1 edit
Originally posted by spruce112358Perfect is an absurd term to use.
we are all born perfect (e.g. kind) and then corrupted by other lost souls (e.g. the rich) who tempt us with money to sin (e.g. not love our fellow man.) Sounds a lot like That Old Time Religion to me.
Given your posting style, no1m, I'm a little reluctant to accept being lectured to by you about showing more empathy!
Strictly speaking, you are perfect if you are able to do everything you can and unable to do all that you cannot.
This means everyone is perfect and that the term is rubbish.
If you create a system in which greed leads to better chances of survival, humans will become less empathic. If you create a system in which sharing increases the chances of survival, then people will become more empathic.
Since the early 80's, when Raygun and that English bitch; who we all hope dies slowly and painfully, incorporated Rand's vision into everyday living, we've (in Europe, in the US this started much earlier) become ever more self-centred, egoistical and uncaring.
Hell, if you don't want to climb the career ladder, but want to have more free time instead, you're made out to be lazy and incompetent. No, it's much healthier to work 80 hours a week and stick your kids in a creche.
Originally posted by shavixmirYou're welcome to live however you'd like to shav. The problem is when you expect someone else to support your lifestyle.
[
Hell, if you don't want to climb the career ladder, but want to have more free time instead, you're made out to be lazy and incompetent. No, it's much healthier to work 80 hours a week and stick your kids in a creche.[/b]
Originally posted by shavixmirDon' you just love the leftist compassion and empathy?
Perfect is an absurd term to use.
Strictly speaking, you are perfect if you are able to do everything you can and unable to do all that you cannot.
This means everyone is perfect and that the term is rubbish.
If you create a system in which greed leads to better chances of survival, humans will become less empathic. If you create a system in which sha ...[text shortened]... ompetent. No, it's much healthier to work 80 hours a week and stick your kids in a creche.
"that English bitch; who we all hope dies slowly and painfully,"
Frankly, I don't recall either Reagan, or Thatcher citing Ayn Rand as an authority.
Originally posted by normbenignNo no, this is not typical of "leftists", but of people whose nicknames start with "s".
Don' you just love the leftist compassion and empathy?
"that English bitch; who we all hope dies slowly and painfully,"
Frankly, I don't recall either Reagan, or Thatcher citing Ayn Rand as an authority.
Originally posted by normbenignWhat a load. Empathy is easily defined; buy a dictionary. The rest is just typical Randian rubbish.
"Religion of the Free Market types here got me thinking; why are they seemingly so proud that they have utter unconcern for others?"
Beginning with an attacking distortion isn't likely to engender thoughtful discussion, but despite this I read on.
Empathy is one of those things that is slippery to define, and even more difficult to measure. As you ...[text shortened]... ntellectuals" who proscribe what others must do to be compassionate or show empathy.
2 edits
Originally posted by normbenignPlease cite to a single discussion by the Framers of an individual income tax. It would have been quite difficult with 18th Century technology to impose one, but by the late 19th Century the democratic institutions had decided to but were thwarted by the SCOTUS. So the democratic consensus to have a federal income tax has lasted longer than any supposed feeling against it.
My question was simply to high light the nature of your comment. I would attack Marxists, not because they've read Marx, but because of the intellectual and practical failings of marxism.
Most libertarian writers and thinkers recognized the necessity of government, and Ayn Rand did as well, though most of her followers would argue she wasn't a liberta sive record keeping, and it is divisive. We've had one in the US for less than a century.
The government in the era of the Framers obtained most government revenue from high tariffs. Do you propose that as the main source of government revenue?
It is highly doubtful that an individual income tax would have been considered a "direct tax" by the Framers. See Springer v. United States 102 US 586 (1880) particularly this excerpt:
In Hylton v. United States, supra, a tax had been laid upon pleasure carriages. The plaintiff in error insisted that the tax was void, because it was a direct tax, and had not been apportioned among the states as required by the Constitution, where such taxes are imposed. The case was argued on both sides by counsel of eminence and ability. It was heard and determined by four judges -- Wilson, Paterson, Chase, and Iredell. The three first named had been distinguished
Page 102 U. S. 600
members of the constitutional convention. Wilson was on the committee that reported the completed draft of the instrument, and warmly advocated its adoption in the state convention of Pennsylvania. The fourth was a member of the convention of North Carolina that adopted the Constitution. The case was decided in 1795. The judges were unanimous. The tax was held not to be a direct tax. Each judge delivered a separate opinion. Their judgment was put on the ground indicated by Mr. Justice Chase, in the following extract from his opinion:
"It appears to me that a tax on carriages cannot be laid by the rule of apportionment without very great inequality and injustice. For example, suppose two states equal in census to pay eighty thousand dollars each by a tax on carriages of eight dollars on every carriage; and in one state, there are one hundred carriages, and in the other one thousand. The owners of carriages in one state would pay ten times the tax of owners in the other. A., in one state, would pay for his carriage eight dollars, but B., in the other state, would pay for his carriage eighty dollars."
It was well held that where such evils would attend the apportionment of a tax, the Constitution could not have intended that an apportionment should be made. This view applies with even greater force to the tax in question in this case. Where the population is large and the incomes are few and small, it would be intolerably oppressive.
The difference in the ability of communities, without reference to numbers, to pay any taxes is forcibly remarked upon by McCulloh in his article on taxation in the Encyclopedia Britannica, vol. xxi. (old ed.) p. 75.
Mr. Justice Chase said further,
"That he would give no judicial opinion upon the subject, but that he was inclined to think that the direct taxes contemplated by the Constitution were only two -- a capitation tax and a tax on land."
Mr. Justice Iredell said:
"Perhaps a direct tax, in the sense of the Constitution, can mean nothing but a tax on something inseparably annexed to the soil. . . . A land or poll tax may be considered of this description. The latter is to be so considered, particularly under the present Constitution,
Page 102 U. S. 601
on account of the slaves in the Southern states, who give a ratio in the representation in the proportion of three to five."
Mr. Justice Paterson said, he never entertained a doubt
"that the principal, he would not say the only, objects contemplated by the Constitution as falling within the rule of apportionment, were a capitation tax and a tax on land."
From these views the other judges expressed no dissent.
Originally posted by no1marauderEmpathy is defined as the capicity to recognize and to some extent share feeling that are being felt by others.
What a load. Empathy is easily defined; buy a dictionary. The rest is just typical Randian rubbish.
Your willingness to insult those who disagree with you (a good example but in a relative minor tone can be seen below) and your inability to see any view other than own, should be an indication to yourself that your general discourse is a symptom of what you perceive to a problem.
Originally posted by quackquack😴😴
Empathy is defined as the capicity to recognize and to some extent share feeling that are being felt by others.
Your willingness to insult those who disagree with you (a good example but in a relative minor tone can be seen below) and your inability to see any view other than own, should be an indication to yourself that your general discourse is a symptom of what you perceive to a problem.
1 edit
More from Springer:
In the twenty-first number of the Federalist, Alexander Hamilton, speaking of taxes generally, said:
"Those of the direct kind, which principally relate to land and buildings, may admit of a rule of apportionment. Either the value of the land or the number of the people may serve as a standard."
AND
In Pacific Insurance Co. v. Soule, 7 Wall. 433, the taxes in question were upon the receipts of such companies from premiums and assessments, and upon all sums made or added, during the year, to their surplus or contingent funds. This Court held unanimously that the taxes were not direct taxes, and that they were valid.
In Veazie Bank v. Fenno, supra, the tax which came under consideration was one of ten percent upon the notes of state banks paid out by other banks, state or National. The same conclusions were reached by the court as in the preceding case. Mr. Chief Justice Chase delivered the opinion of the Court. In the course of his elaborate examination of the subject he said,
"It may be rightly affirmed that, in the practical construction of the Constitution by Congress, direct taxes have been limited to taxes on land and appurtenances and taxes on polls, or capitation taxes."
In Scholey v. Rew, 23 Wall. 331, the tax involved was a succession tax, imposed by the Acts of Congress of June 30, 1864, and July 13, 1866. It was held that the tax was not a direct tax, and that it was constitutional and valid. In delivering the opinion of the Court, Mr. Justice Clifford, after remarking that the tax there in question was not a direct tax, said:
"Instead of that, it is plainly an excise tax or duty, authorized by sec. 1, art. 8, of the Constitution, which vests the power in
Page 102 U. S. 602
Congress to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and public welfare."
He said further:
"Taxes on houses, lands, and other permanent real estate have always been deemed to be direct taxes, and capitation taxes, by the express words of the Constitution, are within the same category; but it has never been decided that any other legal exactions for the support of the federal government fall within the condition that unless laid in proportion to numbers the assessment is invalid."
Originally posted by no1marauderDon't you mean socialist communist liberal progressive Marxists?
I find it fascinating that the very first Congress created under the Constitution levied a tax on "pleasure carriages" a luxury item primarily owned by the wealthy of that time. Maybe they were closet redistributionists after all.
Originally posted by no1marauderInteresting post. I remember in my political science class in my conservative college in 1981 that the Reagan Republicans (a vast majority in the class) said that the solution to welfare was to let the poor children die out.
Some of the discussions with the Religion of the Free Market types here got me thinking; why are they seemingly so proud that they have utter unconcern for others? Well it turns out that this is a growing phenomenon (perhaps psychosis is a better term). An article in Psychology Today is informative:
Shocker: Empathy Dropped 40% in College Stude ...[text shortened]... nsequences.
Thoughts?
Yet, it now seems even worse than the Reagan 80's.
Originally posted by invigorateOff-point and not directly in response to your post, but your mention of Denmark made me think. "Liberal" became a bad word in the US when in reality where would we be without progressives. Women without the right to vote? No child labor laws? Less clean air and water? Absolute power by the wealthy property owner? The working middle class gets screwed. Children without insurance left to die when needing treatment? Conservative to keep everything the same with no progress?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ7LzE3u7Bw
This is a great TED talk by Richard Wilkinson who makes some very clear points on how economic inequality has lead to a lack of trust in the US and the UK.
He makes some great points backed up by scientific argument that if you want to live the American Dream you should move to Denmark. . . .
In the Reagan 80's, do you remember that SNL skit "The Liberal" in 1988 where the last lone liberal in the U.S. (played by Matthew Modine) who was hiding his views and trying to escape to Amsterdam. "He's a liberal, run liberal run"
JFK gave an excellent speech regarding the word "Liberal."
http://www.liberalparty.org/JFKLPAcceptance.html
A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:
Acceptance Speech of the New York
Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." . . .
Currently, I don't know if I would call Obama a liberal in a true sense. I guess it depends on definition. And admittedly, Obama can lean left sometimes. But Obama actually came across as a right-wing hack, for example, in some of the budget negotiations, though maybe that is a little strong and he was just being realistic. But presidents like Obama and Clinton do not seem to be true liberals to me.
One nuance is that since Reagan and especially now, the labeling and perception of the political spectrum has shifted, and defintitions/labels are now different. In other words, a person who moderately leans left is now labeled as a socialist. And a person who leans right or even significantly right is now labeled as middle-of-the road.
Originally posted by no1marauderYa the framers were socialists waging class warfare on the job generators. Moderates would not have allowed such a tax.
I find it fascinating that the very first Congress created under the Constitution levied a tax on "pleasure carriages" a luxury item primarily owned by the wealthy of that time. Maybe they were closet redistributionists after all.
Originally posted by moon1969You sir, are full of crap. Being a liberal used to mean that you worked in your community to make it better and spread your own wealth around to make your home place a better place to live. How many hours a week do you volunteer? How much money do you give to support local charities? JFK wouldn't even recognize the democratic party today.
Off-point and not directly in response to your post, but your mention of Denmark made me think. "Liberal" became a bad word in the US when in reality where would we be without progressives. Women without the right to vote? No child labor laws? Less clean air and water? Absolute power by the wealthy property owner? The working middle class gets screwed. ...[text shortened]... ight or even significantly right is now labeled as middle-of-the road.