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.
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.
Yes, I can see how you misunderstood me. My bad.
Government can't take any property which was earned, absolutely. The question is one of interpretation of "property." I think it can be cleared up by going to Locke. You're right that the phrase is written negatively and does read as a restriction on what States cannot do. But every limit implies an action. The Government can take wealth which was accumulated without being earned, because it is not property: i.e. it is disconnected from its labor value.
But here, I agree, we are in controversial territory. I would not support Chavez-like actions which just take money and redistribute it. But I think that the government's duty to promote the general welfare means making policy that addresses the income gap--hopefully by encouraging small, local business and the conditions under which small business thrives. I think that everyone can see that the conditions now are not conducive to small business (spaniel spoke earlier to this point.)
To me, the income gap indicates that the labor-capital relationship is messed up. I can see how a more conservative non-dipshit thinker could make the argument that the gap represents a real gap in effort and abilities. But this would require a radically inegalitarian view of human nature. Maybe that's the way things are. But classical liberal theory in the line of Locke and Hobbes assumes that we are all more or less equal with regard to our capabilities.
In the fight between you and the world, back the world. --Kafka The Logic of Long Distance
Yes, I can see how you misunderstood me. My bad. Government can't take any property which was earned, absolutely. The question is one of interpretation of "property." I think it can be cleared up by going to Locke. You're right that the phrase is written negatively and does read as a restriction on what States cannot do. But every limit implies an action. The Government can take wealth which was accumulated without being earned, because it is not property: i.e. it is disconnected from its labor value. But here, I agree, we are in controversial territory. I would not support Chavez-like actions which just take money and redistribute it. But I think that the government's duty to promote the general welfare means making policy that addresses the income gap--hopefully by encouraging small, local business and the conditions under which small business thrives. I think that everyone can see that the conditions now are not conducive to small business (spaniel spoke earlier to this point.) To me, the income gap indicates that the labor-capital relationship is messed up. I can see how a more conservative non-dipshit thinker could make the argument that the gap represents a real gap in effort and abilities. But this would require a radically inegalitarian view of human nature. Maybe that's the way things are. But classical liberal theory in the line of Locke and Hobbes assumes that we are all more or less equal with regard to our capabilities.
See we can agree that government can have a direct impact through policy only I advocate less of it. The more the government stays out of business, the more opportunities there are for entrepreneurial types to create something new and useful. This doesn't mean a free for all but an application of justice and not fairness based on our framing documents. Fairness is arbitrary word and defined/based on those in power and their leanings (see Keeloh decision on eminent domain - a total farce IMO regarding property rights). Also life ain't fair and never will be.
I don't see "equal with regard to capabilities". That implies I can be as fast as Geb, kick Tiger's ass on the course and so on if I could just get the correct government help. Reminds me of the Silly Walk skit from Flying Circus. Equal opportunity where I can find and flourish where I am gifted is how I see it and yes it is inegalitarian. But I long ago came to terms that there are always smarter, faster and prettier people than me in most things so I better find something where those people can't compete with me and work the hell out of it. Call it my own little niche. This is what government should provide me an opportunity to pursue. Not succedd mind you, but simply pursue.
Seems like Jeff and I outlasted all of you. Hah.
Friggin pansies.
Fairness is arbitrary word and defined/based on those in power and their leanings (see Keeloh decision on eminent domain - a total farce IMO regarding property rights).
Interesting article on what happened after the decision...
Amy
Dave
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.
I agree that wealth inequality is an issue in America today. I am not so clear on how it violates property rights or how that obligates the government to intervene.
Much of that wealth inequality is caused by the current structure of business ownership. CEO's and boards of directors have almost no disincentive to the ridiculous salary levels that they get paid. Most stockholders don't vote their shares. Most shares are owned by mutual funds and pension funds that tend to be non-activist. But the idea that government should tax that kind of compensation to provide the counterbalance seems like a poor solution.
Government has to support equality of opportunity but it is difficult to imagine the circumstances under which it can guarantee an equality of results.
In general, it appears to be a "good thing" to eliminate that wealth disparity but the second order effects of the mechanisms to accomplish it should not be understated. I'm not arguing that the U.S. has the right balance (many European countries have significantly higher tax rates and broader programs to prevent the kind of wealth disparity that exists in the U.S.) but I'm not sure a European model would work well here.
More or less equal. It's a judgment call. I judge that the conditions of "equal-enough" opportunity are not there yet in many places, and that we are taking steps backwards, in some ways. There's only one way to explain the disappearance of the middle class and the rising income gap from the point of view of competition: that people are being born less and less equal. I don't buy it.
FWIW, Obama is very serious about finding both governmental and non-governmental solutions to these problems. Liberals today know that welfare, for example, had a lot of really bad effects. That's why he talks often of community action, empowering small business, etc. Here, his work as a community organizer which is often disparaged, I think, is valuable because he knows that change has to come through effort and work from the ground up, and that decisions made with the best intentions in Washington can have the opposite effects. Part of the reason I voted for him was because he had a pragmatic vision of government and he as able to articulate the role that govt plays as one of empowering people, not one of "helping them," if you know what I mean. Yes we can.
Now, so I'll quit acting like a shill--can Obama work to make this stuff happen from the executive chair? I'm less sure now than I was a year ago. Maybe I was duped by Obama into believing that the Presidency is a place where this sort of change can be made. Maybe the legacy of Obama will be an anti-government legacy: that even though we have a supremely intelligent, caring, and gifted leader in Washington, government will remain unable to empower people, unable to address social issues. What to do then? Who to vote for? How to articulate the problem of democracy?
Seems like Jeff and I outlasted all of you. Hah. Friggin pansies.
He conquers who endures.
Oh and it was Kelo. I got the spelling wrong in the initial post.
Yup. Just shows the goofiness of it all and deals made with corporations aren't always the best for everyone in the neighborhood.
The other outcome was that Souter's home was threatened by the same decision he helped write. Ironically comic.
Great line. I need to keep that one of future reference.
mileage hound
Actually, there's not one but many:
1) Increasing polarization between those empowered to succeed and those who are not
2) Automation reducing the middle-class job opportunities
3) Globalization
I throw #1 out there because it is possible but not probable. I think a combination of the last two are closer to the truth. Our industries have become MUCH more automated over the last 30 years and many of the jobs eliminated. My uncle used to work in an auto factory; when he left, it took 15 people and 2 weeks (I'm estimating but it's in the ballpark from memory) to change over a press. He was laid off and came back 5 years later to find that it took 4-5 people two hours due to upgrading the technology to keep up with the Japanese.
Globalization has enabled the cheap goods we have become accustomed to, Made in China. Lower-skilled labor has been outsourced around the globe. Those jobs used to be in the US. It's a double-edged sword; we all get to have more for less money but it costs those middle-class jobs.
If you think people are more or less equally motivated to succeed and make use of opportunities, you've got a lot more faith in humanity than me and I have to wonder where you grew up. It certainly was not the case at any point in my career development.
2012 goals: Fastest race times since 2006.
I have to wonder where you grew up.
I fucking hate comments like this. Otherwise, sure, good analysis.
Where I grew up? What the FUCK does that mean? Are my points of view insane? No! They are shared by about half of the goddamn country. They are not a product of some fucked up circumstances. You don't know SHIT about me.
New chapter forthcoming
I fucking hate comments like this. Otherwise, sure, good analysis. Where I grew up? What the FUCK does that mean? Are my points of view insane? No! They are shared by about half of the goddamn country. They are not a product of some fucked up circumstances. You don't know SHIT about me.
Looks like I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue....errr reading stuff in the swamp.
Time for the relaunch. Stay tuned....
It means your view is very different from what I experienced, so I was curious whether your surroundings growing up were starkly different than mine. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't know where you grew up, but clearly you have a very different view on things so it makes my curious.
For someone who considers themselves such an expert (and has to remind us of it again and again), you sure degenerate into cussing and name-calling quickly. Not exactly my expectation of a composed "thinker".
I do know "SHIT" about you. I know you are not very good at handling people who disagree with your viewpoints because in your own mind you are the supreme expert so it defies logic and is insulting that anyone should disagree or challenge your position. I do know you have an awfully high opinion of yourself for some junior faculty schmuck and your ego shows in the way you treat other people just trying to have a civil debate with you. I know you are immature, insecure or both from same behavior.
If you're going to walk around with a chip on your shoulder looking for an excuse to shrug it off, it should not be surprising when it hits the floor. Sheesh.
Like you said, half of the country agrees with you. The other half doesn't. So you can put your blood pressure through the roof being pissed off at half of us, or you can get over yourself and learn to handle a diversity of opinions better and treat those with opposing view with a little more respect.
If we don’t try we’ll never know. At least I can find out how good I can be. I can have an answer at the end of the days, and have a hell of a good time with the process. -Desi Davila
© 2012 RunningAHEAD.com. All rights reserved. | Privacy