Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Do you think your arbitration provisions would be worth a damn if (1) courts did not enforce arbitration provisions and (2) courts did not enter arbitration awards as enforceable judgments?

If there were no government, and no laws, there would be no lawyers -- litigators or transactional. People hire lawyers to work on deals to make sure that the deal terms are legal, enforceable, and hopefully favorable. This is stating the obvious.

Re-read my post. I've already conceeded the enforceability issue. I also readily conceeded the need for government. But what I do not conceed is that courts are necessary for civil matters. Arbitration can handle this quicker, cheaper and more efficiently.

Your belief that you would have a job in a society without government is faith-based. And defies all evidence -- look how well countries without government, like Somalia, function. Hoo-boy, bet there are a lot of lawyers doing well there.

Again, re-read my post. I've already acknowledged that government plays an important roll in stabilizing society, but other than that it does not play a significant roll in wealth creation.

And your response omits any number of other government inputs into your ability to make a living. You already told us that you ride public transit. Even if you didn't, who provides the roads that you ride on? The police and fire protection for your building? The public schools that probably educated the vast majority of people working at your firm? The postal system that brings most of your correspondence in? The Federal Reserve system that the banks who cash your paychecks -- and maybe hire your firm -- depend on to survive (again, lots of great banks in places like Somalia).

Yeah, the rich don't benefit from government at all.

You are confusing the issues. I did not say that the rich do not benefit. What I said was that the benefits received do not come anywhere near the revenue they contribute. Remember, this started as a debate regarding progressive taxation, and I asked whether anyone could defend it. In my initial post I posited that if you really drill down on the numbers, the rich do not receive the an increase amount of "benefits" which correlates to their contributions.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Not Me
Here are the recipes for those who are interested

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You seem to think the inclusion of an arbitration provision means the parties are "opting out" of the law. Any litigator can tell you you're seriously mistaken. Putting aside Sidd's incisive comments regarding the enforceability of ADR outcomes, dispute resolution in arbitration relies on the existence of a well-developed body of substantive law that was developed in government courts. That is what makes it The Law. Arbitration works well when the substantive law is highly developed and not much in dispute, such as commercial contracts. Would arbitration work as a form of dispute resolution with inherent authority where the law is a little more fuzzy, like child custody proceedings, or the criminal law? Hardly.

The state is a human community that successfully claims a monopoly over the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. You propose to live in a world where that monopoly is subjected to competition? We have a name for those places: the Third World. Move there if you dare.

No, they are opting out of the court system. I'll tell you what I told him . . . re-read my post. I already acknowledged the enforcement issue, and said it was necessary to a stable society - hence my comment regarding the threat of the gun.

So getting back to the real issue, can you justify progressive taxation, other than on the fuzzy (and I think intellectually dishonest) "benefits" theory?

[Hank Chinaski]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fair and balanced

Originally posted by Not Me
Here are the recipes for those who are interested

How come the Dems keep nominating guys with wives that no one in their right minds would want to fuck? It has got to led to adultry.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But what I do not conceed is that courts are necessary for civil matters. Arbitration can handle this quicker, cheaper and more efficiently.

Yeah but then how would John Edwards be able to become a millionaire?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
How come the Dems keep nominating guys with wives that no one in their right minds would want to fuck? It has got to led to adultry.

Now in all fairness, have you taken a look at John Kerry? It ain't pretty. I would say even Nixon was better looking.

The thing about Bill and Hill is that Bill is not hiedious like she is. Yowza. Thank goodness for Chelsea's sake they had enough money for some plastic surgery. Hill needs to follow in the footsteps of her daughther and get some lipo.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by fair and balanced
Its a perfect spiral. What's your point? Bush is an effective QB?

You think you can identify a perfect spiral from a still photograph? Unless he was looking to bean the photographer, rather than the target to the slight right of photographer at which he appears to be looking cross-eyed, I'd say it was quite a wobbler.

[Atticus Grinch]

It was bound to happen.

http://www.subservientpresident.net/

ETA: Telling him to dance results in something disturbing.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Gattigap
No. This is not a zero-sum argument where the existence of government's protections justifies any taxation rates that the government wants.

Instead, I think Sidd's point is an allusion to John Rawls' Veil of Ignorance theory that makes the argument for, among other things, progressive taxation.

Gattigap

Funny, I don't think Sidd used the term veil, rawls, or original position. I'll let him speak for himself, but the argument seemed to be that everyone owes the government a debt of gratitude because without it they couldn't accumulate the wealth they do. I've already dealt with that one, so let's move on.

Rawls's argument is a different one altogether. It's not a question of what do people owe government, but rather what government owes people. And the general idea is that it owes the weakest the most. FWIW, the theory is one of justice. The veil of ignorance is simply a mechanism used to reach the reasoned end.

Furthermore, using this mechanism, or theory, still has to be done in a circumspect manner. I'll use a local example. DC has seen property values rise immensely in recent years. In particular, in the wealthy part of the city. As a result, property tax revenues have skyrocketed (not hard .96*3X > .96*X). Naturally, those whose property values have gone up the most have had their taxes go up the most. Well, DC council is considering a bill to reduce the property tax rate. Sounds good, right? Everybody has lower taxes! Not so fast--the majority of the benefits (i.e., gross reduction of taxes) accrues to the richie riches. Big surprise--if you pay more taxes, you get a bigger cut when the cut comes. Objection!

So, we already have progressive taxation. Are you saying Rawls would justify any level of progressive taxation? I doubt it. Even Rawls could see that there are dynamic incentive effects that even people in the worst original position would want everyone to have, to ensure a better level for everyone.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
How come the Dems keep nominating guys with wives that no one in their right minds would want to fuck? It has got to led to adultry.

Careful Chinatski, or she’ll tell you to shove it.

The most ludicrous thing is that CNN described her as being “sexy”, no joke, for real. Then again, these morally relativistic liberal hoi polloi seem to love gasbagginly hirsute bovine women, eg Bella Abzug, Barbara “Chubby” Mikulski, Hillary “Cankles” Clinton et al). These women are the best pro-hijab argument I can think of And speaking of demo-porkers, Edwards’ ho' sure has “supersize it” written all that stretched to the max poly-rayon pantsuit.

As for Tahrayza, I don’t if I find her looks or her voice more offensive. Listening to her speech at the demo convention reminded me of the episode of Southpark where CartMan was aspiring to be a Special Olympian.

By the by, my theory is that Tahrayza used to be a relatively normal, albeit dog-faced, girl when she was Mrs. Senator John Heinz (who by the by was a solid conservative and all around upstanding bloke). Then a tragic accident and his untimely death left her a grievously dopey widow. Pharmaceuticals perhaps?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Furthermore, using this mechanism, or theory, still has to be done in a circumspect manner. I'll use a local example. DC has seen property values rise immensely in recent years. In particular, in the wealthy part of the city. As a result, property tax revenues have skyrocketed (not hard .96*3X > .96*X).

If the tax rate is the same no matter the value of the house, I don't think that is progressive taxation. Progressive taxation is where more expensive houses are taxed at a higher tax rate than less expensives homes.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
You think you can identify a perfect spiral from a still photograph?

You think you can identify a wobbler from a still photograph?

[Not Me]

Originally posted by fair and balanced
The most ludicrous thing is that CNN described her as being “sexy”, no joke, for real.

No, she described herself as sexy.

Originally posted by fair and balanced
By the by, my theory is that Tahrayza used to be a relatively normal, albeit dog-faced, girl when she was Mrs. Senator John Heinz (who by the by was a solid conservative and all around upstanding bloke). Then a tragic accident and his untimely death left her a grievously dopey widow. Pharmaceuticals perhaps?

She is 65 years old, cut her some slack. She has had extensive plastic surgery, but the work is decent because they left some slack so that she didn't have the wind tunnel look and she has a relatively believable look. Her neck, though, is tighter than most 35 year old necks. That is fine if she likes the way it looks, but it isn't believable that someone at 65 would have a neck that tight.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
How come the Dems keep nominating guys with wives that no one in their right minds would want to fuck? It has got to led to adultry.

Are you kidding? We've got a long way to go to catch up to the wives of say, 41 or your revered 16.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Funny, I don't think Sidd used the term veil, rawls, or original position.

There's a joke in there about ignorance (at least implied), but Sidd still owes me money, and in the interest of collecting it some day, I'll let that one float by. Agreed, though, that my point ended up diverging somewhat from Sidd's, although I'll let him pick up on it.

Furthermore, using this mechanism, or theory, still has to be done in a circumspect manner. I'll use a local example. DC has seen property values rise immensely in recent years. In particular, in the wealthy part of the city. As a result, property tax revenues have skyrocketed (not hard .96*3X > .96*X). Naturally, those whose property values have gone up the most have had their taxes go up the most. Well, DC council is considering a bill to reduce the property tax rate. Sounds good, right? Everybody has lower taxes! Not so fast--the majority of the benefits (i.e., gross reduction of taxes) accrues to the richie riches. Big surprise--if you pay more taxes, you get a bigger cut when the cut comes. Objection!

I think you're extending the Veil of Ignorance concept beyond its intended purpose (or at least my intended purpose).

So, we already have progressive taxation. Are you saying Rawls would justify any level of progressive taxation? I doubt it. Even Rawls could see that there are dynamic incentive effects that even people in the worst original position would want everyone to have, to ensure a better level for everyone.

No, I'm not saying that. I am saying, though, that Club maintained that one cannot forward a moral argument for progressive taxation, at least not one that's disingenuous.

I disagreed. Rawls provides a mechanism that can establish the morality of progressive taxation.

I agree that this framework is less illuminative when discussing the relative merits of individual adjustments in an existing progressive taxation system, but that's not what I was getting at.

Gattigap