AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Nov 17, 2013 16:58:02 GMT -5
This will be a great 2014 ad- or an ad for as long as it takes to finally KILL ObamaCare:
Kristen Gillibrand (D) NY: "We all knew" that Obama was lying...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 17, 2013 20:52:26 GMT -5
This will be a great 2014 ad- or an ad for as long as it takes to finally KILL ObamaCare: Kristen Gillibrand (D) NY: "We all knew" that Obama was lying... she didn't say that. in fact she didn't specifically say Obama misled her or anyone else. she said she knew what was in the plan. which, of course, she did. we all did. it was not that opaque.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 9:09:50 GMT -5
You're underestimating how well John Boehner played his cool hand.
There's a few reasons I doubt there'll be a second shutdown.
(i) Most important, Obama is unlikely to recover his personal favorability. If everything he does is seen as a stunt, a self-serving exercise in CYA to mask his incompetence, his stance in a stand-off attracts more suspicion.
(ii) Related to that, the bad publicity around Obamacare reinforces an idea that's pretty resonant with a lot of Americans: we spend too much on government. I know, percentage of GDP, yada yada. Here's a thing: the ratio of GDP:PPR (private product remaining) stayed pretty constant from 1990 through 2008 - through the Clinton boom and the Bush Presidency, it stayed pretty constant (PPR was around 78% of GDP in 1990, 79% in 2000, still 79% in 2008). By 2012 it had shifted to 76%. To get it back to the 78% level would require annual spending cuts of $316 billion (technically a reduction of the tax take in the same proportion would also restore balance, except that this would then be covered by borrowing that would restore the imbalance). That's about 8.5% of 2012 spending. Alternatively we could hold government spending flat and wait for GDP to grow by $2 trillion on the back of expansion in the real economy.
(iii) The Tea Party caucus got a bloody nose publicly. Yes, they're all pretty safe back home. They've all made their point now. It's going to be easier to corral them next time...
(iv) ... Partly because Ted Cruz won't be front and center this time, inflaming freshmen with silly ideas. I'm sure he'll have stuff to say, but he won't be central. He met his political objectives already.
(v) And fundamentally Boehner is going to be in a stronger relative position, with respect to his caucus and with respect to Democrats, and particularly a chastened President. Obama has more to gain from making a deal than he does from another spate of brinkmanship - don't underestimate how his grandstanding has hurt his polling: remember, exit polls in Virginia gave him virtually equal blame with Republicans, making the shutdown essentially a neutral issue in the state that, everybody reminds me, is a bellwether for the nation.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 18, 2013 11:16:41 GMT -5
You're underestimating how well John Boehner played his cool hand. There's a few reasons I doubt there'll be a second shutdown. (i) Most important, Obama is unlikely to recover his personal favorability. If everything he does is seen as a stunt, a self-serving exercise in CYA to mask his incompetence, his stance in a stand-off attracts more suspicion. (ii) Related to that, the bad publicity around Obamacare reinforces an idea that's pretty resonant with a lot of Americans: we spend too much on government. I know, percentage of GDP, yada yada. Here's a thing: the ratio of GDP:PPR (private product remaining) stayed pretty constant from 1990 through 2008 - through the Clinton boom and the Bush Presidency, it stayed pretty constant (PPR was around 78% of GDP in 1990, 79% in 2000, still 79% in 2008). By 2012 it had shifted to 76%. To get it back to the 78% level would require annual spending cuts of $316 billion (technically a reduction of the tax take in the same proportion would also restore balance, except that this would then be covered by borrowing that would restore the imbalance). That's about 8.5% of 2012 spending. Alternatively we could hold government spending flat and wait for GDP to grow by $2 trillion on the back of expansion in the real economy. (iii) The Tea Party caucus got a bloody nose publicly. Yes, they're all pretty safe back home. They've all made their point now. It's going to be easier to corral them next time... (iv) ... Partly because Ted Cruz won't be front and center this time, inflaming freshmen with silly ideas. I'm sure he'll have stuff to say, but he won't be central. He met his political objectives already. (v) And fundamentally Boehner is going to be in a stronger relative position, with respect to his caucus and with respect to Democrats, and particularly a chastened President. Obama has more to gain from making a deal than he does from another spate of brinkmanship - don't underestimate how his grandstanding has hurt his polling: remember, exit polls in Virginia gave him virtually equal blame with Republicans, making the shutdown essentially a neutral issue in the state that, everybody reminds me, is a bellwether for the nation. i hope you are right. however, the shutdown was not a rational action, and the irrational players are still present in congress, and highly influential. IF the shutdown doesn't happen, THEN it will be an indication that the TP is no longer in control of the House. that would be a very welcome sign, as far as i am concerned. i might even stay a Republican if that happens. but i seriously doubt that cooler heads will prevail. the TP faction thinks the shutdown was the greatest thing ever, and can't wait for another one.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 11:46:59 GMT -5
That's a defensible etic perspective. I don't find etic perspectives inherently good evidence for what's happening within a culture, although they certainly inform an anthropological overview.
What is clear is that there are two coalescing poles of opinion on government, which are brought into focus by the size of our debt. Essentially, one pole thinks we have the debt because we haven't taxed enough - typically, this crowd will point to Reagan and Bush as the architects of our misfortune, and the tribalism of our politics lets them gloss over Obama's contributions. The other pole thinks we have the debt because we spend too much - typically, this crowd looks at Obama's trillion-dollar budget gaps as Evidence A, and overlooks the deficit spending of the Reagan era inter alia on the same tribal grounds alluded to above.
There's a lot of misinformation on both sides. I think if you look at the tax expenditures that reduce revenues as excess spending via the tax code, which is what they are, rather than under-taxation, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that we have a spending problem. If you look at government spending as confiscations of available and/or projected capital, depending on whether it is funded by taxation or borrowing, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the spending problem constitutes a growth problem. And if you understand that tax revenues are a function of economic growth, in that they are a fairly consistent fraction of the economy as a whole regardless of the tax environment, then it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the growth problem entails a revenue problem.
You can accept all of those frames and still advocate tax hikes as a solution, but to do that you have to believe that such a hike doesn't suppress domestic inveestment of privately-held capital and that it doesn't encourage short-termist pandering by elected officials - look at how Bush sought to spend down the surplus he inherited, and try to tell me with a straight face that was atypical behavior for a politician. Dollars buy votes. In the era of the perpetual campaign, the purpose of far too many votes is to provide fodder for the next election cycle, and the underlying premise there becomes if you have a problem, the government can spend money to solve it; if my opponent doesn't want to spend that money on you, he doesn't care about your problem.
It's speciously attractive logic: from any individual's viewpoint, the government has enough money to solve all his problems if it wants to. But there's a compositional fallacy there. The government does not have enough money even to fail to solve the problems it currently fails to solve: it has to borrow hundreds of billions of dollars annually to do that (the 16-day shutdown saved us $30 billion in borrowed funding, in theory); so the premise is flawed, even as more and more politicians at all levels rely on it for re-election, and even as more and more politicians begin to acknowledge the fundamental spending problem that hamstrings the economy.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 18, 2013 11:51:20 GMT -5
That's a defensible etic perspective. I don't find etic perspectives inherently good evidence for what's happening within a culture, although they certainly inform an anthropological overview. What is clear is that there are two coalescing poles of opinion on government, which are brought into focus by the size of our debt. Essentially, one pole thinks we have the debt because we haven't taxed enough - typically, this crowd will point to Reagan and Bush as the architects of our misfortune, and the tribalism of our politics lets them gloss over Obama's contributions. The other pole thinks we have the debt because we spend too much - typically, this crowd looks at Obama's trillion-dollar budget gaps as Evidence A, and overlooks the deficit spending of the Reagan era inter alia on the same tribal grounds alluded to above. There's a lot of misinformation on both sides. I think if you look at the tax expenditures that reduce revenues as excess spending via the tax code, which is what they are, rather than under-taxation, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that we have a spending problem. i have to go in a few minutes, but i don't think taxes which are historically low are "confiscatory". i would be a whole lot more sympathetic to this argument if taxes were above historical norms. i have already said that spending is too high, so we agree there. good day.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 18, 2013 11:55:47 GMT -5
You can accept all of those frames and still advocate tax hikes as a solution, but to do that you have to believe that such a hike doesn't suppress domestic inveestment of privately-held capital and that it doesn't encourage short-termist pandering by elected officials - look at how Bush sought to spend down the surplus he inherited, and try to tell me with a straight face that was atypical behavior for a politician. phoenix, this is an interesting line of reasoning, but it is not as concrete a cause and effect as you make it out to be. ie- you are assuming that taxation starves private investment, and that might be true. however, if the private investment is in the Cayman's, or China, i can't fathom why any US citizen should care whether it is confiscated or not. furthermore, if the "investment" is in debt instruments of the US, it is basically being used for domestic investment anyway- only NOT as taxes, but as debt. is this REALLY a preferable trajectory for us? in other words, you are painting a very high contrast picture, but for me, the image is very blurry. sorry, i am running late now. bye.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 12:19:39 GMT -5
Domestic investment. Government spending overseas doesn't help here either, and there's a lot of that. Tens of thousands of armed service personnel, drones, embassies, consulates, cyberwarfare, international aid, payoffs of other kinds.
Do those assumptions seem a more realistic operable view of private investment in the US?
Then research the meaning of the word "confiscatory."
Those historical norms representing, simply by virtue of being normative, the government's rightful due?
In 2010, the population of the US, total, was 308,745,538. Total revenues that year came to $4.7 trillion: $1.4 trillion in income taxes, $1.4 trillion in social security taxes, $1.1 trillion in ad valorem taxes, and $0.8 trillion in other revenues. That means revenues in 2010 were around $15,000 for every man, woman, and child. Federal poverty level for a single person in 2010 was $10,830.
Thirty years earlier, population was 226,545,805. Revenues for 1980 amounted to $885.8 billion: around $3910 per capita. Federal poverty level in 1980? $4320.
Revenues as a percentage of FPL in 2010 were approximately 138.5% of FPL.
In 1980 they were 90.5% of FPL.
You may think it's more accurate to assess the level of taxation against some global measure. I think it's more useful to look at how it affects the average American, and how it compares to the government's view of how much the average American needs to lift themselves from poverty.
If taxes were levied completely flat, and FPL adjusted to reflect that, in 1980 FPL would have had to be $8230, with 47.5% of that due to a notional flat tax.
The same adjustment for 2010 would see FPL at $25,830 - more than three times the figure from thirty years earlier - with 58% of that due to a notional flat tax.
And you think that burden should be increased?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 18, 2013 13:03:21 GMT -5
Domestic investment. Government spending overseas doesn't help here either, and there's a lot of that. it primarily helps with this, right? most federal spending is domestic. but that is not really the point. nobody has any control of where private capital is invested. however, we have absolute control over where public funds go, in the sense that we own our government and run it.Tens of thousands of armed service personnel, drones, embassies, consulates, cyberwarfare, international aid, payoffs of other kinds. Do those assumptions seem a more realistic operable view of private investment in the US? realistic in what sense? i believe that a large minority, if not an outright majority of corporate profit generated in the US goes outside the US (due to the multinational nature of large corporations). if you are asking "is this absolute", the reply is "of course not".Then research the meaning of the word "confiscatory." i would appeal to the use of this term when discussing tax policy. but if you prefer to use the trivial sense of this term, i would wholeheartedly agree.Those historical norms representing, simply by virtue of being normative, the government's rightful due? i don't think that your way of viewing taxation makes much sense. i don't personally give a crap what FPL is. the ONLY thing that matters to me is that we pay our bills. that means that revenue and spending should be equal (in times of economic growth). the historical mean for taxation in the post WW2 era is about 18% of GDP. And you think that burden should be increased? answer this question: do revenues exceed spending? until the answer to that question is YES, then the answer to your question is YES. this is the government of, by and for the people. i agree with Obama that it is immoral to shift the burden for today's expenses to future generations. far more immoral than any "confiscation" that occurs today.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 13:11:01 GMT -5
Why then is it acceptable to make the citizens of today spend and pay for the needs of the citizens of tomorrow?
Or do you believe government spending is responsive to the needs of its current citizens?
I can't believe you can believe this. If you can believe it, your degree of insularity is breathtaking. Which of us determined that the President can unilaterally refuse to enforce parts of the law he finds inconvenient or morally repugnant?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 18, 2013 13:32:18 GMT -5
Why then is it acceptable to make the citizens of today spend and pay for the needs of the citizens of tomorrow? when the elected body says so.Or do you believe government spending is responsive to the needs of its current citizens? i can't answer this in a "small way". this would require a discussion of who government serves. i would argue that it does NOT serve the vast majority of the electorate, or that it only does so in a way to prevent widescale revolt and dissolution.I can't believe you can believe this. i can't believe you don't. who do you think owns our government?If you can believe it, your degree of insularity is breathtaking. Which of us determined that the President can unilaterally refuse to enforce parts of the law he finds inconvenient or morally repugnant? congress. if it did not believe that, it would impeach him. no impeachment = tacit submission to those powers. but let's not be coy here, friend. the imperial presidency has existed for generations. do you want me to point to justice department memos that explicitly state it, or can you accept it "prima face". NOTE: i don't like it, ok? please know that.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 14:46:01 GMT -5
That is a repugnant ad verecundiam. And a dodge. Why isn't it immoral to shift the burden of future expenses to today's taxpayers, if it is immoral to shift the burden of today's expenses to future taxpayers? It seems to me that if the immorality is in the directionality of Time rather than the mandate that one person pays for another, then that's a very peculiar idea of immorality; and, if the immorality is in one person paying for another, why is this acceptable if the people involved happen to coexist at the same point in time, but not if they live at different times under a common jurisdiction?
In the specific case of healthcare reform, it is explicitly argued by proponents of the law that there is a moral obligation for the taxpayer of today to fund, not only the purchases of other citizens now, but also the care citizens receive in future.
And in no case is "we're in charge, we say it's okay," ever remotely acceptable. It is entirely incompatible, as a relatively minor objection to this view, with any sense of legitimate governmental authority being derived from the just consent of the governed. "Just consent" must surely be informed consent, and must imply the power to refuse consent to some exercise of government authority. I don't in practice see where such power is actually vested in any individual citizen, particularly when the government can without probably cause or due process monitor his private conversations and extrajudicially detain or even execute him based on the unilateral determination that he is a terrorist, but certainly anybody who claims it is so vested cannot rely on an unquestioning acceptance of authority from elected representatives.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 14:54:49 GMT -5
The emphasis on short-termism requires only that the representative earn the votes of a narrow majority of actual voters on election day. Turnout being what it is, that need not approach an actual majority of the electorate. Critical thinking being what it is, that need not require the representative to serve the interests of even his core constituency: certainly, Democrats haven't felt obligated to better the condition of African Americans, contenting themselves with enabling generational poverty in blighted neighborhoods where gang violence serves a eugenic function.
I'm quite prepared to endorse such a cynical view of government, but I find it incompatible with the notion that government is therefore answerable to any notional higher power. Neither does the suggestion that we own our government collectively jibe with the assertion that ultra-wealthy individuals own our representatives, which has been advanced elsewhere in the allegation that the system of government is corrupted to favor the wealthy.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 18, 2013 15:05:12 GMT -5
That is a repugnant ad verecundiam. And a dodge. i hate to repeat this, but i never attempt to dodge anything, phoenix. Why isn't it immoral to shift the burden of future expenses to today's taxpayers, if it is immoral to shift the burden of today's expenses to future taxpayers? this phrasing is different. before (quoted above) you said "spending today to pay for needs tomorrow". NOW you are saying "shifting the burden to future taxpayers". you are right, that is no different- but it is absolutely NOT what i was replying to earlier.
you do this sort of thing often, btw. so, again, we share annoyance in our exchanges.
It seems to me that if the immorality is in the directionality of Time rather than the mandate that one person pays for another, then that's a very peculiar idea of immorality; and, if the immorality is in one person paying for another, why is this acceptable if the people involved happen to coexist at the same point in time, but not if they live at different times under a common jurisdiction? In the specific case of healthcare reform, it is explicitly argued by proponents of the law that there is a moral obligation for the taxpayer of today to fund, not only the purchases of other citizens now, but also the care citizens receive in future. And in no case is "we're in charge, we say it's okay," ever remotely acceptable. It is entirely incompatible, as a relatively minor objection to this view, with any sense of legitimate governmental authority being derived from the just consent of the governed. "Just consent" must surely be informed consent, and must imply the power to refuse consent to some exercise of government authority. I don't in practice see where such power is actually vested in any individual citizen, particularly when the government can without probably cause or due process monitor his private conversations and extrajudicially detain or even execute him based on the unilateral determination that he is a terrorist, but certainly anybody who claims it is so vested cannot rely on an unquestioning acceptance of authority from elected representatives. i think your whole latter argument was built on the premise that i supported burdening future generations with debt. i don't. if you are asking me "how is burdening them with expenses any different", i would reply thusly: "we, the living, are responsible for handing the unborn a better nation than the one we left. if we fail to do so, then it is a moral crime against future generations. if, however, the benefit of these programs far outweighs the cost of them, i think they will forgive us. no such justification can be made for PRESENT debt, however.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 18, 2013 15:08:05 GMT -5
And in no case is "we're in charge, we say it's okay," ever remotely acceptable. agreed. i am glad that neither of us ever said it was. It is entirely incompatible, as a relatively minor objection to this view, with any sense of legitimate governmental authority being derived from the just consent of the governed. "Just consent" must surely be informed consent, and must imply the power to refuse consent to some exercise of government authority. I don't in practice see where such power is actually vested in any individual citizen, particularly when the government can without probably cause or due process monitor his private conversations and extrajudicially detain or even execute him based on the unilateral determination that he is a terrorist, but certainly anybody who claims it is so vested cannot rely on an unquestioning acceptance of authority from elected representatives. if you are trying to get me to argue that the subversion of Habeas Corpus is a legitimate power of the president, you will be waiting a while.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 15:09:01 GMT -5
The better question is: what do I think constitutes ownership?
I consider ownership to amount to freedom to dispose of property according to willed desire. I own property if I can use it as I see fit; if I can exclude others from its use; if I can place a price on it, and trade it at market; and if I can relinquish my claim to it. To the extent that I am denied the property rights so defined - usage, exclusivity, marketability, disclaimability - I am denied ownership.
"Collective ownership," then, is in my lexicon something of a contradiction in terms. I can accept, argumenti gratia, that a collective of three persons might, under terms of contract established by themselves or even by external parties, establish analogs to these property rights: usage being determined by majority vote, for example, or exclusivity being maintained by the requirement of unanimous agreement on the extension of usage rights outside the triumvirate. But this is a more artificial and restrictive kind of 'ownership,' and it derives not from the force of the individual will but from the authority of the document.
Neither, even accepting this as an acceptable synonym for 'ownership,' can we say that the people 'own' their government. The representatives own the government: they can determine its uses, proscribe access to its benefits, monetize its services, and relinquish their positions in government. The people do not - indeed, their rights of usage, exclusivity, marketability, and disclaimability are post facto infringed by governmental interference (this does not mean the government owns the people, merely that it acts as an obstacle to their ownership of anything else). Neither do the people own their representatives: the framework of government allows for recall efforts, impeachments, and so on, but these do not constitute ownership; they constitute inadequate redress for bad government acts after the fact. The people should 'own' their representatives collectively under a contracted understanding, but in our present system this understanding is written by the representatives, a system as unsatisfactory as one dependent on slave labor in which the slaves determine the labors to be performed.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 18, 2013 15:13:02 GMT -5
The emphasis on short-termism requires only that the representative earn the votes of a narrow majority of actual voters on election day. Turnout being what it is, that need not approach an actual majority of the electorate. Critical thinking being what it is, that need not require the representative to serve the interests of even his core constituency: certainly, Democrats haven't felt obligated to better the condition of African Americans, contenting themselves with enabling generational poverty in blighted neighborhoods where gang violence serves a eugenic function. I'm quite prepared to endorse such a cynical view of government, but I find it incompatible with the notion that government is therefore answerable to any notional higher power. what higher power? the courts? God? the electorate?Neither does the suggestion that we own our government collectively jibe with the assertion that ultra-wealthy individuals own our representatives, sure it does. but it boils down to a necessary/sufficient argument. just because something or someone does something does NOT imply that they SHOULD do it, nor that it is designed for that purpose. i may break an egg with a mallet, but it was designed to tenderize meat.which has been advanced elsewhere in the allegation that the system of government is corrupted to favor the wealthy. you are inverting cause and effect. government has always favored the wealthy. AL-WAYS. in the early days of the republic, it was by design. now, it is by corruption. that is what i would call "evolution".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 18, 2013 15:18:17 GMT -5
The better question is: what do I think constitutes ownership? I consider ownership to amount to freedom to dispose of property according to willed desire. I own property if I can use it as I see fit; if I can exclude others from its use; if I can place a price on it, and trade it at market; and if I can relinquish my claim to it. To the extent that I am denied the property rights so defined - usage, exclusivity, marketability, disclaimability - I am denied ownership. "Collective ownership," then, is in my lexicon something of a contradiction in terms. I can accept, argumenti gratia, that a collective of three persons might, under terms of contract established by themselves or even by external parties, establish analogs to these property rights: usage being determined by majority vote, for example, or exclusivity being maintained by the requirement of unanimous agreement on the extension of usage rights outside the triumvirate. But this is a more artificial and restrictive kind of 'ownership,' and it derives not from the force of the individual will but from the authority of the document. you and Adam Smith have strong differences on this subject, then. how he viewed it is that the land is our common heritage, along with air and water- a sort of Maslow's Ladder of property. the things that were divinely created no one man should own. i think the immediate experience of Feudalism which was overthrown by the Enlightenment had a lot to do with that position, and i STRONGLY feel that the disdain for that position threatens us with the specter of a sort of new Feudalism which awaits us.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 15:19:37 GMT -5
This is the problem of collectivist frames. It is nonsensical to speak of Congress as a unit, when it is clearly a dysfunctional association of individuals.
Also, saying that 'Congress' is 'us' in the context of government is a fallacy. I agree that all our representatives are drawn from the pool of citizens. I agree that they remain citizens while being representatives. But I think the powers and privileges of representatives are such that suggesting we are tacitly endorsing whatever our representatives do, because or political power is diluted in proportion with the number of citizens he represents, is dangerously inaccurate.
I'm less perpared than you are to accept that as a given, let alone as a justification. I'm also less prepared than you are to square it with Lockian assertions about who owns what. The flexibility of your viewpoint, embracing extreme cynicism and extreme idealism about the nature and aims of government as a whole and its empowered representatives as individuals, bespeaks expedience.
Put simply, it seems to me that you adopt whichever frame is most forgiving to the abuses and missteps of the administration. Healthcare reform screwed up? The President couldn't have known, and even if he did, doesn't government know best? And even if it doesn't, isn't it our government? And even if it's not, isn't it better than anarchy? And even if anarchy would be an improvement, shouldn't we still try to provide some sort of social safety net? And even if we shouldn't, doesn't the President have the authority to do it anyway? And even if he doesn't, does it matter if nobody stops him? And even if they do, won't his replacement do just the same? And if anybody would do the same, it's not his fault that his policies are so disastrous... und so weiter.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 18, 2013 15:22:18 GMT -5
Neither, even accepting this as an acceptable synonym for 'ownership,' can we say that the people 'own' their government. The representatives own the government: they can determine its uses, proscribe access to its benefits, monetize its services, and relinquish their positions in government. i see. so, if i own 100% of a corporation, and hire a manager to take care of it, he becomes the owner because of that? i think you are conflating ownership and management, phoenix.The people do not - indeed, their rights of usage, exclusivity, marketability, and disclaimability are post facto infringed by governmental interference i would call that an oxymoron. government can't "infringe on/interfere" with rights without the consent of the governed. that is basic rule of law stuff. any government that DOES is prima face illegitimate.(this does not mean the government owns the people, merely that it acts as an obstacle to their ownership of anything else). Neither do the people own their representatives: no. they EMPLOY them, roughly speaking. the framework of government allows for recall efforts, impeachments, and so on, but these do not constitute ownership; they constitute inadequate redress for bad government acts after the fact. The people should 'own' their representatives collectively under a contracted understanding, but in our present system this understanding is written by the representatives, a system as unsatisfactory as one dependent on slave labor in which the slaves determine the labors to be performed. yeah, i think you are viewing this through an economic lens which is not terribly helpful, but you would probably accuse me of doing the same.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 15:24:15 GMT -5
On what basis do I owe my great-grandchild my contribution to the commons now?
On what basis does he owe his great-grandchild, but not his great-grandfather?
I'm not big on ad populum reasoning. I'm sufficiently satisfied as to the general ability of hoi polloi to reason critically that I take the widespread acceptance of an idea as, if anything, a disincentive to agreement.
Fundamentally: if we cannot sustain the needs of the current population - and we can't in the existing system - how can it possibly be moral to freight upon their needs the needs of a larger future population?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,496
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 18, 2013 15:31:35 GMT -5
This is the problem of collectivist frames. It is nonsensical to speak of Congress as a unit, when it is clearly a dysfunctional association of individuals. that is clearly the case now, but i would argue (not here, please- too big a subject again) that it is not GENERALLY true.Also, saying that 'Congress' is 'us' in the context of government is a fallacy. I agree that all our representatives are drawn from the pool of citizens. I agree that they remain citizens while being representatives. But I think the powers and privileges of representatives are such that suggesting we are tacitly endorsing whatever our representatives do, because or political power is diluted in proportion with the number of citizens he represents, is dangerously inaccurate. red herring. i never said they were "us". i said they represented us. they are part of the political class, which is not "representative" in the sense that term is generally understood. but, to adopt the position of a typical representative, that is a "good thing", given the fact that from THEIR point of view, the "thundering herd" is unfit to govern.I'm less perpared than you are to accept that as a given, let alone as a justification. i am not justifying anything, phoenix. i am stating the facts as i see them. injustice is a FACT as much as any other.I'm also less prepared than you are to square it with Lockian assertions about who owns what. The flexibility of your viewpoint, embracing extreme cynicism and extreme idealism about the nature and aims of government as a whole and its empowered representatives as individuals, bespeaks expedience. the nature and the aim of government is generally to protect elite interests. does that seem hopelessly naiive to you?Put simply, it seems to me that you adopt whichever frame is most forgiving to the abuses and missteps of the administration. ok, you have to be kidding, now. i say that because i have been unrelentingly critical of the foreign policy (for example) of presidents dating back to WW2, having stated repeatedly that if the standards of Nuremburg were upheld, they would all hang. Obama is no exception. far from it. he is arguably worse than Bush.Healthcare reform screwed up? The President couldn't have known, and even if he did, doesn't government know best? i have never claimed that, nor do i believe it.And even if it doesn't, isn't it our government? And even if it's not, isn't it better than anarchy? you are the one arguing against anarchy, not me.And even if anarchy would be an improvement, shouldn't we still try to provide some sort of social safety net? And even if we shouldn't, doesn't the President have the authority to do it anyway? And even if he doesn't, does it matter if nobody stops him? again you have assumed that because i acknowledge a political fact, that i support that political fact- even when i explicitly state that i don't. i will do so again: i don't.
i think that any breach of powers should be checked by the body it usurps.
And even if they do, won't his replacement do just the same? And if anybody would do the same, it's not his fault that his policies are so disastrous... und so weiter. i don't argue for perpetuation. i argue for change. the more revolutionary, the better, imo. i don't know where you get half the stuff you type. other posters, i guess. certainly not me.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 15:41:43 GMT -5
I am guessing that you have no idea how offensive that is, on a couple of different levels. I usually have a good idea how offensive I'm being, and there's usually a reason for it. Presumably you would concede the existence of a trope that "Republicans are bad for the interests of the African American community," and the existence of a reciprocal trope that "Democrats are good for the interests of the African American community." Black identity in America is very much tied up with Democratic party affiliation; not on the level of the individual - but black identity is necessarily collectivist, this notion of a shared history and a shared heritage and a shared struggle against the persistent wrongs done a people. I'm familiar with the prophetic tradition in black theology, for example. This paired trope is actively promulgated both by leaders in the black community and Democratic Party mouthpieces (frequently in the same person; there's a reason Tim Scott didn't join the Congressional Black Caucus, and it's related to the reason Allen West regretted joining it himself). Appalling and baseless allegations are made in the service of reinforcing the association. I find offensive the assertion that you aren't a "real black" if you vote Republican. It is of a piece with the destructive language of "acting white" in the classroom (if you don't know what that phrase means in context, the research is illuminating). The Democratic Party has claimed to defend the African American community from the implicit or explicit boogeymen of the GOP - the Man holding them back, preventing them from becoming a President like Barack Obama, or a Supreme Court Justice like Clarence Thomas (described last year by a Democratic State Representative as an "Uncle Tom" for disobligingly finding fault with the VRA). Yet so much effort have they collectively expended on thwarting this tide of white-hooded lynchers that they have somehow neglected to provide environments in which young blacks aren't vastly more likely than their white counterparts to drop out, to be incarcerated, to commit suicide, to be illiterate, to contract AIDS, to be shot... You're damn right it's offensive. It's offensive that a small cadre of people who benefit politically first shackle a whole segment of the population with an identity characterized by helplessness and subhumanity: that they essentially animalize the black American. I'm sorry if my pointing that out offends you; but it being the case offends me.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 15:46:00 GMT -5
Did Adam Smith, and by extension you, have a problem feeding himself?
Did he subsist entirely on synthetic substances?
He didn't? Then it's garbage to assert that "things that were divinely created no one man should own."
The essence of ownership is defending a claim to something over which the rights of usage, exclusivity, and so on can be asserted. The defense of that claim, in Nature, is through show of force. The codification of this in society doesn't change the nature of ownership; it changes the nature of violence.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 15:47:30 GMT -5
If Congress were 535 voices in harmony, it would still be 535 voices and not one. The whole point, indeed, is that the voices must always be able to dissent.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 15:50:36 GMT -5
But things are the way they are because Congress says so - except that they are the way they are because the President says so, even if the President is lying, as long as Congress cannot complete the intentionally lengthy and elaborate process of impeaching him. And we own the Congress, so whatever it allows the President to do by tacit consent, we also allow by the same tacit consent.
What solution do you propose?
How do you square it with your support for e.g. universal healthcare as part of a social contract?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 16:02:19 GMT -5
I agree that we can - I think we just need to raise the ceiling for contributions to shave a little more off the incomes of the top 5% of earners, iirc the ceiling at $180,000 solves the problem for the near future and is, you would think, an easy political fix. But we don't do that.
We don't do it, because we don't have to. We don't have to take any hard choice now, because we can borrow and punt the can down the road. We can raise the debt ceiling on the ground that past Congresses have authorized the spending, and that enables us to commit future Congresses to raise the debt ceiling again to cover current spending. This in fact was the moral rationale claimed by the President in the latest debt-ceiling standoff, but the force of it runs exactly counter to the moral justification for programs like Social Security. I think actually the nature of Social Security has morphed somewhat along the way, but I'm not necessarily opposed to the provision of a state-sponsored retirement plan as part of the social contract. I'm just concerned that the apparent virtue of having a program like Social Security is allowed to obscure the actual practice of unsustainably cost-shifting to future generations through reckless overspending in the present, and then secondarily concerned that this practice is used as justification to demand greater confiscation of wealth from the present citizenry, despite the demonstrable fact that politicians will have the same incentive to spend money they don't have to avoid hard choices, no matter how much money they do have.
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 16:08:10 GMT -5
But the way to do it is not to create a financial pressure on the existing system by encouraging adverse selection. It would be, if we didn't have the easy out of borrowing from the future.
The "risk corridor" provision in PPACA is an explicit mechanism to funnel the confiscated private capital of our grandchildren into the corporate hands of the big insurance companies. We are effectively going to allow the taxpayers of tomorrow to subsidize the injudicious healthcare choices of the subsdizied citizens of today. This will amount to a backdoor nationalization of healthcare, a Fascist nightmare of perverse incentives where the ruinous cost will be obscured by the fact that nobody alive will be presented with the final bill.
This isn't to say that we can't reform healthcare to make it workable and universal. It's to say we went the wrong way about it, on several levels. I think our elected representatives probably are too short-sighted to do it the right way, so I'm more ambivalent than you about the possibilities for reform.
As long as we have a President who believes you reform a law by ignoring the bits of it that are inconvenient, and how those impact the bits that are politically expedient, it won't happen.
|
|
workpublic
Junior Associate
Catch and release please
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 14:01:48 GMT -5
Posts: 5,551
Favorite Drink: Heineken
|
Post by workpublic on Nov 18, 2013 16:13:41 GMT -5
i would call that an oxymoron. government can't "infringe on/interfere" with rights without the consent of the governed. unfunded mandates? undeclared wars? i'm just guessin
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Nov 18, 2013 16:15:30 GMT -5
But that is precisely what you said, dj. I asked which OF US, we being the ones who own the government, which OF US authorized the actions ultra vires of our elected representatives. You replied "Congress."
You seem to see this as an us-and-them frame some of the time - as when you state your belief that government rules in the interests of elite special interests, which cryptofascist description I endorse - but then appear to suspend this whimsically when the implications of the frame lead you to conclusions you dislike.
|
|