|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 1:16 pm Post subject: 2 |
 |
|
And Douglas Rushkoff renders the whole argument obsolete.
I agree with a lot of that Yahoo piece, Pablo - but it seems so short-sighted and unambitious. Not that Obama's speech was any more ambitious, of course.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JDTAY
obseletes now
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:31 pm Post subject: 3 |
|
|
| Douglas Rushkoff wrote: |
| This sort of work isn't so much employment as it is creative activity. Unlike Industrial Age employment, digital production can be done from the home, independently, and even in a peer-to-peer fashion without going through big corporations. We can make games for each other, write books, solve problems, educate and inspire one another -- all through bits instead of stuff. And we can pay one another using the same money we use to buy real stuff. |
This article is kinda unnecessary, isn't it? If that scenario is feasible, the market will implement it. It already is, in fact. I hope this dude isn't planning on calling for the government to help facilitate the process or something, that would suck tons.
Maybe I should go into internet security, apparently piracy is the one thing standing between us and utopia, since digital content is the new economy. >_>
_________________
Prohibit nothing. Disclose everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:34 pm Post subject: 4 |
|
|
Oh sure, any random yahoo can put something on the internet. The trick is getting paid for it.
BTW, since you read this post, you now owe me $0.05.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JDTAY
obseletes now
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:51 pm Post subject: 5 |
|
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
Oh sure, any random yahoo can put something on the internet. The trick is getting paid for it.
BTW, since you read this post, you now owe me $0.05. |
Screw you, I don't have a PayPal account. 
_________________
Prohibit nothing. Disclose everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 5:01 pm Post subject: 6 |
|
|
| JDTAY wrote: |
| This article is kinda unnecessary, isn't it? If that scenario is feasible, the market will implement it. |
If the scenario is profitable to the people who currently have money, then the market will implement it. It's unclear that this is true (for example, Walmart has little incentive to provide food for free.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JDTAY
obseletes now
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 5:48 pm Post subject: 7 |
|
|
| Thok wrote: |
| JDTAY wrote: |
| This article is kinda unnecessary, isn't it? If that scenario is feasible, the market will implement it. |
If the scenario is profitable to the people who currently have money, then the market will implement it. It's unclear that this is true (for example, Walmart has little incentive to provide food for free.) |
I was planning on skipping the free food and shelter parts of his plan, anyway. I know I might get called out for an ad hominem here or something, but it sounds like commie BS.
_________________
Prohibit nothing. Disclose everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:07 pm Post subject: 8 |
|
|
Is that the same as me calling "The American Dream" capitalist BS? There's about as much substance to that claim too...
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:17 pm Post subject: 9 |
|
|
| JDTAY wrote: |
| I was planning on skipping the free food and shelter parts of his plan, anyway. |
Aka the part of his plan that was the main idea? The idea is essentially to convert essential goods like food and shelter to public goods (in the same way that water is a public good) and let capitalism run on all nonessential goods. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JDTAY
obseletes now
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 6:42 pm Post subject: 10 |
|
|
Okay, when you describe the plan that way, screw the whole thing. I just liked the idea of using digital entrepreneurship to replace lost salary jobs.
_________________
Prohibit nothing. Disclose everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:24 pm Post subject: 11 |
|
|
And that's why ideological arguments always end in pretty much the same way (sadly in war, normally.)
JDTAY, can you please explain exactly why you think making food and shelter into a "public good" (assuming that we can, which is a different argument) is so fundamentally objectionable? Because I just cannot understand that mindset at all.
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:49 pm Post subject: 12 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| JDTAY, can you please explain exactly why you think making food and shelter into a "public good" (assuming that we can, which is a different argument) is so fundamentally objectionable? |
Does it mean that if I want to work to earn a living, I must pay for someone else's food and shelter? I think it does, and that I find objectionable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JDTAY
obseletes now
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 11:28 pm Post subject: 13 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Scurra wrote: |
| JDTAY, can you please explain exactly why you think making food and shelter into a "public good" (assuming that we can, which is a different argument) is so fundamentally objectionable? |
Does it mean that if I want to work to earn a living, I must pay for someone else's food and shelter? I think it does, and that I find objectionable. |
Well said, JDTAY. 
_________________
Prohibit nothing. Disclose everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 10, 2011 11:38 pm Post subject: 14 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Does it mean that if I want to work to earn a living, I must pay for someone else's food and shelter? I think it does, and that I find objectionable. |
You have to pay for other people's water and sewage treatment right now. Do you find that objectionable?
Also, in terms of paying for food, I suspect that done correctly this would theoretically only cover basic food requirements. So everybody gets the right to get a bunch of vegetables, bread, milk, juice, salt/basic spices, and maybe some meat. Anything additional and any preparation would require paying out of your own pockets or doing it yourself.
Shelter would be a similar thing: you get a smallish room in a city of your choice with a bathroom, basic kitchen, and access to basic utilities. If you want a fancy two story townhouse with two beds, two baths, and a large backyard pool, you have to pay for that yourself.
Or at least, that's how I would implement the plan if I were to do it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:10 am Post subject: 15 |
|
|
Some breeds of dogs have been bred for specific purposes, such as rescue, herding, etc. These dogs tend to become neurotic if they are denied the opportunity to use their skills.
It might be argued that humans have evolved over thousands of years in such a way that the need to "work" or in some way contribute to the overall benefit of society, is, similarly, a need, and without filling this need, humans tend to become neurotic as well. This could potentially explain a lot.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:36 am Post subject: 16 |
|
|
If basic food and shelter become free, what would happen to the workforce segment that is only working in order to provide these things? People who would otherwise just be lazy and not contribution to production in society? And what percentage of the American workforce is that?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:01 am Post subject: 17 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Does it mean that if I want to work to earn a living, I must pay for someone else's food and shelter? I think it does, and that I find objectionable. |
I suppose I'm going to argue for his idea; I'm not quite sure, yet, because he really is just having a thought in a particular direction, and it feels like he's claiming it's a lot more developed than it is.
But, I think the approach is very good. Instead of saying, "my ideology is thus, and therefore I advocate this, he is trying to approach the answer from analysis of the situation. It's pragmatic, and I like that.
So your question, which is ideological, is ignored until after discussing the situation. There are a lot of people who want to work to earn a living. There isn't enough work for all of them to work. This may not be solvable, because advancing technology has reduced, and will continue, reducing need for labour.
We don't want a nanny state to poison work ethic, but we also don't want people to starve for being unlucky in employment. What do we do?
Now we return to your question. To answer, "Yes. You will pay for other people." is to support the nanny-state, but to answer, "No. You will not have to pay for anyone else.", is condemning people to starve. What do we do?
No approach solves this problem to our satisfaction, and there is no reason to think any approach will. We will not pretend that aliens or unicorns will intervene to give us a solution that avoids both ills. We have to choose one ill or the other, and be dissatisfied, and that's all there is to it.
I choose the people not starving option. Yes, you have to pay for someone else's food and shelter. Too bad if you find it objectionable - that's the price we pay for living like royalty. Probably better than royalty, from a pre-industrial viewpoint.
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:14 am Post subject: 18 |
|
|
You make a good point, casinopete. Plus, think about this: if you want to work for a living, then you are already being rewarded for it. What's the big deal if it also helps people who can't?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:17 am Post subject: 19 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| If basic food and shelter become free, what would happen to the workforce segment that is only working in order to provide these things? |
Almost nobody wants only extremely basic food and shelter.
I mean, we have a real life example where people are provided extremely basic food and shelter. It's called prison. And yet most prisoners don't want to stay there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 1:50 am Post subject: 20 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Scurra wrote: |
| JDTAY, can you please explain exactly why you think making food and shelter into a "public good" (assuming that we can, which is a different argument) is so fundamentally objectionable? |
Does it mean that if I want to work to earn a living, I must pay for someone else's food and shelter? I think it does, and that I find objectionable. |
So you don't think that anything should be a "public good"? And I mean nothing at all. That's the bit I'm trying to understand. You must draw a line somewhere. So where do you draw it?
(I took my decision a long time ago. I chose the "people not starving" option. And I cannot comprehend how anyone would chose the alternative.)
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:09 am Post subject: 21 |
|
|
| Thok wrote: |
| I wrote: |
If basic food and shelter become free, what would happen to the workforce segment that is only working in order to provide these things? |
Almost nobody wants only extremely basic food and shelter.
I mean, we have a real life example where people are provided extremely basic food and shelter. It's called prison. And yet most prisoners don't want to stay there. |
Yes, but I don't think those are the major contributing factors to why prisoners do not wish to stay there. I'm not a socialogist, but I think the biggest factor may be because they are being held captive. Number two is probably the abusive relationship with their new lovers.
But anyway, you bring up a good point, and besides, if you don't go to work, you would have nothing to do all day but eat and sleep. wouldn't have any books to read or tv or internet or car to go out or money for the subway or go to the movies or pretty much do any average American activities which fuel the economy.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JDTAY
obseletes now
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 am Post subject: 22 |
|
|
To explain myself a bit more, the problem with free anything is that it has to come from somewhere. Basically you have a situation in which the government says to farmers/builders/doctors, you must work for us and take what we say we'll pay you for it (in some cases nothing), and if you refuse we'll imprison you, and if you try to refuse that, we'll shoot you.
I take freedom over free stuff any day. I can get my own stuff, the freedom is harder to come by.
_________________
Prohibit nothing. Disclose everything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:43 am Post subject: 23 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| So you don't think that anything should be a "public good"? And I mean nothing at all. That's the bit I'm trying to understand. You must draw a line somewhere. So where do you draw it? |
I think that the current state of the political/economic world, with its brutality and imbalance and ignorance and astonishing inefficiency, cannot be fixed without drawing lines. There is too much inertia. A sharp move toward anarcho-capitalism would cause immeasurable problems.
But if we are talking ideology, no, it isn't the case that you must draw a line somewhere. Imagine a newly birthed society, on an isolated island, or actually on Mars, to give it shape and keep Terran problems from interfering so much. This society would be wealthy and well-informed, and the level of economic information could be very high. There is every reason to think free markets could handle things very well.
I think the world must swing interventionist for now, because large populations are integrating in ways that have never happened before, and that can be catastrophic in the short-term, and socialist policies are a good way of softening the blow. Imagine if every labour market was literally all the way free right now. Half a billion jobs would move from the US and Europe to China, India, Indonesia, etc. within a generation. Should the US and EU allow that?
But it's not just jobs (that's just to be topical) - food pricing would fluctuate wildly, exactly as it market-should while reaching equilibrium, and food production would fluctuate with it, exactly as it market-should. That reads to me like a billion deaths from starvation. No one should be willing to allow that.
But 50-100 years from now, when the integration waves have died down, and technology has advanced still farther, and available information has developed and grown, we will find that fewer and fewer lines are needed. I think we should and will swing very libertarian, then.
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:13 am Post subject: 24 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| (I took my decision a long time ago. I chose the "people not starving" option. And I cannot comprehend how anyone would chose the alternative.) |
By the "people not starving" option, you mean that you see someone hungry, so your forcibly take from someone else what they worked for so you can feed the hungry person.
There are several alternatives, so the question of "how anyone would chose the alternative" is poorly phrased. One alternative is you see someone hungry, you feed them, but you don't force others to do so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 6:47 am Post subject: 25 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| By the "people not starving" option, you mean that you see someone hungry, so your forcibly take from someone else what they worked for so you can feed the hungry person. |
You have restated the problem incorrectly. He does not see one hungry person, he sees millions of hungry people, and millions without shelter, and millions with no access to medical care.
So he advocates forcibly taking a little from everyone to feed and shelter and treat those millions.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| There are several alternatives, so the question of "how anyone would chose the alternative" is poorly phrased. One alternative is you see someone hungry, you feed them, but you don't force others to do so. |
There may be other alternatives. Scurra feeding someone is not one of them, because it cannot solve the problem of millions of hungry people.
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Death Mage
Raving Lunatic
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:45 am Post subject: 26 |
|
|
| casinopete wrote: |
| Now we return to your question. To answer, "Yes. You will pay for other people." is to support the nanny-state, but to answer, "No. You will not have to pay for anyone else.", is condemning people to starve. What do we do? |
[Devil's Advocate]Do not make them pay for anyone else, let those who will starve starve, and there will be less of a problem of more people than jobs. The problem solves itself.[/Devil's Advocate]
| Thok* wrote: |
| BraveHat wrote: |
| If basic food and shelter become free, what would happen to the workforce segment that is only working in order to provide these things? |
Almost nobody wants only extremely basic food and shelter.
I mean, we have a real life example where people are provided extremely basic food and shelter. It's called prison. And yet most prisoners don't want to stay there. |
A major part of the objection to prison is being forced to STAY there. But people lvie in bsic living conditions all the time. Army barracks, college dorms, etc. They are less bothered by this because most of their time is NOT spent inside the cell.
_________________
* These senseless ramblings brought to you by Insanity™. If you just can't figure the dang thing out, it must be Insanity™.
[YOUR AD HERE!] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 12:07 pm Post subject: 27 |
|
|
| Death Mage wrote: |
| A major part of the objection to prison is being forced to STAY there. But people lvie in bsic living conditions all the time. Army barracks, college dorms, etc. They are less bothered by this because most of their time is NOT spent inside the cell. |
Both of your examples involve people being economically motivated to live in basic conditions: college for future improvement in earnings (and most people don't live on campus all four years and stop living like students after they graduate) and in order to get a paycheck in the case of the army. And both of those situations are mostly temporary.
It's almost as if you don't trust to people to actually want stuff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:35 pm Post subject: 28 |
|
|
| casinopete wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| By the "people not starving" option, you mean that you see someone hungry, so your forcibly take from someone else what they worked for so you can feed the hungry person. |
You have restated the problem incorrectly. He does not see one hungry person, he sees millions of hungry people, and millions without shelter, and millions with no access to medical care.
So he advocates forcibly taking a little from everyone to feed and shelter and treat those millions.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| There are several alternatives, so the question of "how anyone would chose the alternative" is poorly phrased. One alternative is you see someone hungry, you feed them, but you don't force others to do so. |
There may be other alternatives. Scurra feeding someone is not one of them, because it cannot solve the problem of millions of hungry people. |
You've scaled up the number of hungry people, the number of people forcibly taken from, but not the number advocating the taking. My statement is more correct in its proportions.
Scurra advocating forcibly taking from everyone also won't solve anything - he's far outnumbered by those who would be taken from. There would have to be a LOT of people advocating forcibly taking from others to make it happen. But that many people could instead feed the hungry themselves, voluntarily. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:52 pm Post subject: 29 |
|
|
| casinopete wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Does it mean that if I want to work to earn a living, I must pay for someone else's food and shelter? I think it does, and that I find objectionable. |
...
So your question, which is ideological, is ignored until after discussing the situation. There are a lot of people who want to work to earn a living. There isn't enough work for all of them to work. This may not be solvable, because advancing technology has reduced, and will continue, reducing need for labour.
We don't want a nanny state to poison work ethic, but we also don't want people to starve for being unlucky in employment. What do we do? |
If I want to work for a living, and can't find employment, I could make my own employment. I could even produce my own food. However, the burden of doing that while supporting a nanny state is too great. How much land would I need to be self-sufficient? But then add on that that I must pay property taxes, school taxes, etc or I lose my property. The nanny state poisons the work ethic not only in its giving but more forcibly in its taking.
| Quote: |
| ... "No. You will not have to pay for anyone else.", is condemning people to starve. What do we do? |
This presumes I and others would not feed others willingly.
| Quote: |
| Too bad if you find it objectionable .... |
I hope you will remember those words any time someone takes something forcibly, against your objections, from you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scurra
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:01 pm Post subject: 30 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Scurra advocating forcibly taking from everyone also won't solve anything - he's far outnumbered by those who would be taken from. There would have to be a LOT of people advocating forcibly taking from others to make it happen. But that many people could instead feed the hungry themselves, voluntarily. |
Hmmm. This is an interesting interpretation of my position, which again demonstrates the problems with having discussions like this - because anyone else who tries to represent "your" position is guaranteed to do it incorrectly since they aren't "you". But I suppose that in principle yes, you are correct - I do indeed advocate taxation, which is bascially what you are describing. I am under no illusions that it is a perfect system; I have observed that I think that human nature renders all such systems corrupt, and that without reasonably frequent "resets" they get out of hand very fast, but I absolutely advocate it in preference to, say, feudalism.
Could you do me the favour of answering the question I posed earlier - do you think anything at all should be a "public good"? Or do you fundamentally disagree with that notion?
_________________
still Quiz Olympiad champion. Must get a life.
New definitions: COFFEE - someone who is coughed upon
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:10 pm Post subject: 31 |
|
|
"Forcible taking" should be legalized and taxed.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:28 pm Post subject: 32 |
|
|
| Scurra wrote: |
| ... anyone else who tries to represent "your" position is guaranteed to do it incorrectly since they aren't "you". But I suppose that in principle yes, you are correct ... |
So much for guarantees.
| Scurra wrote: |
| Could you do me the favour of answering the question I posed earlier - do you think anything at all should be a "public good"? Or do you fundamentally disagree with that notion? |
I'm not clear on exactly what you mean by "public good".
I'm opposed to slavery, if that helps answer the question. And by slavery, I mean people being forced to work for the benefit of others.
If you mean "public goods" that don't entail slavery, I'd have to hear details. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:33 pm Post subject: 33 |
|
|
Situation 1 - You are forced to work.
Situation 2 - Work is optional, but if you do work, part of what you earn is taken from you to be used for public safety, transportation systems, law enforcement, etc.
Situation 1 is, I'd say, slavery, especially if you don't get to keep what you earn.
Situation 2 is not slavery.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 8:55 pm Post subject: 34 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
Situation 1 - You are forced to work.
Situation 2 - Work is optional, but if you do work, part of what you earn is taken from you to be used for public safety, transportation systems, law enforcement, etc.
Situation 1 is, I'd say, slavery, especially if you don't get to keep what you earn.
Situation 2 is not slavery. |
How are you "forced to work" in situation 1? Just refuse. They shoot you. Your choice. And if you choose to work, you get a plate of grub for it.
Both situations are the same. Force means do it or else. To be told you can't do any work for yourself unless you also do work for others is essentially being forced to do work for others, as doing work for yourself is, in the long run, as essential as breathing air. Yeah, you have a choice - but choose this, and we suffocate you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:48 pm Post subject: 35 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| You've scaled up the number of hungry people, the number of people forcibly taken from, but not the number advocating the taking. My statement is more correct in its proportions. |
Your proportions are not correct. There are many more millions of people in need than there are people willing to help. The wealthy do not, en masse, decide to help the poor. It doesn't happen, and there are thousands of years of history demonstrating so.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| This presumes I and others would not feed others willingly. |
You (meaning all of those taxed) wouldn't. You don't. It doesn't happen.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| If I want to work for a living, and can't find employment, I could make my own employment. I could even produce my own food. |
You, extropalopakettle, could probably make your own employment or produce your own food, because you have been very lucky in life, and have collected the resources to do so. Most people can't. You can imagine where the land comes from for your own personal farm, but where does it come from for 10 million people who want thier own personal farm?
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| However, the burden of doing that while supporting a nanny state is too great. |
The nanny state takes what, 25% off the top? I imagine it's actually quite a bit less than that if you're producing your own food, but we can go ahead and highball it at 50% if you want. I guarantee you that the technology and education and market it has provided for you increases your ability to produce your own food by more than 50%. I guarantee it's more than 500%. And that doesn't include the protection it provides you, so you can manage your little farm in peace. How much is that worth? You are badly miscalculating this "burden".
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| I hope you will remember those words any time someone takes something forcibly, against your objections, from you. |
If, by taking forcibly, you mean taxing, which is how we are all using it in this thread, then I will not mind when someone takes forcibly from me. If you mean someone breaking into my home and robbing me, then you are making a deeply false equivalence. If you say you don't mind someone walking across your lawn, should I reply that I hope you will remember those words when someone organizes a heavy metal concert on your lawn?
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 10:52 pm Post subject: 36 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Pablo wrote: |
Situation 1 - You are forced to work.
Situation 2 - Work is optional, but if you do work, part of what you earn is taken from you to be used for public safety, transportation systems, law enforcement, etc.
Situation 1 is, I'd say, slavery, especially if you don't get to keep what you earn.
Situation 2 is not slavery. |
How are you "forced to work" in situation 1? Just refuse. They shoot you. Your choice. And if you choose to work, you get a plate of grub for it.
Both situations are the same. Force means do it or else. To be told you can't do any work for yourself unless you also do work for others is essentially being forced to do work for others, as doing work for yourself is, in the long run, as essential as breathing air. Yeah, you have a choice - but choose this, and we suffocate you. |
So....you're saying that those who were kidnapped and brought here to "voluntarily" work on the plantations were pretty much in the same boat as I am as vice president of a corporation. I bet they had no idea how good they had it.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:17 pm Post subject: 37 |
|
|
| casinopete wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| You've scaled up the number of hungry people, the number of people forcibly taken from, but not the number advocating the taking. My statement is more correct in its proportions. |
Your proportions are not correct. There are many more millions of people in need than there are people willing to help. |
My proportions are closer to reality than yours, and the exact proportions are not the issue. The point is that your noble solution to helping the hungry is that you force someone else to do it.
| casinopete wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| This presumes I and others would not feed others willingly. |
You (meaning all of those taxed) wouldn't. You don't. It doesn't happen. |
No, all of those taxed wouldn't. But presumably many would. You would, right? Or is your position that you'll only help if you can force many others to also help?
| casinopete wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| If I want to work for a living, and can't find employment, I could make my own employment. I could even produce my own food. |
You, extropalopakettle, could probably make your own employment or produce your own food, because you have been very lucky in life, and have collected the resources to do so. Most people can't. You can imagine where the land comes from for your own personal farm, but where does it come from for 10 million people who want thier own personal farm? |
I don't deny there's a certain amount of random chance ("luck") involved in everyone's lot in life, but it isn't nearly purely that, and again, if you feel compelled to compensate others for the inherent unfairness of life, that's your right, but how do you figure you have a right to force others to do so?
I could probably live off a few acres if I only needed to provide my for my own needs, but the current legal reality is I must provide for others too.
| casinopete wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| However, the burden of doing that while supporting a nanny state is too great. |
The nanny state takes what, 25% off the top? I imagine it's actually quite a bit less than that if you're producing your own food, but we can go ahead and highball it at 50% if you want. I guarantee you that the technology and education and market it has provided for you increases your ability to produce your own food by more than 50%. I guarantee it's more than 500%. And that doesn't include the protection it provides you, so you can manage your little farm in peace. How much is that worth? You are badly miscalculating this "burden". |
But if I can't afford to give up 25% or 50% of the eggs my chickens lay (let's ignore the fact that the tax man won't even accept eggs), I lose it all, and you have to feed me.
As for "the technology and education and market it has provided", it is free to withhold those things if I don't agree to purchase them.
| casinopete wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| I hope you will remember those words any time someone takes something forcibly, against your objections, from you. |
If, by taking forcibly, you mean taxing, which is how we are all using it in this thread, then I will not mind when someone takes forcibly from me. |
We mean any forcible taking that you object to.
| casinopete wrote: |
| If you mean someone breaking into my home and robbing me, then you are making a deeply false equivalence. |
Purely because you object to one and not the other. Your reasons for objecting to one and not the other are irrelevant when it comes to denying someone else the right to their own property. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 11, 2011 11:39 pm Post subject: 38 |
|
|
| Pablo wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Pablo wrote: |
Situation 1 - You are forced to work.
Situation 2 - Work is optional, but if you do work, part of what you earn is taken from you to be used for public safety, transportation systems, law enforcement, etc.
Situation 1 is, I'd say, slavery, especially if you don't get to keep what you earn.
Situation 2 is not slavery. |
How are you "forced to work" in situation 1? Just refuse. They shoot you. Your choice. And if you choose to work, you get a plate of grub for it.
Both situations are the same. Force means do it or else. To be told you can't do any work for yourself unless you also do work for others is essentially being forced to do work for others, as doing work for yourself is, in the long run, as essential as breathing air. Yeah, you have a choice - but choose this, and we suffocate you. |
So....you're saying that those who were kidnapped and brought here to "voluntarily" work on the plantations were pretty much in the same boat as I am as vice president of a corporation. I bet they had no idea how good they had it. |
The difference is only a matter of degree. If you, corporate VP, refuse to provide for others, you will be demoted, to put it mildly. You're a very well kept slave, but a slave nonetheless, in that you don't have any choice but to provide for others, other than to give up your freedom to provide for yourself, which is a very definite and strong form of coercion. You accept it, but you've little choice. How many African slaves on cotton plantations rebelled against their masters? They worked willingly (in the sense of choosing to work rather than face the consequences), and they enjoyed food and shelter provided in return. Again, the difference is only a matter of degree. The fundamental dynamics of slavery are still there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
casinopete
Emergency Backup Antrax
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 12:43 am Post subject: 39 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| My proportions are closer to reality than yours, and the exact proportions are not the issue. |
"My proportions" were simply me pointing out that your proportions were wrong. I freely abandon them. Your proportions are the basis for a line of argument, and it matters quite a lot to your argument that they are wrong. And while is not about exact proportions, it is definitely about proportions that describe the problem accurately. Your proportions falsely suggest that charity is sufficient answer to need. It isn't.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| The point is that your noble solution to helping the hungry is that you force someone else to do it. |
"Noble"? Really? I spent my whole first post saying there is no good solution, and that I am advocating what I think causes the least harm, and you are pinning me with a naive idealist badge?
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| No, all of those taxed wouldn't. But presumably many would. |
Presumably? So when Bush's tax cuts went in to force, we can presume that many substantially increased their charity and made a substantial dent in poverty and need, right? History continually demonstrates that your presumption is incorrect.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| You would, right? Or is your position that you'll only help if you can force many others to also help? |
I don't think abolishment of all taxes would increase my wealth while leaving absolutely everything else the same. Do you think everything else would stay the same? It's a fundamental assumption within your question that it would, and it makes it a bad question.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| I don't deny there's a certain amount of random chance ("luck") involved in everyone's lot in life, but it isn't nearly purely that |
It is nearly purely that. Born in the US in the 20th century? Probably pretty well off. Born in any century before the 18th? Probably not well off. Born in Somalia nowadays? Not well off at all, and there is virtually nothing you can do about it. I'm not saying that there isn't room for manouvering within the system, but if you are wealthy, most of it was handed to you by the society you were lucky enough to be born into.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| and again, if you feel compelled to compensate others for the inherent unfairness of life, that's your right, but how do you figure you have a right to force others to do so? |
I do not have "a right" to do so, but I will do so anyway, because it is right. I advocate taxation because it is less unjust to tax people than it is unjust to let people starve to death.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| But if I can't afford to give up 25% or 50% of the eggs my chickens lay |
How many chickens would you be keeping with no society helping out, no technology to aid you? How many chickens can you keep when you have society giving you grain and wood and chicken wire and a refrigerator to store the eggs? If you make the argument that you could provide enough food for yourself if society left you alone, you simultaneously make the argument that you can provide five times as much as you need, with society's help, and therefore you can afford to give up 25%.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| As for "the technology and education and market it has provided", it is free to withhold those things if I don't agree to purchase them. |
For as long as you remained a child, these things were given to you without your consent, but from the very instant you understood the concept of taxation, you have been agreeing to purchase these things continuously.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| We mean any forcible taking that you object to. |
Then you are deliberately choosing to mean something so vague the question can't be answered.
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Purely because you object to one and not the other. Your reasons for objecting to one and not the other are irrelevant when it comes to denying someone else the right to their own property. |
You are wrong. I object to a man stealing my wallet and I object to a man murdering me, and they do not mean the same thing just because I object to both of them. They are not equally unjust. They are not equally wrong. Degree matters, and it is silly to pretend it doesn't.
_________________
If you have some ice cream, I will give it to you.
If you have no ice cream, I will take it away from you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pablo
Never Draws a Blank
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 12, 2011 1:17 am Post subject: 40 |
|
|
| cp wrote: |
| I advocate taxation because it is less unjust to tax people than it is unjust to let people starve to death. |
Perhaps the "solution" is to tax something other than income. A sales tax INSTEAD of income tax, for example, eliminates the slavery argument, yet provides resources to also prevent starvation.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
