Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Trying to prevent another such a disaster, we now learn that the entire Wendy's event was staged, and the real answer to "Where's the Beef?" is "on the bus

Was the "Shove It!" incident staged, too, or no?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Could you make your above-average salary without a government?

Talk about the statement that "proves too much." I'd take Club, or any lawyer for that matter, as likely doing better than average in a state of anarchy. But really that's not the baseline we're dealing with, is it?

Under your logic, any salary/earnings/income/benefits that are above average by "rights'" belong to the government. This is more fun with econ that Atticus's attempted slicing of my nutsack on friday.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So are you against all taxes? Or just anything that goes past a flat tax?

No. The federal government plays an important roll and must be approrpriately funded in order to do so. I'm most concerned with (a) income taxes and (b) the amount of all taxes as a percentage of income. There have been many studies done on (b) which place this percentage at above 50% when all taxes are factored in. To me, there is something seriously wrong with a system where a person needs to work more than 6 months out of each year for free.

Are you against other instances in which the majority enacts rules that affect the minority? Against regulation of businesses? Criminal penalties?

I am against a majority taking a minority's property without any rational justification. We can discuss specifics, but I'm not against regulation per se nor against criminal penalties.

As for the "more benefit" argument, the greater income alone is reflective of that benefit. Could you make your above-average salary without a government?

You seem to suggest that the government provides the conditions necessary for me to make money. At the 50,000 foot level, you are probably correct, in that we need a stable society and methods of enforcement to allow the economy to function properly. But at a lower level, I disagree with that premise. In most of the deals I'm involved in, the law plays a very minor roll and the parties agree to opt-out of the system, and choose private arbitration instead. So, yes, I could make the salary I'm making without a government. There would still need to be an enforcement mechanism, but the private courts are perfectly able to provide this, so long as they are backed by the threat of the gun.

Was that a WSJ article, or an editorial? The latter is pretty suspect, especially if it asserts "a couple of trillion" in new spending.

An article. I believe it was from Friday's edition.

eft

[Effete Liberal Snob]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
"You know what they call a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in France?"
-- Jules

My good friend Jacques Chirac informs me that the answer is a "Royale with Cheese."

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I am against a majority taking a minority's property without any rational justification.

I think the majority would say that the rational justification is the redistribution of wealth via taxes.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"Where's the Beef?"

"Where's the WMD?"

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
"Where's the WMD?"

In Syria.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Talk about the statement that "proves too much." I'd take Club, or any lawyer for that matter, as likely doing better than average in a state of anarchy. But really that's not the baseline we're dealing with, is it?

Under your logic, any salary/earnings/income/benefits that are above average by "rights'" belong to the government. This is more fun with econ that Atticus's attempted slicing of my nutsack on friday.

No, under my logic a government elected by the people can impose income taxes, including income taxes with rates that increase progressively.

I know, that's a shockingly radical position, but still.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
No, under my logic a government elected by the people can impose income taxes, including income taxes with rates that increase progressively.

I don't think anyone was disagreeing with you that the government can do it.

The main issue for me is not whether the government can do it or not, but whether the government doing it is a good idea.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You seem to suggest that the government provides the conditions necessary for me to make money. At the 50,000 foot level, you are probably correct, in that we need a stable society and methods of enforcement to allow the economy to function properly. But at a lower level, I disagree with that premise. In most of the deals I'm involved in, the law plays a very minor roll and the parties agree to opt-out of the system, and choose private arbitration instead. So, yes, I could make the salary I'm making without a government. There would still need to be an enforcement mechanism, but the private courts are perfectly able to provide this, so long as they are backed by the threat of the gun.

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.

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.

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.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Not Me
In Syria.

"What? No WMDs here, either? Okay, I meant Saudi Arabia. No? How about Yemen. Oops. Iran?"

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
"Where's the WMD?"

Accord. the whole world can now agree that the correct answer is "not there now." Thank you, President Bush, and to a lesser extent, Sens. Kerry and Edwards for supporting the invasions, at least at first.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Talk about the statement that "proves too much." I'd take Club, or any lawyer for that matter, as likely doing better than average in a state of anarchy. But really that's not the baseline we're dealing with, is it?

Under your logic, any salary/earnings/income/benefits that are above average by "rights'" belong to the government. This is more fun with econ that Atticus's attempted slicing of my nutsack on friday.

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

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch [Rant against the rich]

What if Club were a farmer?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
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.

people have jobs there, just not lawyer jobs. I'm 6' 11." I would have a job in a lawless society. See Goliath.