Look, I’ve never said no taxes and no limits on the behavior of the rich, though in my experience of human nature, at least some of the rich are willing to just (“selfishly” or otherwise) coast on their wealth, as opposed to actually or figuratively going out and mugging or “gouging” a poor guy to get that one extra dollar. I’ve got mine you get yours is a position available to the rich but it’s not symmetrically true for the poor, who can essentially never be indifferent to an opportunity to get a dollar, deserved or otherwise, by coercion of the rich.
I’ve never said taxes are bad, haven’t said in this thread that progressive taxation is bad or that the requirement for minimal safety-net infrastructure can’t ever contemplate or require that some well-off people pay significantly more into government than they get out, vis a vis an unemployed guy.
We’re mostly debating the same thing: at what point does the rate become so high that there is no plausible value-for-money, and no plausible that’s-what-we-need-to-keep-the-lights-running-for-the-safety-net, rationale, and the only aim and effect of incremental taxation is literal wealth transfer for no other reason so that people who haven’t gone out and earned it don’t have to? That percentage rate is the point of debate. It’s not 10%. It probably is 90%, or 50%.
The other debatable point is whether it’s ever a good thing to have non-stakeholders making decision about money policy. I think it’s a perverse incentive. I think everyone should have some skin in the game. I always felt the Republicans did themselves no favor in their attempt to accustom the public to tax cuts gradually by introducing things like the EITC. Modern governmental policy is at every level about moving around large amounts of money. Why does anyone have a say in calling the tune if he hasn’t paid the piper any significant amount? (Alternatively, take us back to a government when the central authority coins the money, delivers the mail, and repels pirates every now and again, and not much else, and I’ll let everyone else in on the franchise).
You’re pitting the behavior of certain conservatives (invading middle eastern countries and attempting to turn them into democracies) and blaming it on liberals.
That is entirely unresponsive. You wrote, “Turns out that what large parts of the democratically empowered populace wants isn’t congenial to a Manhattan cocktail party audience.” You’re quite clearly referring to the marital rape and other travesties committed against women. So you’re writing, in effect, “[marital rape] isn’t congenial to a Manhattan cocktail party audience.” Well, no shit. If you thought that is was also not “congenial” to the rest of America, and to yourself as well, why did you choose to limit your statement to “a Manhattan cocktail party audience?”
I suspect you were just trying to make a cheap culture war point and didn’t think to carefully about what you were writing. If so, fine, I will welcome your correction. If not, let us know just why you didn’t write “isn’t congenial to Americans” or “isn’t good” or “is evil”–all of which make much more sense if what you intended to express was that Democracies sometimes do bad things.
All of which has fuck-all to do with Afghani governance. Apparently what you really want to debate is whether disenfranchising the poor is a good idea because we have a progressive income tax.
That’s great. But the question is, if the only people who are allowed to have a say on issues like this are the ones who have no need of their benefits, what are the odds that these programs are ever going to be instituted?
On the other hand, if only the wealthy get to vote, the odds are pretty good that the “that’s-what-we-need-to-keep-the-lights-running-for-the-safety-net” is going to be grossly underestimated, if not discarded altogether. There are also additional concerns, such as workplace safety, fair wage, reasonable hours, and so on. If the factory owner gets to vote on issues like this, and not the factory workers, you’re going to see a situation that is not simply grossly unfair to the workers, but actively, physically harmful.
Because how that money is moved will have a material (and potentially devastating) effect on their lives, regardless of the extent to which they’ve contributed to it.
So you’re okay with letting people vote, so long as there’s nothing for them to vote on? And where is that social safety net you supported earlier in this system of government?
This land is your land, this land is my land
From California to the New York Island
From the Redwood Forest to the Gulf Stream waters
This land was made for you and me.
Because we’re all bound by the government’s creation of private property. If I agree that the government can use guns to prevent me from going on a parcel of land because it belongs to you, I’ve got skin in the game: I’ve agreed to set certain resources aside for your sole use and to let the government use force to protect your sole use of those resources.
By agreeing to the concept of private property, everyone’s a player.
I referred to Manhattan cocktail parties because the NYT is edited by far more attendees of those than of attendees at say the Texas Motor Speedway, both of whom could probably agree on revulsion at the Afghan law, but only one of which groups was relevant when discussing the editorial position of the NYT.
And secondly, the NYT would, in the context of maximizing the number of ex-felons, or dubiously-documented citizens, or the illiterate or non-English-speaking persons, who could, say, vote in an American election, undoubtedly err on the side of extolling the glories of democracy, allowing anyone and everyone to vote, without drawing a single object lesson from what happens in a situation that, mutatis mutandis, is analogous (arguably less educated and less responsible voters voting on policies they don’t understand, or for outcomes that don’t serve the greater good). YMMV on the greater good but my whole point here is that there will never be an admission by the NYT, in the context of domestic politics, that the greater good might have been best served if pandering to the rabble weren’t a necessity for the leadership, as they clearly feel (and lament) was the case in Pak/Afghanistan.
I have responded, condemning GWB. I’ve argued elsewhere that there is a many hundreds of years old consensus of “conservatism” that GWB clearly didn’t meet, but the bigger point is, with GWB gone, I’m moving on to the liberals.
So, you’re suggesting that Afghanistan would be better off under a system of government that oppressed the masses, instead of pandered to them? I mean, Afghanistan may be showing a gross disregard for the rights of a significant percentage of its population, but you’d be hard pressed to demonstrate that that percentage has increased over the previous administration.
Right, but private property existed before governments, de facto if not de jure. Government is not the sole provider of private sovereignty, so it doesn’t have monopoly power, but it behaves as though it does. Following my analogies with the bartender or whatever, there could come a point at which I said “your beer is too expensive”/“the price you want to protect my property is too high” and so “I’m going to brew my own”/“for the amount of money you want, I could hire my own private army and get even better assurance of my property rights than you’re offering, at a lower price.” But the government won’t let you opt out, which is where the coercion comes from.
And realistically none of us probably want Mad Max (though if we had it, I’d probably try really hard to be one of the overlords), so we accept some degree of coercion. But it’s coercion in a way my beer transaction is not, no question, and therefore needs to be monitored more closely.
I have no idea where this thread is going. The OP was pretty incoherent and the attacks on the OP’s politics, (natural, gven the OP, but with the same sort of assumed positions that made trhe OP such a mess), have been just as tangled. That said, there is not really any other forum for this mess and I do hope that a few of you can actually put together an actual debate at some point.
Maybe Huerta88 can state an actual thesis that relies on demonstrable facts and draws logical conclusions. If that happens, I will not look kindly on attacks on his personal politics, as those will probably be irrelevant to the discussion.
Yes, but you are condemning liberals for an ideal, without having established that they hold or pursue that ideal. That’s the part you haven’t responded to.
I strongly suspect that you already have something similar in those countries, with the slight modification that it is run more like Tamanny Hall or mid-20th century Chicago. Only the “landowners” are allowed to vote; they simply vote through the people who owe them fealty.
If you are not aware that this is exactly how Afghanistan operates, today, you have not been paying nearly enough attention to that country to comment on it.
Did someone ask for you to interfere? Because it looks to me like everyone here is getting something out of the discussion. Please don’t overmod.
Yes, but redistribution of “private property” to protect the poor existed de facto before government: if I was cold, and I saw you had a nice cave, I might come on into the cave, redistributing your wealth. The government takes onto itself two exclusive coercive powers: the power to declare certain resources as privately owned, and the power to redistribute those resources. Sans government, people would individually be making both these decisions, which tends to be something of a mess.
If you have got a problem with moderating, take it to ATMB.
I have received multiple requests to send this to the BBQ Pit and my statement was an indication that if this thread can take the form of a genuine discussion, I will not move it to the Pit. How that gets turned into “overmodding,” I am not sure.
Huerta88, you’re simply wrong if you think the NYT has never lamented the result of domestic democratic decision-making that was overly influenced by uneducated masses. Ever heard of DOMA? The Patriot Act? Did you miss the NYT criticism of those?
I didn’t have to look very far to find the NYT being critical of democratic majorities:
Your OP’s point seems to be that democracies can make bad decisions. How do you get from that premise, with which I’m pretty sure no one disagrees including Manhattan cocktail party-goers, to the conclusion that poor people should be disenfranchised. Can’t you see that you’re skipping a few steps in the argument? Is your understanding of democracy that it is a system of achieving objectively correct policy outcomes? You don’t think there’s any justice in giving people control over their own governance?