I must say I adhere to this definition of liberal.

[pervert]

*Originally posted by 2sense *
**In America we do have the right to believe as we wish but that right can be taken away. **

OK, so you don’t believe in rights, you believe in privileges. It may seem like symantics to you, but I think the right cannot be taken away. The ability maybe, but not the right.

So basically I try keep an open mind and not reject opposing ideas out of hand. I’m liberal.

All that sounded ok, if a little wishy washy. I’m sure you’ve heard the admonision not to keep your mind so open that it falls out of your head.

This I don’t get. How can a believer in absolute rights be convinced to change their mind about which rights exist?

How can anyone change thier beliefs about anything? I think you are confusing what I am saying about objective morality with something I am not familiar with. Is it not the same procedure you subject your “opinions” to? If I am presented with evidence contrary to my belief I must either refute the evidence, change my belief, or my integrity suffers.

Nor have I ever said that legal = moral. Legal or no, racial subjugation is an atrocity.

OK, but you have implied that majority opinion does equal morality. Perhaps I misunderstood you. Also, if the majority votes to institute racism, how would you judge it an atrocity? what would you do about it?
All I am saying is that a given morality is a system of values for guiding people in their lives. Legality is the codified set of rules for people to deal with one another in a given jurisdiction. All I am saying is that certain basic moral precepts take precedence over legality. I think we agree on this basic principle even though you don’t recognize it. For instance, wasn’t it you that said a democracy cannot vote away democracy? I think this is an application of the principle I just laid out.
Think of it in terms of context. As long as we agree on the particular context we are talking about, and the particular language we are using, we can civilly disagree and discuss just about anything. As soon as you say that the “proper” way to discuss politics is to beat dissenters with bats (and then proceed to try out your philosophy on my head), our ability to discuss civilly fails. Democracy is a form of government which requires a similar context. So, everyone must be allowed to vote, for instance. I would add a few others, but they are fairly benign. Given this context we can accept the majority’s decision on a broad range of subjects. Without it we have the farce of Sadam Hussein being ellected unanimously as dictator.

**You are avoiding the question. I didn’t ask if you would obey a law enslaving you. I wouldn’t either. The question is whether you think the government should enforce such a law. I think that if it were popularly enacted then the government should. What do you think? **

I did not mean to avoid the question. I do not think that the government should enforce such a law. Governments are made up of people. If it is imoral to obey a law requiring slavery, how much more imoral is it to enforce such a law. So, while I can agree that after a constitutional convention has added slavery back into our constitution the government should enforce this, I don’t think any individual should obey. Not even the police.

[2sense]

*Originally posted by pervert *
**OK, so you don’t believe in rights, you believe in privileges. It may seem like symantics to you, but I think the right cannot be taken away. The ability maybe, but not the right.

** I was just explaining what I mean by “rights”. I understand you don’t agree.

**All that sounded ok, if a little wishy washy. I’m sure you’ve heard the admonision not to keep your mind so open that it falls out of your head.

** I hadn’t heard that expression actually. Funny.
I’m glad that made sense to you. Took me a while to sort it out for myself.

How can anyone change thier beliefs about anything? I think you are confusing what I am saying about objective morality with something I am not familiar with. Is it not the same procedure you subject your “opinions” to? If I am presented with evidence contrary to my belief I must either refute the evidence, change my belief, or my integrity suffers.

I make a distinction between belief in fact and simple opinion. I can change my opinions if I want to because I control them. I don’t control all of reality however so my desires don’t change facts. Washington was the first President of the United States. I might feel better if Thomas Paine had been our first president but wishing doesn’t make it so. You believe that rights exist. You believe not just that some rights exist but that certain rights exist. Since there is no evidence that they exist in the first place how could anyone provide evidence that you believed in the wrong ones? It seems to me that all a person could do would provide you information that would make you want to believe in different rights. But your desires don’t change reality, do they?

OK, but you have implied that majority opinion does equal morality. Perhaps I misunderstood you. Also, if the majority votes to institute racism, how would you judge it an atrocity? what would you do about it?

You have misunderstood. I have a moral code. Like everyone I make distinctions between right and wrong. But not everyone draws the line in the same place. I do not believe the government should be biased in favor of any particular morality because that would deny everyone an equal say. It should just treat everyone the same by not judging morality at all. It should just follow the will of the majority. That says nothing about my own beliefs. Sometimes I agree with the majority, often not.

**All I am saying is that a given morality is a system of values for guiding people in their lives. Legality is the codified set of rules for people to deal with one another in a given jurisdiction. All I am saying is that certain basic moral precepts take precedence over legality. **

Since all opinions are equally valid how is the government to decide which moral precepts should take precedence? I say the only fair way is to count noses and use the most popular precepts.

I think we agree on this basic principle even though you don’t recognize it. For instance, wasn’t it you that said a democracy cannot vote away democracy? I think this is an application of the principle I just laid out.

I don’t think so. For the reasons I have just explained I believe in majority rule. There is nothing stopping a majority from voting to do away with majority rule and go to a dictatorship or whatever. It’s just that it would no longer be completely democratic and so I would no longer believe that the government was fair. It has nothing to do with legality.

** Democracy is a form of government which requires a similar context. So, everyone must be allowed to vote, for instance. I would add a few others, but they are fairly benign. Given this context we can accept the majority’s decision on a broad range of subjects. **

Whether or not I accept the decision of the majority is beside the point. As with every governmental policy I have to make my own judgement. What we are talking about whether or not the government should accept the decision of the majority. I think it should even if I personally disagree.

**I did not mean to avoid the question. I do not think that the government should enforce such a law. Governments are made up of people. If it is imoral to obey a law requiring slavery, how much more imoral is it to enforce such a law. So, while I can agree that after a constitutional convention has added slavery back into our constitution the government should enforce this, I don’t think any individual should obey. Not even the police. **

As I believe I have noted, I agree that slavery is immoral. As for constitutional amendment… I wasn’t talking about our federal government specifically but rather all government. Assuming the constitution of our hypothetical government already said that the law was whatever the majority enacted into law then I believe that you would have no trouble agreeing that the government, but not individuals, should enforce a popularly enacted slave code. If so I think we agree here and that I was wrong about you believing you were willing to set yourself up as the sole arbiter of government.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by pervert *
The problem, (obviosly, its the problem I have, not a logical or objective problem) erislover, is that you define the obligation without defining its limits.

Of course. Why would limits be discussed in a definition? We define GDP without saying how much it actually is. It’s a concept around which numbers will rotate.

I’m talking about defining a limit on the amount of aid that any (or even all) of these emergencies obligates the rest of us to provide.

This is a good question. How do you propose we proceed? I don’t think a % of GDP is a good way to look at it. GDP is not a measure of what people can give. But how do we determine what to do here?

There’s a few approaches. One, we could simply take a look at people’s incomes and make a progressive estimation (since the farther away they are from poverty, the less their money is doing for them other than aiming at luxury—and further investment in the economy, a point we can’t forget). Two, we could look at making a flat estimate of what it takes to live in today’s world. Three, we could look at both and make a more intelligent guess about what is reasonable. People with wealth cannot collect it while those around them suffer (though it isn’t a zero-sum game, that doesn’t mean that the wealthy don’t live on the backs of the poor in their way, too), and people without wealth do not have unlimited claim to others’ for ethical and practical reasons.

Ideally we attempt to strike a balance, redistributing what we can without making the pursuit of wealth not worth the effort. After all, we do want people who excel at tasks be rewarded for it, but we don’t want this to be at the cost of others, as well.

And just so I am clear, I think bailing out companies is at least as reprehensible as bailing out individuals.

But it has a purpose, too! Airplanes allow much more freedom of movement, and aid business transactions and personal enjoyment. So perhaps it makes sense to support the industry. On the other hand, if the industry is mismanaged, we don’t want to encourage waste.

Propping up public transportation helps, too. It keeps traffic down in major cities, and allows for people to travel that might not otherwise be able to. Which means they can spend their money in more places, allowing them greater freedom and maybe making their dollars go farther.

[pervert]

*Originally posted by 2sense *
**[…]If so I think we agree here and that I was wrong about you believing you were willing to set yourself up as the sole arbiter of government. **

Yea, I think we agree on most of this.

I was just explaining what I mean by “rights”. I understand you don’t agree.

A couple of definitions I looked up.
Right: an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature.
Privilege: a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.

Perhaps privilege is not the right word either. Perhaps you only think rights are granted by law or tradition as opposed to nature. In which case, I would have to ask what rights do you have if removed from society? How does your morallity apply without the legal structure we have?

**I make a distinction between belief in fact and simple opinion. I can change my opinions if I want to because I control them. I don’t control all of reality however so my desires don’t change facts. **

I agree. I would add, however, that not all opinions are simple. Also I would note that you must draw a distinction between facts and your perception of them. If you misread a history book and think for a couple years that Joan Washington was the first prisident, it does not change the facts. If you later read another history book and see the correct information you would have to apply your moral value -integrity- to the situation and change your understanding of history.
How is the understanding of a particular moral concept any different? Certainly the nature of the evidence for a physical fact would be different than evidence for a metaphysical one. But I’m not sure this difference amounts to none for one and some for the other. This is another brief introduction that is not as vehement as most.

The need for morality, according to Objectivism, arises from man’s distinctive nature. Since man, unlike lower animals, does not automatically perform the actions necessary to satisfy his natural needs, he must exercise free choice to do so. But in order to determine what those needs are and how to satisfy them, man must think–he must be rational, that is, be conscious of reality and disposed to act accordingly.

I have a moral code. Like everyone I make distinctions between right and wrong. But not everyone draws the line in the same place. I do not believe the government should be biased in favor of any particular morality because that would deny everyone an equal say.

Of course you have to condem “denying everyone an equal say”. This is itself a moral rule.

It should just treat everyone the same by not judging morality at all.

But treating everyone the same is also a moral rule. So is not judging others morally.

It should just follow the will of the majority.

And of course this is also a moral rule. In the absence of any consensus about morality, how will you decide that majority rule should be considered at all? Or are you simply suggesting that this is your opinion? I would suggest that a reasonable argument can be put forward which supports such a belief. My point being that you cannot remove moral judgements from any human activity.

You can, however, agree on a context within which such judgements should be made. That is you can agree that an official can judge specificly defined offenses with specifically defined rules of evidence applying specifically defined punishments. However, deciding on which offenses, rules and punishments also requires moral judgment. So we might give that responsibility to other officials. Perhaps some who are subject to re election more often. And we might supply these officials with a “guidebook” of rules they must follow when enacting new offenses. Obviously, writing this guidbook (or changing it) also requires moral judgements. So we might want to limit changes to those that are approved by a very large majority of society.

So, in one sense we have a government system which is completely subjected to the will of the majority (the super majority at least). But also we have a government which is subject to the rules defined by this super majority. These rules define the context within which a simple majority can rule. Ultimately, however, the society relies on the willingness of each of us to apply this subjugation to the best of our ability. Of course we must each apply our own perception (opinion if you will) of morality to any such activities. All I am suggesting is that there is a reasonable way to develop these beliefs (opinions).

[pervert]

*Originally posted by erislover *
(since the farther away they are from poverty, the less their money is doing for them other than aiming at luxury—and further investment in the economy, a point we can’t forget).

I need a quick clarification on this. Did you mean that wealth above poverty

1. aims at luxury
   and
2. invests in economy

Or did you mean it does one and not the other?

[erislover]

I did mean both.

[2sense]

*Originally posted by pervert *
A couple of definitions I looked up.
Right: an abstract idea of that which is due to a person or governmental body by law or tradition or nature.
Privilege: a grant to an individual, corporation, etc., of a special right or immunity, under certain conditions.

I don’t have a problem with that definition of rights though it’s not how I use the term. I understand that when someone says, “I have a right to be here.” they mean that they believe that it is right for them to be there. Notice though that the definition is about a preference, not a fact. What I don’t get is how people move from “I think I should be allowed to be here.” to “There exists, independent of mankind, a force which makes it right for me to be here.” It seems to me that they are confusing their preferences with reality.

Perhaps privilege is not the right word either. Perhaps you only think rights are granted by law or tradition as opposed to nature. In which case, I would have to ask what rights do you have if removed from society? How does your morallity apply without the legal structure we have?

I believe in civil rights. That is, those rights that a society confers upon the individual. Civil rights can and sometimes are denied, ask any black person. If I lived in seclusion there wouldn’t be any question of rights. I could do anything I want because there wouldn’t be anyone else to dispute my desires. Rights place an obligation upon others.

And, as I have already said- my morality is independent of the law. I decide for myself what is right and wrong. I think of this as adulthood. I am not a child to be told what to do. I make my own decisions. For me laws have nothing to do with right and wrong.

I agree. I would add, however, that not all opinions are simple. Also I would note that you must draw a distinction between facts and your perception of them. If you misread a history book and think for a couple years that Joan Washington was the first prisident, it does not change the facts. If you later read another history book and see the correct information you would have to apply your moral value -integrity- to the situation and change your understanding of history.

Yes, I was simplifying. As I have already pointed out in this thread there are many standards of knowledge. The epistemology I use is logic. There is no proof that logic is inherently better or more valid than any other epistemology. If you believe that the facts bend to your will then to you that is your reality. It wasn’t rhetorical when I asked you if you believed this. ( OK, it was just a little. ) Anyways, that understanding of the rules of the universe is no less a valid as an epistemology than logic. Completely foolish from my perspective but equally valid nonetheless. Ain’t philosophy grand? **

How is the understanding of a particular moral concept any different? Certainly the nature of the evidence for a physical fact would be different than evidence for a metaphysical one.**

There is no difference. All understanding of “fact” is opinion. In effect, everything is opinion. I am only making a distinction because we share an understanding of what constitutes the real world.

Of course you have to condem “denying everyone an equal say”. This is itself a moral rule.

Indeed. Of course, it isn’t easy to find anyone, even an anonymous internet poster, that will admit that they don’t believe everyone deserves an equal say. I spend a lot of time arguing against the Electoral College. Its apologists will argue themselves into knots rather than admit that what they really want is for some opinions to carry more political weight than others.

But treating everyone the same is also a moral rule. So is not judging others morally.

Yes yes.

And of course this is also a moral rule. In the absence of any consensus about morality, how will you decide that majority rule should be considered at all? Or are you simply suggesting that this is your opinion? I would suggest that a reasonable argument can be put forward which supports such a belief. My point being that you cannot remove moral judgements from any human activity.

I agree that moral judgements are unavoidable. As I have said you can’t live your life without making decisions. These decisions are based directly or indirectly upon your moral judgements. As I have also said, I feel that majority rule is the only fair system of government because it is the only one that gives everyone an equal say. That is what I feel is the reasonable context for the government to judge. A context which gives everyone a say.

[Zoe]

Addressing an issue brought up earlier:

[Bush] has an agenda for childrens’ public education and pushed for and achieved a massive new mandate to enforce it, complete with huge new public spending.

According to the American Federation of Teachers, the President’s budget for the No Child Left Behind Program is actually 9 billion dollars less than what Congress authorized and 200 million dollars less than the purchasing power of the 2002 budget. That includes programs for improving teacher quality and accountability, after school programs, and programs for the children of migrant workers.

Meanwhile, I can’t think of any department with a more wasteful reputation than the Department of Defense. I will see if I can find some stats for you.

[Zoe]

First source that I came to:

Military waste under fire / $1 trillion missing -- Bush plan targets Pentagon...

excerpt:

Though Defense has long been notorious for waste, recent government reports suggest the Pentagon’s money management woes have reached astronomical proportions. A study by the Defense Department’s inspector general found that the Pentagon couldn’t properly account for more than a trillion dollars in monies spent. A GAO report found Defense inventory systems so lax that the U.S.
Army lost track of 56 airplanes, 32 tanks, and 36 Javelin missile command launch-units.
And before the Iraq war, when military leaders were scrambling to find enough chemical and biological warfare suits to protect U.S. troops, the department was caught selling these suits as surplus on the Internet “for pennies on the dollar,” a GAO official said. (bold type added)

Think how many things could have been set right in our country by a trillion dollars…

I return you now to the discussion on the difference in facts and opinions.

[pervert]

*Originally posted by 2sense *
What I don’t get is how people move from “I think I should be allowed to be here.” to "There exists, independent of mankind, a force which makes it right for me to be here."

I’m not sure very many people say this when they say they believe in natural rights. I certainly don’t. What I mean bo natural (or objective) rights is that there are is a moral system which can be defined by reference to objective reality. Morality as a set of values does not exist in the physical sense. That does not mean that it is not amenable to reason nor that it does not exist.

For me laws have nothing to do with right and wrong.

Well, I don’t want to go around in circles, and I don’t want to nit pick, but not nothing surely.

The epistemology I use is logic. There is no proof that logic is inherently better or more valid than any other epistemology.

I’m not sure that you can even say this. Logically, via (was it) Goedel, any system of logic cannot contain all knowledge and be internally consistent. So, while logic is certainly a good tool for evaluating propositions and testing the internal consistency of systems of propostitions, I’m not sure it qualifies as an epistemology by itself. You have to have a few postulates which do not rely on earlier postulates. Even if the only a priori knowledge is “thou shalt use logic to determine all knowledge”.

I like to use the term reason instead. I think it may be a bit more expansive.

If you believe that the facts bend to your will then to you that is your reality.

No, we all live in the same reality. If Tom thinks that it will bend to his will, then that is his belief. He may even be free to act on that belief (assuming he is not locked up). But it will not change the nature of reality at all.

There is no difference. All understanding of “fact” is opinion. In effect, everything is opinion.

OK, in a certain sense that is true. That is, everything in your head is one of your opinions. But this is not the full meaning of the word. It also implies a certain uncertainty. There is a level of certainty beyond which thoughts cease to be opinions and become knowledge. As I said earlier, this does not imply that knowledge is unchangeable, just that we are very very sure of it.

I spend a lot of time arguing against the Electoral College.

Well, careful now. I might be one of those whome you have argued against. I don’t want to hijack our hijack, but there are reasons for the Electoral College beyond the purposes that the Founding Fathers had for it. Although, I will agree that their purposes amounted to a distrust of the masses.I’m sure you’ve seen this article before.

**As I have also said, I feel that majority rule is the only fair system of government because it is the only one that gives everyone an equal say. That is what I feel is the reasonable context for the government to judge. A context which gives everyone a say. **

Fair enough. I think there needs to be a little more context, but under certain conditions, (super majority for instance) everything should be up for grabs.

[pervert]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**I did mean both. **

Ok, so if monies above the poverty level (whatever that is) are luxuries and investments, how do you decide? How can you set a level above which income must be surrendered?

I would suggest that our current system is pretty stable. We can define taxes in terms of income (I’d rather a completely different tax, but not on grounds of effectiveness.) The problem is that the current constitution is unlimited. The government could very easily make income tax 100% for everyone. It would not be politically feasable, but if the 2 major parties colluded, it might be a long time indeed before we could set it right. And of course, there is no limit on spending either.

What if we could do both. Set an absolute limit on taxation (say 80%) to use a number we should all be able to agree on. Set a minimum income below which the tax would not apply also (say the bottom 10% of wage earners). The same amendment would also have to place limits on spending. The government would be forbidden to spend more than 80% of whatever was recieved last year. We could, of course, make an exception for emergencies, but we would have to make declaring such an emergency difficult. Perhaps a 3/4 majoriy in both houses, for instance.

If we had parameters like this to work with, we could concentrate on passing legislation to protect the economy in order to increase the coffers instead of raising and lowering taxes all the time. We could argue how to spend the money we have instead of spending money we don’t yet have.

Just my HO of course.

[2sense]

*Originally posted by pervert *
**What I mean bo natural (or objective) rights is that there are is a moral system which can be defined by reference to objective reality. Morality as a set of values does not exist in the physical sense. That does not mean that it is not amenable to reason nor that it does not exist.

** I’m having trouble getting my mind around this. You are saying that natural rights are a set of objective moral imperatives? If so how are they objective? If not could you please try to explain it again?

Well, I don’t want to go around in circles, and I don’t want to nit pick, but not nothing surely.

Suffice to say that legal and illegal do not define moral and immoral for me. I decide what is right or wrong on my own.

I’m not sure that you can even say this. Logically, via (was it) Goedel, any system of logic cannot contain all knowledge and be internally consistent. So, while logic is certainly a good tool for evaluating propositions and testing the internal consistency of systems of propostitions, I’m not sure it qualifies as an epistemology by itself. You have to have a few postulates which do not rely on earlier postulates. Even if the only a priori knowledge is “thou shalt use logic to determine all knowledge”.

Harumph! I believe I did just say it.

Seriously though, I don’t see what the Incompleteness Theorem has to do with it. An epistemology is a theory of knowledge. It is just a tool for understanding. A libertarian taught me that. ( I wonder if Libertarian still posts here. ) The theory of logic is that you can know things by combining postulates to reach conclusions. You say that we all live in the same reality. I agree but how can we be sure? We can use logic to demonstrate but as you say we have to start from postulates. What are postulates? Unproven assumptions. Opinions. This is the essence of philosophy as I understand it. The road to wisdom begins with the knowledge that we know nothing. Everything we think of as fact is based upon mere opinion.

**I don’t want to hijack our hijack, but there are reasons for the Electoral College beyond the purposes that the Founding Fathers had for it. Although, I will agree that their purposes amounted to a distrust of the masses.I’m sure you’ve seen this article before. **

Argh! I was afraid that’s what you were linking to. Yes I’ve read the article before. You aren’t Hively are you? Your style seems much more straightforward than that of the article. I hope not but either way I wouldn’t mind doing my best to disabuse you of the notion that the EC is beneficial. I like arguing with you. You make me think. When this is done I’ll do another deconstruction of “Math Against Tyranny”. I’m not sure how much farther I can take this anyways. I’m not much of a philosopher. Or a mathmetician for that matter. I was glad to recognize Gödel’s work.

[erislover]

*Originally posted by pervert *
Ok, so if monies above the poverty level (whatever that is) are luxuries and investments, how do you decide? How can you set a level above which income must be surrendered?

The current form of society will determine that. As time goes on the cost of living changes. I was paying $800 for a studio apartment just outside of Boston two years ago. A person working full time at $6 couldn’t afford a phone. The suggestion to simply “move somewhere else” isn’t possible because it costs money to move, and money is exactly the problem. Then you have to ask yourself, “Is a phone a luxury?” Well, sure—unless he needs to make a 911 call. Then it is a necessity. Are we to take the position that 911 is a public service, unless you’re too poor to own a phone? But now I believe the phone company has to ensure you have access to 911 even if you can’t call other areas.

What if we could do both. Set an absolute limit on taxation (say 80%) to use a number we should all be able to agree on.

I don’t agree on that. If some guy ends up making 100 billion dollars, I wouldn’t feel it incredibly outrageous if the last hundred mil got taxed at 80%. On the other hand, maybe it takes 14K a year to live right now. That number could change easily over time (and I don’t just mean inflation). Setting an absolute floor won’t help us either. I mean, sure, you could get it to pass. “HR 45509: we swear we won’t tax people at over 80% of their taxable income.” I wouldn’t argue. If it ever came time to tax at 80% they’d just repeal it anyway.

Set a minimum income below which the tax would not apply also (say the bottom 10% of wage earners).

We already have this, it just isn’t set in stone, nor should it be since the cost of living is not set in stone. Life is dynamic. 80% of a kings ransom is still a hell of a lot of money, and 1% of nothing is still nothing. Absolutes won’t get us through.

Setting spending limits right now might be a good idea, but that would involve immediate cuts to lots of programs. Do we kill education or the transportation system? Maybe medicare? Perhaps we forget about national parks?

[pervert]

*Originally posted by erislover *
The current form of society will determine that. As time goes on the cost of living changes.

But here again you are concentrating on needs rather than ability to pay. I understand that moving can be difficult without money, but it may be the best course of action in the long run. I believe it is a better course of action than forcing someone else to make up the shortfall.

I don’t agree on that. If some guy ends up making 100 billion dollars, I wouldn’t feel it incredibly outrageous if the last hundred mil got taxed at 80%.

I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I was suggesting an upper limit to the tax rate. If it was 80%, then someone who earned 100 billion would pay 80% of that in taxes.

**Setting an absolute floor won’t help us either. **

Again, I’m not talking about an bsolute floor. I’m talking about agreeing in advance how we will calculate that floor.

**I mean, sure, you could get it to pass. “HR 45509: we swear we won’t tax people at over 80% of their taxable income.” **

Right. I was talking about a constitutional ammendment. or something like that.

**Setting spending limits right now might be a good idea, but that would involve immediate cuts to lots of programs. Do we kill education or the transportation system? Maybe medicare? Perhaps we forget about national parks? **

Personally, I have many government programs which I would put on the chopping block first. But to be fair, I would simply institute an accross the board (meaning discresionary as well as mandatory expenditures) cut. A recent (2002 I think) budget spent 2 trillion dollars. I think that has to come down. We could do it over time by cutting 5% of the budget every year. Any programs you want to increase you simply have to finde more than 5% cuts somewhere else. Its calle prioritizing and it HAS to be done.

[pervert]

*Originally posted by 2sense *
**** I’m having trouble getting my mind around this. You are saying that natural rights are a set of objective moral imperatives? If so how are they objective? **

I’m not sure what the confusion is. Can you explain to me the characteristics of objective morals which are anathema to objectivity? Just trying to find the best way to address this.

All I’m saying is that human nature implies certain ways of interacting are more appropriate than others. These ways of interacting imply a set of rights. That is, there are a set of rights based on objective observable reality which can be reasonably said to be true.

[2sense]

Originally posted by pervert *
** Can you explain to me the characteristics of objective morals which are anathema to objectivity? Just trying to find the best way to address this.*

I’m afraid I can’t. I don’t know of any objective morals. To me it seems they are all subjective.

**All I’m saying is that human nature implies certain ways of interacting are more appropriate than others. These ways of interacting imply a set of rights. That is, there are a set of rights based on objective observable reality which can be reasonably said to be true. **

I don’t see that as objective at all. Assuming that human nature does imply certain ways of interacting the judgement that those ways are more appropriate than others is subjective. And that is a big assumption to swallow. I suspect that that if you would provide examples of the implications of human nature I could point out other subjective opinions you have failed to notice because, of course, what constitutes human nature is itself merely an opinion.

[erislover]

Would make it difficult to move? Having no excess money makes it impossible to move! Everyone requires deposits, and in areas of low housing supply they even require an extra month’s rent on top of that. If you are barely scraping by, you can’t move. That’s the point. It doesn’t matter how much work is available somewhere else if you can’t get there. So I guess the market isn’t perfectly efficient in allocating resources after all. Rats!

I’m talking about agreeing in advance how we will calculate that floor.

In that case, it seems simple enough. In general, we would simply go by what is already calculated as the cost of living. Then people in various areas would have the [COL index] X [minimum life].

What [minimum life] is, that’s arguable. Is it a studio apartment? Does it include a car or other transportation costs? How much of a clothing allotment should there be? Can they ever eat steak or is it ground chuck and generic mac&cheese? Three meals a day or one?

I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I was suggesting an upper limit to the tax rate.

Well, I was thinking in terms of how money is actually taxed. In any event, an absolute maximum isn’t really useful here. Whether by government fiat or natural market forces (my money’s on the latter) wealth is not flat or even linear. The farther we go from necessity, the less our money does or even can do for us. (Investment does some for us as investors, but more for others as the work generated by investment, you see what I mean there?) What this means is that excessive wealth actually represents an inefficiency: money at that point isn’t doing as much work as it would at a lower level (this depends on the risk of investments etc, but we’re in a GD thread not writing an econ paper so :p).

So now I would have you ask yourself: at what point will you tolerate inefficiency to maintain wealth?

I find that to be equivalent to the question of limits you ask me.

[pervert]

*Originally posted by erislover *
**Would make it difficult to move? Having no excess money makes it impossible to move! **

Well, strictly speaking this is not true. Have you never heard stories of people going to California, America, etc with nothing but the clothes on their backs and a buck intheir pocket? Homeless people move all the time. I’m sorry, I know it sounds cruel to you, but when you need something you have to take responsibility for it. If you have no way to get it, you may have to build a way to get it.

**The farther we go from necessity, the less our money does or even can do for us. **

I’m afraid this is exactly backwards. Accumulated capital works harder than capital in small chunks. The whole power of capitalism is that acumulating money can increase ones ability to create wealth. This increase is not linear. I can’t demonstrate that its exponential, but it is certainly not linear. So, excessive wealth represents an efficiency.

So now I would have you ask yourself: at what point will you tolerate inefficiency to maintain wealth?

So, I’ll turn it around. How much of a drag on the economy, that is, how much poverty, are you willing to tollerate in order to indulge your compasion?

[erislover]

Accumulated capital works harder than capital in small chunks.

Ohhh, so people who make almost no money cannot have it do much for them. Huh.

So, excessive wealth represents an efficiency.

If the money is completely working, then it isn’t yours: you’ve spent it. It did something completely. In today’s economy this is not a good picture of what investment is all about, of course, what with stocks and venture capital and contracts and loans, but the idea I want to put forward is that the more money you have, the less it is doing. Money exchange does stuff. If you have money you aren’t exchanging, it isn’t doing anything. It just sits there. Same with a 20 bedroom home for a single family versus a two bedroom home: stuff isn’t being used. Resources were not allocated properly. That property could be doing things and stabilizing wealth (by providing more people shelter so they can work) or generating it (a business could move in), but it isn’t. It’s just satisfying you because it is yours. Now, does this mean it isn’t worth what you paid for it? Of course not, I don’t mean to imply that. Subjective value is what drives everything. We can’t ignore it or pretend it isn’t there.

But what we can do is start to get a different picture of wealth, one that indicates that the more real property or money a person has, the less someone else has to have. We can’t all be rich, right? So this means that the more rich people there are, the more poor people there has to be. We can’t have it both ways. The more wealth some people have accumulated, the less there is for the rest of us to compete for. Since, as you’ve noted, having wealth makes it easier to generate more wealth, what does that tell us about people who don’t have significant wealth? Their ten bucks have to compete with your ten thousand.

Of course wealth isn’t static. It can be created. We want to encourage people who create wealth. How? By letting them keep their wealth. But if we cannot sustain a stable society by this method, then we have to consider the possibility that they can’t keep all their wealth. Their workers need to live to work, and if they can’t pay their workers what it takes to live, maybe they don’t deserve the wealth they’re making off them.

Suppose a person is born in a wealthy family and a different is born in a poor family. Will they be able to achieve the same level of wealth, given equal [average] ability? Why or why not? What does this tell us about wealth?

Have you never heard stories of people going to California, America, etc with nothing but the clothes on their backs and a buck intheir pocket?

Of course. I’ve also heard of homeless people dying of starvation. So?

[pervert]

*Originally posted by erislover *
Ohhh, so people who make almost no money cannot have it do much for them. Huh.

We’re getting back into silliness here. I said no such thing. I said the more money you have, the more money you can make. I also said that the relationship is not linear. I would add, that even people with no money can make money with thier labor. and dispite the protestations of the local communists, they can even accumulate wealth this way.

If the money is completely working, then it isn’t yours: you’ve spent it. It did something completely.

Again, you have this completely backwards. When you invest money you recieve a greater value for it. This is the process of wealth creation.

**Same with a 20 bedroom home for a single family versus a two bedroom home: stuff isn’t being used. Resources were not allocated properly. That property could be doing things and stabilizing wealth (by providing more people shelter so they can work) or generating it (a business could move in), but it isn’t. It’s just satisfying you because it is yours. **

But this is not true either. You mean by “properly” something which has no reference to an objective “properly”. For instance, that property could also be an empty field. Without the wealth created by the owner of the home, it probably would be. As for the last sentence, I don’t know what you think the purpose of your life is, but the purpose of my life is expressed very well in that sentence. My purpose is my satisfaction.

But what we can do is start to get a different picture of wealth, one that indicates that the more real property or money a person has, the less someone else has to have. We can’t all be rich, right?

But this is a very old concept of wealth. It is what the fuedal system was based on. What we have to do is finally reject this outmoded model of money. Economies are NOT zero sum games. The reasons for poverty are many and varied. But the fact that rich people exist is NOT one of them.

So this means that the more rich people there are, the more poor people there has to be.

No. unless you have a cite?

The more wealth some people have accumulated, the less there is for the rest of us to compete for.

No, again. The creation of wealth is not inversely related to wealth accumulation. It is proportionally related.

Since, as you’ve noted, having wealth makes it easier to generate more wealth, what does that tell us about people who don’t have significant wealth? Their ten bucks have to compete with your ten thousand.

Again, economies are not zero sum games. If I can create 11,000 after a year of investing 10,000, how does this decrease your 10 dollars. What’s more, if I create a company in which you buy stock with that $10, we are not competing at all. I think you are falling prey to the wealth gap fallacy. Try to compare your own wealth to what you had last year instead of comparing to what Bill Gates has this year.

By letting them keep their wealth. But if we cannot sustain a stable society by this method, then we have to consider the possibility that they can’t keep all their wealth. Their workers need to live to work, and if they can’t pay their workers what it takes to live, maybe they don’t deserve the wealth they’re making off them.

And finally we get to the attitude which leads many conservative to call liberals closet communists. I mean no offence, but you may want to look closely at how similar this sounds to some of Sandino’s posts recently.

I have to ask, how can a capitalist earn money off of a worker that cannot live? Beleive me, if there were a way to do this, the robber barons of old would have found it long ago.

Suppose a person is born in a wealthy family and a different is born in a poor family. Will they be able to achieve the same level of wealth, given equal [average] ability? Why or why not? What does this tell us about wealth?

Yes and no. They could achieve the same level of wealth, they could achieve vastly different levels of wealth. Whatever money they inherit is only one of the variables.