Government folly


Off-Topic Discussions

801 to 850 of 2,076 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:

Bob the Laborer goes in to pay his flat tax and pays 40% of his income. He had 100 dollars, now he has 60.

Bob the Laborer should be doing better than all that.

Not in today's union-unfriendly America!


Organize the unorganized!


ProfessorCirno wrote:

You're missing that the utility of the dollar does not remain the same.

Bob the Laborer goes in to pay his flat tax and pays 40% of his income. He had 100 dollars, now he has 60.

Wiliam the Banker goes in to pay his flat tax and pays 40% of his income. He had 100,000,000,000 dollars. Now he has 60,000,000,000.

That's why it's incredibly regressive. The dollar has different utility in different amounts. Losing 40 dollars from 100 is a big deal. Loosing 40,000,000,000 out of 100,000,000,000 isn't nearly as big of a deal. It'll result in corporations paying more because they currently don't pay any, but that doesn't mean it's good.

I wouldnt mind overly much if it was a progressive tax, as long as it was a simplified tax code that closed all the deductible loopholes. Or as I like to call it: deregulated. For example, (and these numbers are pulled straight outta my butt and have no meaning) 1% tax on income up to 45k. with an additional 5% for every additional 45k that is earned up to 51% So make 60k? pay 1% on the first 45k and 6% on the last 15k. BOOM-Deregulated.

None of which has anything to do with government folly. Sorry BT.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
I wouldnt mind overly much if it was a progressive tax, as long as it was a simplified tax code that closed all the deductible loopholes. Or as I like to call it: deregulated. For example, (and these numbers are pulled straight outta my butt and have no meaning) 1% tax on income up to 45k. with an additional 5% for every additional 45k that is earned up to 51% So make 60k? pay 1% on the first 45k and 6% on the last 15k. BOOM-Deregulated.

That's not a bad scheme. It's far more steeply progressive than the current system, which is why I like it. I have no idea whether it's anywhere near revenue neutral. I suspect it isn't, despite the boost on the high end and the lack of deductions. I make above the median income and would have a huge tax cut under your plan, which I don't really need.

Most of the seriously proposed plans to remove deductions balance out by dropping the top marginal rate. I see that as a trap, since it's always much easier to add deduction back in than to raise the top rate again. This is in fact what Reagan's tax cuts did back in the 80s, remove deductions and drop the top rates. You can see where that's left us.

Minor quibbles with it: There needs to be a good name for a no-deductions tax scheme, but "Deregulated" isn't it. (Nor is "Flat".) Tax deductions aren't regulations and the parallels don't really make sense.
It's also a tax increase on the very poor. A minor one (1%), but it makes little sense to add taxes to those who already need assistance to get by. If you tax another $100 from a family that earns $10,000, they'll just need another $100 in aid. That 1% raises a trivial amount of revenue, so it's probably not even worth bothering with. It seems like it's just in there so everyone has to contribute, but it doesn't really do that.

More importantly, I'm suspicious of the idea that all deductions are bad. The basic idea behind tax deductions isn't just to let rich people keep more of their money, that can be done by cutting the rates, it's to encourage people to do useful things with their money. It can be used to encourage development of new industries until they have the critical mass to stand on their own, for example the current tax credits for installing solar panels. The mortgage deduction is intended to encourage home ownership, some college costs can be deducted etc.
Fundamentally, the economy does better when people do productive things with their money. Whether that's buying things or putting capital into developing and making those things. Tax policy should encourage these things. Deductions are a way to do this.
So in general are high marginal rates. With a high personal rate, business owners have more incentive to invest money back into the business than to take it as personal income.

Edit: I meant to add: Obviously not all deductions do serve a useful purpose. Some did and have outlived their time. Some never did. They can be are and are abused, but that doesn't mean the concept is bad.


if deductions are to encourage us to do useful things with our money, then I have to ask, why can we not just keep it? Why does the Government have to take it, only to give it back? As far as using deductions to support new industries, thats basically a subsidy. Im not a big fan of government deciding which businesses should succeed and which shouldnt. Your opinion may vary, and Im ok with that. Basically, I take the position that if Governnment wants us to do productive things with our money, then how about they let us keep more of it? Another thing they could do is show leadership by doing productive things with our money. End the BS wars, End the BS war on drugs, and so on.

Lastly, its semantics I know, but loopholes and deductions are caused by rules within the tax code. rules=regulations. So I say deregulate it!

Edit- also remember that the numbers I posted earlier were entirely fabricated by me. It could be 0% up to median income, then 9.8% for every increment past that, or whatever else you like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I do think that's the basic philosophical difference. Though I wouldn't phrase it as "which businesses should succeed", which implies that the government might back Bob's Hardware and not Joe's Hardware. More that the government has a role to play in directing the overall direction of the economy. Helping out sectors that might not yet be profitable on their own, but which will boost the economy as a whole. Sometimes it's infrastructure, sometimes it's helping a new innovation get a foothold against an entrenched industry.
Successful governments around the world have always done this, as has ours. From railroads in the 1800s through rural electrification and phone projects in the 40s to the roots of the Internet in the 90s.

Obviously this can be taken too far. Full government control of the economy on a micro level doesn't work, but that doesn't mean that a completely hands-off approach works either.


TheWhiteknife wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:

You're missing that the utility of the dollar does not remain the same.

Bob the Laborer goes in to pay his flat tax and pays 40% of his income. He had 100 dollars, now he has 60.

Wiliam the Banker goes in to pay his flat tax and pays 40% of his income. He had 100,000,000,000 dollars. Now he has 60,000,000,000.

That's why it's incredibly regressive. The dollar has different utility in different amounts. Losing 40 dollars from 100 is a big deal. Loosing 40,000,000,000 out of 100,000,000,000 isn't nearly as big of a deal. It'll result in corporations paying more because they currently don't pay any, but that doesn't mean it's good.

I wouldnt mind overly much if it was a progressive tax, as long as it was a simplified tax code that closed all the deductible loopholes. Or as I like to call it: deregulated. For example, (and these numbers are pulled straight outta my butt and have no meaning) 1% tax on income up to 45k. with an additional 5% for every additional 45k that is earned up to 51% So make 60k? pay 1% on the first 45k and 6% on the last 15k. BOOM-Deregulated.

None of which has anything to do with government folly. Sorry BT.

Actually taxes have everything to do with government folly. Taxes are an immensely important method for government to cause harm and pick winners and losers. Our current tax system is massively corrupt and harmful. The income tax is particularly wretched. It makes everything you have and everything you own the governments business without a warrant. Income tax punishes savings and investment, and incentivizes personal debt and overspending.

Using the tax code to redistribute income doesn't seem like it has been a very effective policy in the US.


Jeff MacDonald wrote:

I do think that's the basic philosophical difference. Though I wouldn't phrase it as "which businesses should succeed", which implies that the government might back Bob's Hardware and not Joe's Hardware. More that the government has a role to play in directing the overall direction of the economy. Helping out sectors that might not yet be profitable on their own, but which will boost the economy as a whole. Sometimes it's infrastructure, sometimes it's helping a new innovation get a foothold against an entrenched industry.

Successful governments around the world have always done this, as has ours. From railroads in the 1800s through rural electrification and phone projects in the 40s to the roots of the Internet in the 90s.

Obviously this can be taken too far. Full government control of the economy on a micro level doesn't work, but that doesn't mean that a completely hands-off approach works either.

I must point out that centralized planning of the economy often has disastrous consequences as well.

Our current insane tax code is a pretty good example of centralized planning run completely amok.

Even if the lawmakers, regulators, and bureaucrats had good intentions with how they wanted to manipulate behavior through the tax regulatory structure there have been very bad unintended consequences.

I also do not accept the premise of central planning that corrupt and incompetent bureaucrats are better qualified to make decisions for me and my family than I am.

I also think there is real danger in centralizing so much power in so few hands.


Obama's Thomas L. Friedman Moment

The Unseen Effects of the Stimulus


TSA Agents Force Terminally Ill Elderly Woman to Remove Diaper

Cavity searching children can't be far behind.


I like a number of these, but "When freedom is gone not much else will matter." seems noteworthy.

stickers


Bitter Thorn wrote:

Obama's Thomas L. Friedman Moment

The Unseen Effects of the Stimulus

You're losing your touch.

The first has nothing to do with government folly and is just "OBAMA SAID A THING AUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH"

The second is much along the same lines, more or less going "OBama's stimulus, bad or good? We don't know! We're going to compare it literally to purse theft though. Yes, this is a viable and comparable metaphor!"

I expect more from you, honestly.


*Sigh*

I'm going to have to unfriend you now, BT.


Wet Blanket wrote:

*Sigh*

I'm going to have to unfriend you now, BT.

Same here. His logic is totally deniable. Mine, however, is perfect, just like my hair. Maybe I should drink a pina colada?


ProfessorCirno wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:

Obama's Thomas L. Friedman Moment

The Unseen Effects of the Stimulus

You're losing your touch.

The first has nothing to do with government folly and is just "OBAMA SAID A THING AUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH"

The second is much along the same lines, more or less going "OBama's stimulus, bad or good? We don't know! We're going to compare it literally to purse theft though. Yes, this is a viable and comparable metaphor!"

I expect more from you, honestly.

Your interpretations of reality are always interesting.

I think words matter. I think ideas matter, and I think results matter. YMMV.

I thought the metaphor was generous in light of the reality.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bitter Thorn wrote:
I think words matter. I think ideas matter, and I think results matter.

Well, now you're just talking crazy! :)


DoctorSirnuts wrote:
Wet Blanket wrote:

*Sigh*

I'm going to have to unfriend you now, BT.

Same here. His logic is totally deniable. Mine, however, is perfect, just like my hair. Maybe I should drink a pina colada?

Oi! Pardon me, guv'nor, but do you happen to know a restaurant called Lee Ho Phuc's?


I did mention that "Full government control of the economy on a micro level doesn't work."

Our current tax code, insane or not, is nothing like an "example of centralized planning run completely amok". The USSR, China under Mao or North Korea are good examples.
Our tax code, in the worst cases, is an example of influence peddling in the absence of any actual plans.

Most developed countries in the world today have far more government interference in their economies than the US does, in terms of infrastructure development and investment and support of new technologies. Many of them are doing far better than we are by most measures. The sheer size and influence of the US economy hides some of that.

I agree that "there is real danger in centralizing so much power in so few hands." That is why the government is designed with checks and balances, to be accountable to the people, the most obvious of which are elections. The other main powers, multinational corporations, have no such limitations.

I would also agree that "corrupt and incompetent bureaucrats" are not qualified, but that's a straw man, since no one has ever argued that they are.


Bitter Thorn wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:

Obama's Thomas L. Friedman Moment

The Unseen Effects of the Stimulus

You're losing your touch.

The first has nothing to do with government folly and is just "OBAMA SAID A THING AUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGH"

The second is much along the same lines, more or less going "OBama's stimulus, bad or good? We don't know! We're going to compare it literally to purse theft though. Yes, this is a viable and comparable metaphor!"

I expect more from you, honestly.

Your interpretations of reality are always interesting.

I think words matter. I think ideas matter, and I think results matter. YMMV.

I thought the metaphor was generous in light of the reality.

I have to agree with Cirno on this. Reason is cherry picking in the first article and speculating with the speculotron at full blast in the second. I don't hold you personally responsible for it, BT, as these articles are ones that I know you didn't write and are on a tangent that I know appeals to you greatly. As usual, we will have to agree to disagree here.


Here, to show no hard feelings, let me post one or two myself :p

Feeding the homeless? That's terrorism. AMERICA.

Video taping the police in a public area? That's an arrest. AMERICA!

Surely on the state level they - wait no, let's kill public records. I'm sure we have nothing to fear! AMEEERICAAAAAA!


Jeff MacDonald wrote:

I did mention that "Full government control of the economy on a micro level doesn't work."

Our current tax code, insane or not, is nothing like an "example of centralized planning run completely amok". The USSR, China under Mao or North Korea are good examples.
Our tax code, in the worst cases, is an example of influence peddling in the absence of any actual plans.

Most developed countries in the world today have far more government interference in their economies than the US does, in terms of infrastructure development and investment and support of new technologies. Many of them are doing far better than we are by most measures. The sheer size and influence of the US economy hides some of that.

I agree that "there is real danger in centralizing so much power in so few hands." That is why the government is designed with checks and balances, to be accountable to the people, the most obvious of which are elections. The other main powers, multinational corporations, have no such limitations.

I would also agree that "corrupt and incompetent bureaucrats" are not qualified, but that's a straw man, since no one has ever argued that they are.

Of course no one ever argues that corrupt and incompetent bureaucrats are qualified to run our lives, but that is the real life effect of so many of the centralized planning schemes.

I'll use Homeland Security as an example. The already massive military, law enforcement, and intelligence bureaucracies in the US failed to "connect the dots" and take any meaningful steps to prevent 9-11 even though some people in all of these communities predicted the likelihood of this kind of attack.

In the frantic reaction we hear the cries of, "Something must be done to keep us safe!". No one comes right out and says, "We have to create a massive mega bureaucracy to oversee all of these other bureaucracies that failed that will be even more costly and ineffective! Then we have to pass a series of laws to massively expand state power and restrict civil liberties!".

We now live in a nation where people are virtually strip searched at the airport by poorly trained federal government employees that are directed by a massive bloated bureaucracy that is plagued with corruption.

Obviously no one campaigns on expanding corrupt and incompetent bureaucracies in those words, but that hardly makes it a straw man. Even when politicians campaign against big government or influence peddling they generally wind up doing the exact opposite once they are in power.

In the same vein hawks on the right and left don't campaign on using our massive military to start preemptive imperial wars against nations that pose no immediate threat to us. They talk about protecting our national interests and humanitarian intervention. I hardly think it would be a straw man to argue against imperialism and preemptive war.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
Feeding the homeless? That's terrorism. AMERICA.

Food Not Bombs is funded by D&D-playing porn stars!

Which is just another reason they're badass.


Nope, no corrupt or incompetent bureaucrats here. Again from Olbermann. Anyone else think its sad that I have to watch MSNBC and FOX news and then average them out to get any real news.


"If anyone thinks the words government and efficiency belong in the same sentence, we have counseling available."
-Paul Tsongas


pres man wrote:

"If anyone thinks the words government and efficiency belong in the same sentence, we have counseling available."

-Paul Tsongas

And who is better?


Individuals. I know what is best for me. I dont need a government, business, or a business controlled government telling me what is best for me.

edit- Just like I have no right to tell you what is best for you.

The Exchange

TheWhiteknife wrote:

Individuals. I know what is best for me. I dont need a government, business, or a business controlled government telling me what is best for me.

edit- Just like I have no right to tell you what is best for you.

"All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

--John Donne


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TheWhiteknife wrote:

Individuals. I know what is best for me. I dont need a government, business, or a business controlled government telling me what is best for me.

edit- Just like I have no right to tell you what is best for you.

Which is fine as long as you're living in a cabin in the woods, miles from your nearest neighbor.

Once you're a part of a society you have to compromise in order to get along with everyone else. Once your society gets big enough that you can't deal individually with everyone you might effect or who might effect you, we form governments to set common rules. Representative democracy, though far from perfect, is the best form of government we've come up with yet, allowing everyone the opportunity to shape the rules we all have to live by.

In a society as large and complex as ours, with as many individuals and organizations with such wildly varying levels of power, someone is going to be able to set rules for you. Better it is a government over which we have some level of control than a faceless corporation only interested in profit or whichever local thug can field the most hired guns.

Rugged individualist libertarianism is a great theory, but it bears no resemblance to the real world.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
pres man wrote:

"If anyone thinks the words government and efficiency belong in the same sentence, we have counseling available."

-Paul Tsongas
And who is better?

Lots of private individuals and companies can be much more efficient. The question is, is efficiency always the best choice?


Jeff MacDonald wrote:

Which is fine as long as you're living in a cabin in the woods, miles from your nearest neighbor.

Once you're a part of a society you have to compromise in order to get along with everyone else. Once your society gets big enough that you can't deal individually with everyone you might effect or who might effect you, we form governments to set common rules. Representative democracy, though far from perfect, is the best form of government we've come up with yet, allowing everyone the opportunity to shape the rules we all have to live by.

In a society as large and complex as ours, with as many individuals and organizations with such wildly varying levels of power, someone is going to be able to set rules for you. Better it is a government over which we have some level of control than a faceless corporation only interested in profit or whichever local thug can field the most hired guns.

Rugged individualist libertarianism is a great theory, but it bears no resemblance to the real world.

I dont disagree. But that wasnt the question. The question was "What is more efficient than government?"

Edit-Unless you are talking about murder or theft. Then yes, nothing is more efficient than government.


TheWhiteknife wrote:


I dont disagree. But that wasnt the question. The question was "What is more efficient than government?"

Edit-Unless you are talking about murder or theft. Then yes, nothing is more efficient than government.

Your post, that I was responding to, said nothing about efficiency, only about others telling you what was best for you.

As for efficiency, government can be very efficient at many things.
In many cases, government services contracted out to private companies in the name of efficiency have been proven to be more expensive and less effective.

Health care is one. Countries with some form of single payer system have much better outcomes at much lower cost than the US's mostly private system. Even our government run Medicare has, despite issues with fraud, much lower overhead than our private insurance companies. Overall, we spend a much higher percentage of our GDP on healthcare than other developed countries, for worse results. Admittedly, if you can afford it, you can get great healthcare in the US.

But that speaks to one thing government is much better than private industry at: serving the entire population. Anytime you want the whole population to get something, whether it's healthcare, phone service, water, whatever, the government has to be involved. Otherwise there will be segments of the population that it simply isn't worth serving, either because of poverty, population density or some other reason.

Whether that's efficiency or not depends on what you mean by efficient.
Private companies tend to be more efficient at making a profit, but that's not a government's job.


Yeah I was answering the question in the post directly above my answer. I guess I should have asked ProfCirno what he meant by efficient before I answered.


Jeff MacDonald wrote:
Even our government run Medicare has, despite issues with fraud, much lower overhead than our private insurance companies.

This comment (or at least the facts that support it) is a bit deceptive. The government forces health care providers that accept Medicare to charge less for the services than they charge private insurance holders. It isn't that Medicare is more efficient, it is that the private insurance holders subsidize it through having to pay more than they would have to otherwise for the exact same services.


Crimson Jester wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

Individuals. I know what is best for me. I dont need a government, business, or a business controlled government telling me what is best for me.

edit- Just like I have no right to tell you what is best for you.

"All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

--John Donne

I am a rock!

I am an island!

--Paul Simon


Help! I'm a rock!--

Frank Zappa


pres man wrote:


This comment (or at least the facts that support it) is a bit deceptive. The government forces health care providers that accept Medicare to charge less for the services than they charge private insurance holders. It isn't that Medicare is more efficient, it is that the private insurance holders subsidize it through having to pay more than they would have to otherwise for the exact same services.

Much like private insurers pay much less than providers charge those without insurance? I believe providers are still free not to accept Medicare patients? In fact, one of the problems with Medicare is that many doctors are opting out, because of the low rates.

But that isn't actually relevant to the efficiency claim. Medicare is considered more efficient than private insurers because it has an extremely ratio of low administrative/overhead costs to claims paid out, not because it's reimbursement rates are low.


Jeff MacDonald wrote:
pres man wrote:


This comment (or at least the facts that support it) is a bit deceptive. The government forces health care providers that accept Medicare to charge less for the services than they charge private insurance holders. It isn't that Medicare is more efficient, it is that the private insurance holders subsidize it through having to pay more than they would have to otherwise for the exact same services.

Much like private insurers pay much less than providers charge those without insurance? I believe providers are still free not to accept Medicare patients? In fact, one of the problems with Medicare is that many doctors are opting out, because of the low rates.

But that isn't actually relevant to the efficiency claim. Medicare is considered more efficient than private insurers because it has an extremely ratio of low administrative/overhead costs to claims paid out, not because it's reimbursement rates are low.

Using that measurement of efficiency seems like an awfully bad idea. Using that logic the more massive the pay outs relative to administrative costs the more efficient the system is. Can we agree that is not a smart metric?

BTW, our system is not mostly private. IIRC government pays slightly over half of medical costs in the US, and every aspect of the medical industry is highly regulated.

Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance

Krugman-Hacker- Dr Book exchange 5th comment

The Exchange

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Crimson Jester wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

Individuals. I know what is best for me. I dont need a government, business, or a business controlled government telling me what is best for me.

edit- Just like I have no right to tell you what is best for you.

"All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies, one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better language; and every chapter must be so translated...As therefore the bell that rings to a sermon, calls not upon the preacher only, but upon the congregation to come: so this bell calls us all: but how much more me, who am brought so near the door by this sickness....No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

--John Donne

I am a rock!

I am an island!

--Paul Simon

Make his fight on the hill in the early day

Constant chill deep inside
Shouting gun, on they run through the endless gray
On they fight, for they are right, yes, but who's to say?
For a hill, men would kill. Why? They do not know
Stiffend wounds test their pride
Men of five, still alive through the raging glow
Gone insane from the pain that they surely know

For whom the bell tolls
Time marches on
For whom the bell tolls

Take a look to the sky just before you die
It's the last time you will
Blackened roar, massive roar, fills the crumbling sky
Shattered goal fills his soul with a ruthless cry
Stranger now are his eyes to this mystery
He hears the silence so loud
Crack of dawn, all is gone except the will to be
Now they see what will be, blinded eyes to see

For whom the bell tolls
Time marches on
For whom the bell tolls

--Metalllica

The Exchange

Bitter Thorn wrote:
Jeff MacDonald wrote:
pres man wrote:


This comment (or at least the facts that support it) is a bit deceptive. The government forces health care providers that accept Medicare to charge less for the services than they charge private insurance holders. It isn't that Medicare is more efficient, it is that the private insurance holders subsidize it through having to pay more than they would have to otherwise for the exact same services.

Much like private insurers pay much less than providers charge those without insurance? I believe providers are still free not to accept Medicare patients? In fact, one of the problems with Medicare is that many doctors are opting out, because of the low rates.

But that isn't actually relevant to the efficiency claim. Medicare is considered more efficient than private insurers because it has an extremely ratio of low administrative/overhead costs to claims paid out, not because it's reimbursement rates are low.

Using that measurement of efficiency seems like an awfully bad idea. Using that logic the more massive the pay outs relative to administrative costs the more efficient the system is. Can we agree that is not a smart metric?

BTW, our system is not mostly private. IIRC government pays slightly over half of medical costs in the US, and every aspect of the medical industry is highly regulated.

Medicare Administrative Costs Are Higher, Not Lower, Than for Private Insurance

Krugman-Hacker- Dr Book exchange 5th comment

Sometimes efficiency either does not get the job done or ends up costing more in the long run. Strait lines are not always the best answer.


Crimson Jester wrote:

Make his fight on the hill in the early day

Constant chill deep inside
Shouting gun, on they run through the endless gray
On they fight, for they are right, yes, but who's to say?
For a hill, men would kill. Why? They do not know
Stiffend wounds test their pride
Men of five, still alive through the raging glow
Gone insane from the pain that they surely know

For whom the bell tolls
Time marches on
For whom the bell tolls

Take a look to the sky just before you die
It's the last time you will
Blackened roar, massive roar, fills the crumbling sky
Shattered goal fills his soul with a ruthless cry
Stranger now are his eyes to this mystery
He hears the silence so loud
Crack of dawn, all is gone except the will to be
Now they see what will be, blinded eyes to see

For whom the bell tolls
Time marches on
For whom the bell tolls

--Metalllica

No pasaran!

The Exchange

It's a movie.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crimson Jester wrote:
It's a movie.

Well, a link to a book wouldn't've been very exciting.

Btw, FWtBT was played by every garage metal band in my high school, including at least two groups that I was in. Look for a Diabolic Apostles reunion tour near you! (What? I was 14!)

Duh duh DUH! Wa-na-na-na Na-na-na-na Duh-duh duh-duh DUH!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jeff MacDonald wrote:
TheWhiteknife wrote:

Individuals. I know what is best for me. I dont need a government, business, or a business controlled government telling me what is best for me.

edit- Just like I have no right to tell you what is best for you.

Which is fine as long as you're living in a cabin in the woods, miles from your nearest neighbor.

Once you're a part of a society you have to compromise in order to get along with everyone else. Once your society gets big enough that you can't deal individually with everyone you might effect or who might effect you, we form governments to set common rules. Representative democracy, though far from perfect, is the best form of government we've come up with yet, allowing everyone the opportunity to shape the rules we all have to live by.

In a society as large and complex as ours, with as many individuals and organizations with such wildly varying levels of power, someone is going to be able to set rules for you. Better it is a government over which we have some level of control than a faceless corporation only interested in profit or whichever local thug can field the most hired guns.

Rugged individualist libertarianism is a great theory, but it bears no resemblance to the real world.

There is a world or difference between coming to a mutually agreed upon compromise in a society and using government force to make people "compromise" who aren't harming anyone else.

Compromise can be a very ugly euphemism for, "Obey the majority or whoever holds political power or pay a terrible price!".

Imprisoning people because because they don't choose to obey the rules the majority sets for them when they cause no harm to others in not compromise. It's an abuse of government force. This is the great danger of democracy, the tyranny of the majority. Fortunately we live in more of a constitutional republic than a democracy. A constitutional republic should be committed to defending the rights of minorities and individuals even when that offends or inconveniences the majority.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Imprisoning people because because they don't choose to obey the rules the majority sets for them when they cause no harm to others in not compromise. It's an abuse of government force. This is the great danger of democracy, the tyranny of the majority. Fortunately we live in more of a constitutional republic than a democracy. A constitutional republic should be committed to defending the rights of minorities and individuals even when that offends or inconveniences the majority.

“... and should those craven trolls go sniveling to authority, you humans will jerk me on the rug to explain my thinking and that is not the way it should be. There is no dignity in the living by the rule and no joy, either, and it was a rotten day when the human race arose.”

--Clifford Simak, The Goblin Reservation


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Imprisoning people because because they don't choose to obey the rules the majority sets for them when they cause no harm to others in not compromise. It's an abuse of government force. This is the great danger of democracy, the tyranny of the majority. Fortunately we live in more of a constitutional republic than a democracy. A constitutional republic should be committed to defending the rights of minorities and individuals even when that offends or inconveniences the majority.

“... and should those craven trolls go sniveling to authority, you humans will jerk me on the rug to explain my thinking and that is not the way it should be. There is no dignity in the living by the rule and no joy, either, and it was a rotten day when the human race arose.”

--Clifford Simak, The Goblin Reservation

:)


Kirth Gersen wrote:

QUOTE] “... and should those craven trolls go sniveling to authority, you humans will jerk me on the rug to explain my thinking and that is not the way it should be. There is no dignity in the living by the rule and no joy, either, and it was a rotten day when the human race arose.”

--Clifford Simak, The Goblin Reservation

Presuming that's a goblin speaking, that sounds like a very good book.


Bitter Thorn wrote:

Using that measurement of efficiency seems like an awfully bad idea. Using that logic the more massive the pay outs relative to administrative costs the more efficient the system is. Can we agree that is not a smart metric?

BTW, our system is not mostly private. IIRC government pays slightly over half of medical costs in the US, and every aspect of the medical industry is highly regulated.

Since the purpose of Medicare is to pay for medical care for those in the program, I would say that ratio of money spent on medical costs to money spent on overhead is a pretty good measure of efficiency. Obviously, you could improve that ratio by overpaying on each claim, but since Medicare is known to pay less for procedures than private insurance, I don't think that applies. Can you suggest a better metric?

The argument in your link, that Medicare appears more efficient because it serves a higher cost population and therefore naturally spends more relative to its overhead costs, is valid, but the suggested alternate measure of flat administrative cost per person is biased in the other direction. A healthy person who files no claims will have less costs than someone getting regular medical attention.

I could argue that our system is mostly private, since most people get their coverage privately and simply being regulated does not mean an industry is not private, but that's someone pointless. Will you accept that our healthcare system is more private than that in most developed countries? And that we spend a much higher percentage of our GDP on healthcare (both public and private) than those nations with various forms of "socialized" medicine?


Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Imprisoning people because because they don't choose to obey the rules the majority sets for them when they cause no harm to others in not compromise. It's an abuse of government force. This is the great danger of democracy, the tyranny of the majority. Fortunately we live in more of a constitutional republic than a democracy. A constitutional republic should be committed to defending the rights of minorities and individuals even when that offends or inconveniences the majority.

“... and should those craven trolls go sniveling to authority, you humans will jerk me on the rug to explain my thinking and that is not the way it should be. There is no dignity in the living by the rule and no joy, either, and it was a rotten day when the human race arose.”

--Clifford Simak, The Goblin Reservation

:)

When anarchy is always right, anything even remotely resembling order is always wrong.


Bitter Thorn wrote:

There is a world or difference between coming to a mutually agreed upon compromise in a society and using government force to make people "compromise" who aren't harming anyone else.

Compromise can be a very ugly euphemism for, "Obey the majority or whoever holds political power or pay a terrible price!".

Imprisoning people because because they don't choose to obey the rules the majority sets for them when they cause no harm to others in not compromise. It's an abuse of government force. This is the great danger of democracy, the tyranny of the majority. Fortunately we live in more of a constitutional republic than a democracy. A constitutional republic should be committed to defending the rights of minorities and individuals even when...

The problem with "coming to a mutually agreed upon compromise in a society" is that it doesn't scale. A society of 100s of millions cannot work by mutual compromise. Even if you all managed to agree to set of common rules, you'd have to renegotiate the whole thing whenever anyone immigrated or just grew up. Which would be constantly. What do you do if someone won't compromise? Force him to accept the current rules?

It's possible to run a small community or organization that way, though it's not easy, even if the members are self-selected for wanting to work that way.
Government is itself a compromise. We give up our "right" to come to mutually agreed compromises with everyone in exchange for a system that will actually allow us to get something done. And we try to structure that system to reflect what everyone wants as closely as possible.

Now if, as a libertarian, you want to absolutely minimize what the government can do, mutual compromise might sound like a good idea. Only the bare minimum things that everyone agrees on. I suspect you wouldn't actually like living in such a system after a few years, but it's never been tried, (or never lasted long enough on any significant scale to be noticed.) I would rather not force that experiment on a nation on the scale of the US. Such an experiment should also not rely on the infrastructure built up over generations of more traditional governance.

Even you seem to exempt "causing harm to others" from your compromise. Or is it just assumed that everyone will agree to that? More importantly, will everyone agree on the definition of "harm"?
Many of those rules and regulations are intended to prevent harm. Fire and building codes, for example. Workplace safety rules. Reread the Triangle Shirtwaist fire history. That's how it used to be when the government didn't regulate business.
How about drunk driving? That doesn't cause harm and so you shouldn't be imprisoned for it. Until, of course, it inevitably does...
Environmental regulations? Does dumping toxic waste in your water supply harm you? How about burning toxics up wind of you? (We're all upwind of someone.) How about small amounts, like every car emits? Should there be no regulation unless everyone agrees, which everyone won't? Or should we imprison everyone who drives?

For your last point, a constitution republic is a form of democracy and I was using democracy as such. Nor is there anything inherent about a constitution that makes it defend the rights of minorities. Ours, for example, specifically allowed racial slavery until the 14th amendment and was of little use protecting minority rights until the 1960s.


Freehold DM wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Bitter Thorn wrote:
Imprisoning people because because they don't choose to obey the rules the majority sets for them when they cause no harm to others in not compromise. It's an abuse of government force. This is the great danger of democracy, the tyranny of the majority. Fortunately we live in more of a constitutional republic than a democracy. A constitutional republic should be committed to defending the rights of minorities and individuals even when that offends or inconveniences the majority.

“... and should those craven trolls go sniveling to authority, you humans will jerk me on the rug to explain my thinking and that is not the way it should be. There is no dignity in the living by the rule and no joy, either, and it was a rotten day when the human race arose.”

--Clifford Simak, The Goblin Reservation

:)
When anarchy is always right, anything even remotely resembling order is always wrong.

Hardly. There is a world of difference between disciplining a child and Stalin's Russia. Both are forms of order, but the aren't both virtuous.

801 to 850 of 2,076 << first < prev | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Government folly All Messageboards