed. It's when the rich politicians give work to their crony business buddies, the wealth redistribution goes from poor to rich.

The end result of current system is class warfare, which we already are heading towards in this country. Is that really the future you want?

No.

We ARE the government, and we NEED the government. Are there issues with the way the government is currently run? Of course, but that doesn't mean we don't still need it.

I indicated before that there is a place for government. Redneckgeek already gave two examples: courts and defense. If you had read the constitution, there is actually *little* Federal government can do and large majority of agencies created under Executive branch are not constitutional. The tenth amendment stipulates that only powers Federal government has is as enumerated in Constitution. What wasn't in Constitution, Federal government has no authority, jurisdiction or power, period. State governments, OTOH, aren't as restricted, and this will depend on their own constitutions. They used to use the 'interstate commerece' to weasel in expansion of federal power, among other things, but now that's not really necessary. They just outright ignore the Constitution.

So all we're saying is *less* government, not *no* government. Big difference.

 

[Alisa]

I must admit to a certain wry amusement on reading this thread. There seems to be some paradoxical views expressed.

One poster who strongly supported the atheist view in another thread sees to be arguing for a supportive community spirit similar to that of the very early christians.

And other devout christians seem to be arguing against this. Whatever happened to "Love thy neighbour as yourself" a sentiment I find more noble than "I'm all right, Jack".

I believe that those who can have a duty to help their less fortunate fellows and indeed more can be acheived by community action than by individuals.

That is an interesting point. In response, I would say that we have evolved to have a community spirit because it benefits our survival, the same way we all have the same basic moral values - it has nothing to do with religion at all.

 

[Alisa]

T, FTFY.

 

[Banana]

I must admit to a certain wry amusement on reading this thread. There seems to be some paradoxical views expressed.

oooo, astute observation!

 

[Alisa]

So all we're saying is *less* government, not *no* government. Big difference.

Not really. You are saying no taxes which equals no redistribution which equals class warfare.

 

[Banana]

Not really. You are saying no taxes which equals no redistribution which equals class warfare.

You changed the argument from 'no government' to 'no taxes'. That's quite different.

Secondly, redistribution *is* the source of class warfare.

There is no economically feasible mean of redistributing scarce resources *without* creating shortages. You can't enforce price support or control without suffering a shortage or high price for crappy goods, and you can't rationally spend money that wasn't yours on someone else for which you have no invested interest. By asking that everyone pay for whatever they need instead of getting it through taxes, they become a consumer with invested interest in getting quality for their bucks *and* suppliers are forced to (gasp!) compete because they can't get any free ride from the government.

It is through government where monopoly/oligarchy rears its ugly head and hurts everyone.

I realize that this is quite big to swallow, and if this is the case, we can always agree to disagree.



BTW- T, FTFY= There, Fixed That For You.

 

[Alisa]

You changed the argument from 'no government' to 'no taxes'. That's quite different.

No you did that.

Secondly, redistribution *is* the source of class warfare.

There is no economically feasible mean of redistributing scarce resources *without* creating shortages. You can't enforce price support or control without suffering a shortage or high price for crappy goods, and you can't rationally spend money that wasn't yours on someone else for which you have no invested interest. By asking that everyone pay for whatever they need instead of getting it through taxes, they become a consumer with invested interest in getting quality for their bucks *and* suppliers are forced to (gasp!) compete because they can't get any free ride from the government.

It is through government where monopoly/oligarchy rears its ugly head and hurts everyone.

History simply doesn't bear this out. If you look back on history, the societies without some sort of redistribution were fuedal societies, many with slaves, indentured servants, a class of untouchables, what have you. If you look at the current state of the world, the countries that are the most "civilized" and have the least inequality are the countries that practice consistent redistribution. I don't care what your theoretical beliefs on the subject are - we have to look at actual facts here.

I realize that this is quite big to swallow, and if this is the case, we can always agree to disagree.

What would be the fun if we just agreed to disagree?

 

[Rabbie]

That is an interesting point. In response, I would say that we have evolved to have a community spirit because it benefits our survival, the same way we all have the same basic moral values - it has nothing to do with religion at all.

I agree with you. I don't subscribe to the religious school of thought but it does make me smile when I see how far the religious righthas moved from its fundamental beliefs

 

[Banana]

No you did that.

Where?

If you look back on history, the societies without some sort of redistribution were fuedal societies, many with slaves, indentured servants, a class of untouchables, what have you.

By government's privilege. Somebody in charge decided it was A-OK to have slaves and wrote the laws.

If you look at the current state of the world, the countries that are the most "civilized" and have the least inequality are the countries that practice consistent redistribution. I don't care what your theoretical beliefs on the subject are - we have to look at actual facts here.

Don't confuse causation with correlation. It also happens that those "civilized" countries recognize individuals' rights in one form or other, which I'm 110% in favor for. It's the redistribution part that I don't agree with. It's ironic that people thinks redistribution is somehow fair and narrows the gap but it's just the same old with a new face. In feudal system, Soviet Union, and Mussolini's Italy, it was the people with right connections and/or birthrights who benefitted off poor and they all were worse off. But at least they didn't make any pretension that they were doing it for the people. Nowadays, anything passed off as 'good for poor' actually benefits the rich even more and to drive the point home, the gap has *widened* not narrowed in few last decades with passage of new laws, regulations, and various agencies. Rich still write the law and thus benefit from it.


And I should add it's not merely theoretical- it can be proved in so in economic terms.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

What is your motivation?

To prevent the collapse of the middle class.

And what do you think my motivation is?

To help the poor. If I'm wrong, I'll own up to it. But I don't believe that giving money to people who are wasters helps them very much. I do believe in helping people in need, though.

I respect you too, but "whipping boy" sounds vaguely sexual to me Not sure what you are getting at.

I certainly didn't want to put off that vibe and apologize. I was referring to a conversation we had in another thread. I said we could be friends but that didn't mean I was going to be your whipping boy.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

I agree with you. I don't subscribe to the religious school of thought but it does make me smile when I see how far the religious righthas moved from its fundamental beliefs

As far as I can tell, I am the only one in this current fray who has professed to be a Christian. I know at least one of the combatants has excplicitly stated that he is NOT religious.

I don't recall, in this thread or any other, saying I don't support helping out those in need. In fact, I've specifically stated otherwise.

I just don't believe that taking money from redneckgeek and giving it to a poor person is going to help that poor person (at least not for long and may actually hurt the poor person in the long run) and it certainly won't help redneckgeek. My contention is that I will be the winner in the exchange.

Really, that's not bad for either side since I am more likely than the government to help the needy in a more permanent way. And, I am more likely to support redneckgeek's desire to keep more of his income. I can't say as much for the other middle class members who will benefit, however.

 

[Alisa]

To prevent the collapse of the middle class.

To help the poor. If I'm wrong, I'll own up to it. But I don't believe that giving money to people who are wasters helps them very much. I do believe in helping people in need, though.

I certainly didn't want to put off that vibe and apologize. I was referring to a conversation we had in another thread. I said we could be friends but that didn't mean I was going to be your whipping boy.

It must be the generation gap - I don't think whipping boy means the same thing to you and I

It's not about helping the poor, per se. This is how I look at it: I was lucky enough to be born into a home where I always had enough food to eat, always had enough clothes to wear, had a decent shot at an education, etc. I look around at people who were not that lucky. Maybe their parents couldn't get it together to keep a job to make sure they were fed every day. Maybe they were born into a home in a neighborhood with a terrible school, where they were never really given the chance to become literate. Maybe they were raped by their mother's boyfriend for years.

Am I self sufficient because I work hard? Or is it because I was blessed with opportunities that billions of people in the world and millions of people in America do not have? To me it would be tremendously arrogant to give myself all the credit for being where I am today. I work hard, I am diligent, I am persistent, yes. But without the original event of being born into a home that provided a certain level of opportunity, I would be in a very different place today regardless of my individual efforts.

Therefore, when people talk about NOT giving services to the poor, NOT collecting taxes for education, NOT providing some sort of minimum health care for everyone, etc, etc, it makes me very angry. Do you think you are special? Do you think that the children who are born into horrendous circumstances are any less worthy of good opportunities in life than you were? Do you think you would have turned out any better than those "lazy" and "wasteful" poor people you despise had YOU been born into their circumstances?

 

[Brianwarnock]

Well said Alisa, I've not entered this thread because I would find it difficult to keep my contempt for some of the self righteous posters in check.

Brian

 

[Alisa]

Well said Alisa, I've not entered this thread because I would find it difficult to keep my contempt for some of the self righteous posters in check.

Brian

Thanks Brian. As you can see, I haven't done a very good job keeping my tone in check, but thankfully, at least some of the posters are forgiving

 

[David Eagar]

I prefer to think of myself as a libertarian. My thoughts on government are:

Provide protection (Military and Police).
Provide the courts.
Leave me alone.

Excellent, now with those pesky Health & Safety regulations out of the way, I can flood the market with Chinese High Protein milk that I was able to pick up at a very good price!

 

[Banana]

Take a look at how food are certified kosher. They're done by various private organizations. In fact, I'd argue private organizations that rates food is far much preferable than FDA which can be corrupted. Furthermore, there's no incentive for FDA to keep the bar high because it doesn't have to compete.

 

[Rabbie]

As far as I can tell, I am the only one in this current fray who has professed to be a Christian. I know at least one of the combatants has excplicitly stated that he is NOT religious.

I don't recall, in this thread or any other, saying I don't support helping out those in need. In fact, I've specifically stated otherwise.

I just don't believe that taking money from redneckgeek and giving it to a poor person is going to help that poor person (at least not for long and may actually hurt the poor person in the long run) and it certainly won't help redneckgeek. My contention is that I will be the winner in the exchange.

Really, that's not bad for either side since I am more likely than the government to help the needy in a more permanent way. And, I am more likely to support redneckgeek's desire to keep more of his income. I can't say as much for the other middle class members who will benefit, however.

George, I don't doubt for a minute that you would help those who you perceived to be in need. I know you are a decent person (at least that's what comes across in your posts) and I don't feel the burden should be place explicitly on Redneckgeek - we should all contribute our share. "From each according to their means - To each acording to their need"

I for one do want to live in a society where some people are starvng and others are living in the lap of luxury. Not all the poor are idle wasters, not all the rich have worked for their money.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

It must be the generation gap - I don't think whipping boy means the same thing to you and I

LOL. May be.

As far as the rest of your post, I can't really disagree with you (I know you wanted me to). I think we all have the same goal in mind, we just differ on how we're gonna get there.

Do you think you would have turned out any better than those "lazy" and "wasteful" poor people you despise had YOU been born into their circumstances?

I don't despise anyone (with a few exceptions, certainly not anybody for being disadvantaged). However, I know people who are from the exact same background (raised in the same house with the same biological mother and father). One is an accumulator and one is a waster. Though I can't say either are lazy. Thankfully, the accumulator helps the waster (which is the way it should happen).

 

[Banana]

Therefore, when people talk about NOT giving services to the poor, NOT collecting taxes for education, NOT providing some sort of minimum health care for everyone, etc, etc, it makes me very angry. Do you think you are special? Do you think that the children who are born into horrendous circumstances are any less worthy of good opportunities in life than you were? Do you think you would have turned out any better than those "lazy" and "wasteful" poor people you despise had YOU been born into their circumstances?

Erm, life was never fair, but redistributing it isn't going to fix anything without hurting everyone in long run. Tariffs can protect local manufacturing jobs but everyone in world is poorer for hampered division in labor and specialization while the consumer are stuck with high price.

As I've said already, there is no economic argument in favor of redistribution in any form, be it controls, support, subsidies, taxation, or whatever. It's Economic 101 materials. I'd argue it's far more humane to allow the hand to work on the market unhindered.

 

[Alisa]

LOL. May be.

As far as the rest of your post, I can't really disagree with you (I know you wanted me to). I think we all have the same goal in mind, we just differ on how we're gonna get there.



I don't despise anyone (with a few exceptions, certainly not anybody for being disadvantaged). However, I know people who are from the exact same background (raised in the same house with the same biological mother and father). One is an accumulator and one is a waster. Though I can't say either are lazy. Thankfully, the accumulator helps the waster (which is the way it should happen).

Wow, so we are up to 6 now. We'd better stop before we start agreeing on EVERYTHING