Originally posted by TeinosukeThere is a matter of morality. Is it moral for government to confiscate what people have earned for redistribution? They claim compassion, but I contend it is more about amassing power, and doing what government is not good at doing.
I'm not interested in whether an action is charitable or compassionate. The issue is what mechanism best achieves a necessary goal. If it can be demonstrated that charity is more efficient than state intervention in alleviating poverty, then fine.
I admire Gates and Buffett on a personal level for their charity, but I'm interested in establishing mechan ...[text shortened]... rn competently when you are ideologically opposed to government intervention in the first place.
Taxation is necessary to fund the operations of government, those basic things agreed to in a Constitution.
Equalizing outcomes isn't part of that in the US.
As to the partisanship during a disaster, I would say that the situation in the Northeast was worse for longer, even with a supposedly favorable administration. Government can't solve all problems, or make right wrong, or wrong right.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHow about a sense of morality? Anyone can cry out like a fool, Obama gave me a free phone, or he has a stash to help me. Anyone can vote to pick the pocket of the rich and successful, but that is fool's gold. It results in an immoral society, and one that secretly favors the wealthy anyway.
the people here arguing against a re-distribution of wealth through taxation against what can only be described as their own interests is a strange phenomena indeed. Someone care to explain it to me?
In spite of Obama's alleged desire to spread the wealth around, his actual policies have favored his crony capitalists, the investor class, and those green ventures most of which failed after consuming the taxpayer dollars they received.
A lot of people have seen the results of redistribution elsewhere and don't want any part of it.
Originally posted by normbenignMost of us understand that it's already an immoral re-distribution of money enforced by the government every time we have to send a rich person a rent check.
How about a sense of morality? Anyone can cry out like a fool, Obama gave me a free phone, or he has a stash to help me. Anyone can vote to pick the pocket of the rich and successful, but that is fool's gold. It results in an immoral society, and one that secretly favors the wealthy anyway.
In spite of Obama's alleged desire to spread the wealth aro ...[text shortened]... A lot of people have seen the results of redistribution elsewhere and don't want any part of it.
Originally posted by normbenignThat statement is based on the assumption that people have earned what they've got independently and entirely without state help. How many businesses could prosper without the public roads that governments build, without the public schools that educate their workforce, without the publicly funded legal system that enforces contracts, etc? These days, I think any successful individual is the beneficiary of various types of collective action, and consequently, is indebted to the state.
There is a matter of morality. Is it moral for government to confiscate what people have earned for redistribution? They claim compassion, but I contend it is more about amassing power, and doing what government is not good at doing.
Equalizing outcomes isn't part of that in the US.
That the US Constitution doesn't see the importance of trying in some measure to equalise outcomes is a limitation of the US Constitution.
Originally posted by normbenignSuch as where? In the outstandingly successful Nordic societies which routinely top international surveys of human development, quality of life, life expectancy, absence of corruption, etc? They should be a beacon for the world!
A lot of people have seen the results of redistribution elsewhere and don't want any part of it.
Originally posted by normbenignWhen I visit the National Gallery or the British Museum, they are absolutely free! It's difficult to see how they could work out cheaper in a free market system; and they are the envy of the world.
I have shown here that the elasticity argument is faulty. Compare food and basic paper goods commodities distributed in the relatively free and competitive US market, with distribution of the same goods in the old Soviet system. The amount, price and variety of commodities in the competitive market is overwhelmingly greater despite some distorting factors in the US, including subsidies of both producers and consumers.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung"...........already an immoral re-distribution of money enforced by the government every time we have to send a rich person a rent check."
Most of us understand that it's already an immoral re-distribution of money enforced by the government every time we have to send a rich person a rent check.
And suppose the landlord you send your check to isn't rich? Why does the accumulated, earned wealth of the landlord have any relevance at all?
Originally posted by TeinosukeBecause you don't pay for the service when it is delivered, that doesn't make it free. Somebody pays, so it isn't free. That is the goal of every con man, to separate the benefit from the cost.
When I visit the National Gallery or the British Museum, they are absolutely free! It's difficult to see how they could work out cheaper in a free market system; and they are the envy of the world.
Originally posted by TeinosukeThis is a practically infant phenomenon. When it lasts for a couple of centuries, I'll give it some thought. In the meantime, we have the Soviet and Nazi experiments, Fascism in Italy, failures in Spain and Greece, North Korea vs. S. Korea, and Communist Mainland China vs. Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore.
Such as where? In the outstandingly successful Nordic societies which routinely top international surveys of human development, quality of life, life expectancy, absence of corruption, etc? They should be a beacon for the world!
Originally posted by normbenignThe landlord owns a building. He gets paid for what he owns. He gets paid for being richer than the tenants. It's a thoroughly immoral system.
"...........already an immoral re-distribution of money enforced by the government every time we have to send a rich person a rent check."
And suppose the landlord you send your check to isn't rich? Why does the accumulated, earned wealth of the landlord have any relevance at all?
Originally posted by AThousandYoung"The landlord owns a building." Owning a building is immoral? He either built it, bought it, or had it built. He need not be rich. He may not even be richer than his tenants. Many landlords have mortgages on rental properties.
The landlord owns a building. He gets paid for what he owns. He gets paid for being richer than the tenants. It's a thoroughly immoral system.
"He gets paid for being richer than the tenants." Do you realize how silly that is? He gets paid for providing housing. He could be richer, by having a bank account and not a building. The bank account would be liquid, and draw interest. It would not provide housing, a beneficial thing to his tenants. Notice, they don't have to live there, and don't have to pay rent. They can live outdoors, or buy a home. They don't pay the landlord "because he is richer".
Originally posted by normbenignErr, yeah, maybe we should go back to the times of Roman emperors. At least that system lasted for over a thousand years!
This is a practically infant phenomenon. When it lasts for a couple of centuries, I'll give it some thought. In the meantime, we have the Soviet and Nazi experiments, Fascism in Italy, failures in Spain and Greece, North Korea vs. S. Korea, and Communist Mainland China vs. Taiwan, Hong Kong and Singapore.