|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
 Posted - 05/19/2010 : 04:35:23
|
As many of you regulars have probably already figured out I'm not too much of a political guy. I'd like to get your thoughts on this letter to the editor from a newspaper that I read regularly. I happen to agree with everything this fellow is saying. It would be nice to get a liberal POV. The original can be found http://thegardenisland.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_e367cdc4-6243-11df-9845-001cc4c002e0.html
A Rockwell moment
When pondering the direction of our country under the Obama administration, and in deciding who to vote for in future elections, it may be prudent to keep the following in mind, especially if you’re one of those among us who actually think a government is good if it offers you “free stuff:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation!
I don’t know about the rest of you, but it’s about time we take a deep breath and try hard to understand that the more of us who believe in government-controlled services and businesses the worse it will get for you, yes, you! It’s time for “A Norman Rockwell Moment” as is credited for the above simple truths.
|
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2010 : 07:15:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally quoted by Ebone4rock
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. |
Nobody is trying to do either one. Is anybody sane calling for a return to top tax rates of 94%, like we had in 1945? Is anyone seriously calling for capping take-home pay at, say, $100,000 (if that much money could be considered "not prosperous")? Mr. Oswald seems to be full of hyperbole, here.2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. |
These three say the same thing, don't they? The answer to all three is "duh." Mr. Oswald appears to be trying to equate taxation with theft, or painting "redistribution of wealth" as a bad thing, but he'd probably squeal like a stuck pig if Congress repealed Medicare, Social Security or the laws that provide for 401(k)s or any other tax-deferred savings plan.| 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation! |
This is over-the-top hyperbole and a slippery-slope argument, and completely unrealistic given the evidence of the massively (in comparison) socialistic countries in Europe, where they generally have much higher taxation but maintain stable economies.
In 2005, the mean tax rate in the U.S. was 28%, while in Germany it was over 50%. Has Germany been collapsing? Is it "the beginning of the end" for them? No, Germany is seen as one of the most rock-solid countries in the world, economically. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2010 : 08:48:01 [Permalink]
|
These are declarative statements without even the charade of the usual poor examples that are given for such statements. Who is trying to legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity, and why can that not be done, for instance?
This is just some stuff he's repeating without really understanding what he's talking about. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2010 : 10:37:32 [Permalink]
|
Ebone, if you buy what that guy is selling, I have some beachfront property on the gulf coast to sell you!
Let me respond to his points anyway...
1. Who does he think is trying to do such a thing? When a guy makes $20M a year, he has benefitted greatly from our system. I think that he has an obligation to put a little more back into the system than the guy who makes $50k a year. The millionaire should pay a greater percent back because they have the means to do it. And lets face it, no one is going to pay taxes willingly, they have to be forced.
2-4. The world was never a "fair" place. It's a pipe dream to think it was. Also, as a whole, we all benefit when we assist the less fortunate among us. I'm not suggesting (nor is anyone else I know of) that we just give everyone who wants it a free ride... but we are a sad fucking excuse for a prosperous nation when children here go hungry and homeless. I won't say that it isn't a difficult problem, the balance between how much to give away to those in need and how to make sure they end up becomming contributors, but it seems like a problem worth solving.
5. Ridiculously stupid. OH NOES! THE END IS NEAR! RUUUUUUNNN! Whatever. The middle class in the US, right now, has the lowest tax obligation in 100 years. The upper 5% pay much much less than they used to pay, and really... they can afford to pay a little more.
Like the man says, you don't get something for nothing. If the system can't operate because the richest become too greedy, then not only do you and I lose out, but those rich fuckers lose out too.
A thought on the idea of tax as theft: Anyone opposed to taxes should stop using electricity, stop using city water, stop using gasoline (oh yeah, the oil industry gets about $100billion a year in tax breaks/subsidy/free shit from the gov), stop driving on public roads, resolve to never call police or fire fighters or an abmulance.... there is a really long list.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2010 : 11:02:55 [Permalink]
|
Ebone4rock, like a lot of libertarians, you seem to be under the impression that the wealth an individual accumulates is independent of the society in which that individual lives. This is a falsehood. Everything you earn is actually dependent on the economic system already in place which allows you to offer your labor or services.
The analogy I've drawn in the past is one of an entrepreneur asking for entry into a walled fort. The entrepreneur's earning potential totally depends on whether he decides to take advantage of a secure marketplace or to go it alone out in the wide, wild world.
No man is an island. Not even libertarians.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 05/19/2010 11:06:52 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2010 : 11:03:32 [Permalink]
|
| It's a myth that the wealthies work the hardest. Most of the wealthy are wealthy because they've found a way to use the government to make them wealthy. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2010 : 20:02:40 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
It's a myth that the wealthies work the hardest. Most of the wealthy are wealthy because they've found a way to use the government to make them wealthy.
|
Nice evidence:
| These are declarative statements without even the charade of the usual poor examples that are given for such statements. |
:) |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 05/19/2010 20:06:23 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2010 : 20:21:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
When a guy makes $20M a year, he has benefitted greatly from our system. I think that he has an obligation to put a little more back into the system than the guy who makes $50k a year. |
I don't know that anyone disagrees with that. Even the most avid libertarians (who aren't anarchists) seem to support a flat tax, a less progressive version of what we have, or a consumption-based tax with exemptions for basic needs. Most policies have seen seriously proposed also exempt those in poverty, with varying definitions of poverty.
| The millionaire should pay a greater percent back because they have the means to do it. |
It's not uncommon for libertarians to disagree with that of course, if they like a flat tax. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 05/19/2010 20:21:59 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2010 : 21:47:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
It's not uncommon for libertarians to disagree with that of course, if they like a flat tax.
|
Machi4velli, are you a libertarian? I thought you were, but maybe I was wrong about that.
Anyway, I was thinking about this topic today and one thing I think that's missing in libertarians' economic perspective is the recognition that resource hoarding is bad. It's in the interest of the market to keep goods and resources moving, always changing hands. When too many resources end up in the hands of too few individuals, then the market seizes up and ceases to function. Things like a progressive tax structure and the estate tax (death tax, to republicans) are purposely designed to minimize resource hording, which is in turn essential to keep the market functioning. Why don't libertarians recognize the necessity of these measures? Do they really think 1% of the population can own everything without catastrophic economic and social consequences?
Ebone4rock's list is a classic case of shortsighted indignation. Liberals certainly don't think good governments provide "free stuff" by conjuring it out of thin air. We recognize that all government programs are ultimately paid for by our taxes. But libertarians and conservatives seem to think that if government assistance programs were discontinued we wouldn't still have to pay. What's the cost to society of having 5-10% of the population homeless? Or on drugs? Or of having a 50% unemployment rate? Of having failing roads, bridges, utilities or sanitation networks? Of letting diseases go untreated or children go without inoculations?
Libertarians try to act like liberals are fiscally irresponsible, but there are actually sound economic reasons for paying now to deal with problems that could be worse if allowed to spiral out of control. It's in the interest of society to provide a basic social safety net for people because it helps to stave off numerous related problems, from health care costs to the crime rate. Most conservatives and libertarians whine about spending a penny now because they're too short-sighted to see the dollar they'll have to spend tomorrow if they don't.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 05/19/2010 21:49:52 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/20/2010 : 03:19:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by Gorgo
It's a myth that the wealthies work the hardest. Most of the wealthy are wealthy because they've found a way to use the government to make them wealthy.
|
Nice evidence:
| These are declarative statements without even the charade of the usual poor examples that are given for such statements. |
:)
|
Most things that fall often do so because of gravity.
Do I need to make a list?
property: created by government
licenses: created by government
patents: created by government
corporations: created by government
computers: created by government
internet: created by government
drug research: much of it created by government
interstate and international commerce: created by government
immigration laws: created by government
NAFTA: created by government
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2010 : 15:18:08 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Machi4velli, are you a libertarian? I thought you were, but maybe I was wrong about that. |
Significant libertarian influence, but not really. I don't like too much concentration of power anywhere, government or private. Government needs to protect individual rights and interests as non-invasively as possible, but the rights themselves can lead to limits in the rights of others, so laws must evolve to counter new measures that become unfair.
For example, a person should freely be able to start a company given the ability, but if it becomes a monopoly and uses that to run others out of business with unsustainable practices (sell at a loss until another business cannot compete, and then price gouging when they go out of business), I want government to stop it. If a monopoly company has a good business model or developed good technologies and can to undersell everyone else sustainably, then I don't mind running everyone else out of business because the company was legitimately able to do it better than anyone else. I would never support penalizing such a company for being effective, but I want government to be able to assess the business practices of any monopoly company (at government's cost) just because it is a monopoly.
Maybe it's necessary to maintain some conflict between government and corporate interests, as we maintain conflict between branches of government.
| Anyway, I was thinking about this topic today and one thing I think that's missing in libertarians' economic perspective is the recognition that resource hoarding is bad. It's in the interest of the market to keep goods and resources moving, always changing hands. When too many resources end up in the hands of too few individuals, then the market seizes up and ceases to function. |
Libertarians aren't really a united group, there are various ideas about it. Ranging from opposing any laws regarding property, even monopoly laws (Friedman) to opposing property ownership (Chomsky, self-described "left-libertarian" at some point).
We're probably more focused on fiscal conservative libertarians, but even in that subset it isn't entirely clear. Some have an idealistic view hoarding as a right independent of its consequences, they knowingly do not consider the results. Others take the view that hoarding does no social damage, but just takes the hoarded property off the market, but increases the value of the property still in circulation. I buy this argument for hoarding money perhaps, because increasing the value of money in circulation isn't particularly bad socially (maybe not good either), but with other resources, particularly clearly limited ones like land, increasing the value of it would just make it harder for anyone new to own it, and I agree does take the market out of the conditions that make it work well.
| Things like a progressive tax structure and the estate tax (death tax, to republicans) are purposely designed to minimize resource hording, which is in turn essential to keep the market functioning. Why don't libertarians recognize the necessity of these measures? |
Maybe, maybe not. An excessively progressive tax kills the market as well. The case where someone loses money from a raise is a terrible disincentive, but that's a marginal issue (I know moving up a bracket does not make you lose money alone, but moving up to certain levels also make you ineligible for tax deductions, making it possible to lose money). The distinction made between people making $40k and people making $200k, for example, in our tax system seems silly -- the latter group is not so well off they could quit working or seriously be considered hoarders of much consequence. I think those in lower ends of the upper brackets catch most of the damaging things targeted at those who can be considered important hoarders who can much more realistically manipulate markets, who really are not affected as much.
Estate tax is to some an issue of liberty, freedom to do what you like with your possessions. Others claim the damage done is minimal. Some say the tax is easy to avoid if you can afford to hire a financial planner (and thus spawns all sorts of weird incentives to do things with money), meaning the estate tax disproportionately harms those who cannot.
| Libertarians try to act like liberals are fiscally irresponsible, but there are actually sound economic reasons for paying now to deal with problems that could be worse if allowed to spiral out of control. It's in the interest of society to provide a basic social safety net for people because it helps to stave off numerous related problems, from health care costs to the crime rate. Most conservatives and libertarians whine about spending a penny now because they're too short-sighted to see the dollar they'll have to spend tomorrow if they don't. |
That isn't really fair, only applies to completely idealistic conservatives/libertarians, and strict idealism in politics leads to things that don't work from any particular political position.
There are different views about which things will cost what in the future without fighting them now. There are some things conservatives/some libertarians support fighting in advance. Of course we don't hear that from the pundits on TV or political figures people giving speeches, but that isn't limited to conservatives by any means. Everyone in those roles tends to simplify all of their arguments. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 05/21/2010 17:35:25 |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2010 : 15:34:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Gorgo
property: created by government |
Regulated and protected by government.
licenses: created by government
patents: created by government
corporations: created by government |
All citizens are able to access these, protection of individual property by government does not mean government makes them wealthy. Those who became wealthy were not the only ones to have access to them.
| computers: created by government |
Not really true. Some aspects of computers were created entirely by private individuals, some were created under the direction of various governments. Some government involvement in some parts does not at all make becoming wealthy via computers due to government.
| internet: created by government |
Not our government. Ours helped spread access in the country. In any case, how does that make any manner of becoming wealthy by using the internet is using government? Should CERN still be getting royalties from Google and the Skeptic Friends Network (I know about the T-shirts!)?
| drug research: much of it created by government |
Much isn't :)
| interstate and international commerce: created by government |
Commerce exists independent of government as well. Government may make some parts of it easier.
| immigration laws: created by government |
How does this make anyone wealthy?
| NAFTA: created by government |
This is a case of government deregulating something they previously regulated. Government cannot possibly get credit for that because it was the reason it was taxed to start. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2010 : 17:49:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
Originally posted by Gorgo
property: created by government |
Regulated and protected by government. |
That's the point: a socially-funded entity (the government) is directly involved in the protection of rich people's property. The rich are aided by government, but they often (rich social conservatives, at least) work towards not allowing that same government to aid the poor.
| internet: created by government |
Not our government. |
Yes, our government. DARPA was the primary creator of basic Internet technologies, on the public dime.| Ours helped spread access in the country. In any case, how does that make any manner of becoming wealthy by using the internet is using government? Should CERN still be getting royalties from Google and the Skeptic Friends Network (I know about the T-shirts!)? |
Because without DARPA's effort (with public money) the Internet as we know it wouldn't exist.| drug research: much of it created by government |
Much isn't :) |
These days, most basic drug research is done in universities, with NIH grants. (Top lab scientists spend more time writing NIH grant applications than they spend actually doing research or writing articles.) If something looks promising, some "big pharma" company will license the research, which will further enrich the university and the drug company, without paying back the government. Fees paid by Big Pharma to the FDA during the drug application process cover less than the amount needed to actually properly examine the data, issue the required reports and police the marketplace after approval, and the deficit is made up with public money.
And oh, Gorgo was at least partially wrong about patents. The Patent and Trademark Office is one of a very few government entities which sustain themselves solely on the fees they charge, with no taxpayer support. However, the government is still involved in protecting and regulating the intellectual properties created by that office.| interstate and international commerce: created by government |
Commerce exists independent of government as well. Government may make some parts of it easier. |
Our Federal government is specifically charged with regulating interstate commerce by the Constitution, and decides upon international trade practices. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2010 : 22:57:48 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
That's the point: a socially-funded entity (the government) is directly involved in the protection of rich people's property. The rich are aided by government, but they often (rich social conservatives, at least) work towards not allowing that same government to aid the poor. |
It protects everyone's property. Anyone can own property. The political argument is only true of some rich people, and even those don't want to "not allow government to aid the poor", irrelevant.
| Yes, our government. DARPA was the primary creator of basic Internet technologies, on the public dime. Because without DARPA's effort (with public money) the Internet as we know it wouldn't exist. |
ARPANET was only part of the development of the Internet. I tend to associate "the Internet" with the WWW, which is more from Berners-Lee and CERN. "The Internet as we know it" may not exist, but the Internet in some sense would exist, the degree to which it resembles what we have is a matter of pure speculation.
| These days, most basic drug research is done in universities, with NIH grants. (Top lab scientists spend more time writing NIH grant applications than they spend actually doing research or writing articles.) If something looks promising, some "big pharma" company will license the research, which will further enrich the university and the drug company, without paying back the government. Fees paid by Big Pharma to the FDA during the drug application process cover less than the amount needed to actually properly examine the data, issue the required reports and police the marketplace after approval, and the deficit is made up with public money. |
It's still only true of some medical research. Journal of the AMA reports 57% industry funding, 28% NIH (in 2005). (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/pdfs/kansascity_medical.pdf page 2)
Our Federal government is specifically charged with regulating interstate commerce by the Constitution, and decides upon international trade practices.
|
I know that, but to assume it could not exist and be profitable independent of government. The only reason trade barriers exist between states/nations is that political borders exist (which are unavoidable to an extent). To say one becoming wealthy via interstate or international trade is due only to "using the government to make them wealthy" is not justified as far as I can tell. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 05/21/2010 22:59:15 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 05/21/2010 : 23:36:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
I know that, but to assume it could not exist and be profitable independent of government. The only reason trade barriers exist between states/nations is that political borders exist (which are unavoidable to an extent). To say one becoming wealthy via interstate or international trade is due only to "using the government to make them wealthy" is not justified as far as I can tell. |
You're getting the argument backwards, still. The "due only" part is a straw man. If the rich get rich with the help of the government at all, then it is hypocritical and cruel of them to lobby against governmental policies which would help the non-rich. Gorgo gave a list of examples in which the rich are continually aided by the government, not a list of examples in which the rich were made rich by the government.
In other words, the "libertarian" attitude of "I got mine, everyone else can fuck off" is blind to the fact that they didn't get theirs through their own "hard work" alone. They've been given public help for the last 200+ years. For them to shun helping the public in return is unethically selfish and plainly hypocritical. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/22/2010 : 01:16:23 [Permalink]
|
...approximately 60 percent of
the [pharmaceutical] industry’s spending on research is to develop copycat drugs (Ernst & Young
LLP, 2001). This means instead of getting $40 billion in research on
breakthrough drugs for the $140 billion that patents add to drug costs, we are
only getting about $17 billion. In other words, we spend more than $8 in higher
drug prices for every dollar that the industry spends researching breakthrough
drugs.6 |
Interesting little tidbit about the high cost of medicine (and patents and copyrights). (p.51)
Not that copycat drugs are necessarily all unnecessary, but that skews the percentages that you gave, Machi4velli. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 05/22/2010 01:50:43 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Thoughts On Politics
