The two pages I read from Jeff's link were hard to decipher and sexist. It was like it was written 200 years ago.
Yes, it was sexist, that's why the constitution was amended. But the section on property hasn't been amended. And like it or not, the constitution defines the terms of the debate.
In the fight between you and the world, back the world. --Kafka The Logic of Long Distance
No. You did.
Oh shit. I didn't vote for that.
"2000 Miles of straw men and red herrings"
The King of Beasts
And can we get the group names changed to: "2000 Miles of straw men and red herrings"
theres some change i would vote for.
We've Got Big Hills
Nope. But you still paid for it. Just like you paid to topple Sadaam.
I'm running somewhere tomorrow. It's going to be beautiful. I can't wait.
Poor baby
New title is close enough.
See prior post. So you think that from a pure cost transparency perspective the government is most efficient? Any business run like our government is run would be out of business.
The following post misreads what PH was saying. My bad.:
No! Where did I say this? The most efficient? Seriously?
As far as the implication I drew: you claimed it is a fact that the government always mismanages money. The only reasonable implication to draw from such a statement is it should never manage any money. If the government has no money, it is defunct. A defunct government is anarchist. It's a clear implication from the statement you made. I should have spelled it out more clearly.
It is indisputable that the role of the government is to uphold and defend the principles of the constitution. Insofar as wealth inequality violates property rights, the government has an obligation to intervene. How, where, and when are issues for dispute. But the problem is clear and the role of government in addressing that problem is well defined by the constitution. Don't like it? Amend the constitution or get along with it.
By the way, you didn't say that higher taxation was the only answer, but you did say it was an answer. And when you say that you are not talking about taking possession of things that I worked for, but talking about higher taxation (therby taking more of what I have earned) you seem to be contradicting yourself.
No, nowhere did I say that higher taxation was an answer. Both you and C-R thnk I made that claim, but you can't find it in what I wrote. I only made the claim that taxation is a tried and true method of intelligently regulating the limits of a market economy.
Today's definition of irony: A bunch of guys arguing about the definition of "work" while at work, not working.
It's not ironic. We are working on understanding ourselves, the world we live in, and our peers. That's valuable work.
It is indisputable that the role of the government is to uphold and defend the principles of the constitution. Insofar as wealth inequality violates property rights, the government has an obligation to intervene.
Where do you read this in the Constitution?
And Jeff - I said (in a previous post) by using taxation in your context to me that IMPLIES raising taxes based on other comments that we need to redistribute wealth which means taking more than is already taken. If you think we have enough taxation, why are you even making the argument so on its face your argument reprents increasing the current levels.
Pay to topple Sadaam = funding military (allowed by the Constitution) leading to one less murderous evil despot in the world
Owning GM = government making cars and coddling unions - see Yugo, Trabant, Zaporoshets (not referenced in the Constitution)
Owning AIG = mimicing Freddie Mac, Fannie mae, Sallie Mae (not referenced in the Constitution)
The only argument I was making is that the income gap is a threat to democracy, and that you don't have to be a commie to hold this to be true. I was not arguing about the means. The fact of taxation is just evidence that we've already agreed to some degree of wealth distribution.
I agree with you that higher taxes is most likely not the best or most direct path to greater income equality (Obama does too--he cut taxes in his first year). I'd rather see some shifts in federal policy first.
To my mind the property issues are addressed in the preamble: "promote the general welfare."
Pay to topple Sadaam = funding military (allowed by the Constitution) leading to one less murderous evil despot in the world Owning GM = government making cars and coddling unions - see Yugo, Trabant, Zaporoshets (not referenced in the Constitution) Owning AIG = mimicing Freddie Mac, Fannie mae, Sallie Mae (not referenced in the Constitution)
I just said you paid for it. I did not say whether it was accorded by the constitution. And the constitution does not call for arbitrary removal of murderous evil despots, at least that I recall.
Didn't the last administration buy banks?
The only argument I was making is that the income gap is a threat to democracy, and that you don't have to be a commie to hold this to be true. I was not arguing about the means. The fact of taxation is just evidence that we've already agreed to some degree of wealth distribution. I agree with you that higher taxes is most likely not the best or most direct path to greater income equality (Obama does too--he cut taxes in his first year). I'd rather see some shifts in federal policy first. To my mind the property issues are addressed in the preamble: "promote the general welfare."
Alright I can see that point but I would also hold that you can see how I would imply you advocated higher wealth distribution which can only come from increases.
By the way Obama's new budget eliminates the tax cuts he had last year.
I don't agree with the preamble argument. The general welfare argument has been made to fit almost everything under the sun and so has been stripped of its meaning to me. I can't recall the exact Federalist paper but I beleive there was some framing of general welfare in there that may counter your point. I would have to re-read those and its been a few years so I have some more light reading besides Locke on my list now. Property is directly covered in the 14th ammendment and requires due process. Which would prescribe a limitation of government's ability to redistribute. Which is IMO exactly what the ammendment had in mind. Government can't deprive someone of their property which was earned without commensurate payment. Wealth redistribution simply takes without providing anything in return.
I just said you paid for it. I did not say whether it was accorded by the constitution. And the constitution does not call for arbitrary removal of murderous evil despots, at least that I recall. Didn't the last administration buy banks?
Constitution does allow for waging of war as authorized by Congress which if I recall it did. Not arguing the right or wrong of it as that is a whole different subject simply saying one is allowed the others not.
I'm not sure, but same argument from me regardless of the doofus in office(s). Constitution does not allow for purchase or operation of such private enterprise. Didn't agree then and don't now. I'm a limited federal government kind of person. Local governments tend to know best what is needed and are more answerable to the people they represent. Centralized control is only good for a few things. Seems the Founders thought this as well but little by little those liberties are stripped or ammended away.
and your argument is that if the last one did it, its ok for the new one to do it too? So if everyone was jumping from a ledge, you would too?
© 2012 RunningAHEAD.com. All rights reserved. | Privacy