|
How about cutting spending and bring the basic tax back until we are nto swimming in debt then talk about cutting them?
What spending to you cut? Liberals won't budge on cleaning up waste in social spending (far more money goes to sustaining the bureaucracy than to the targeted recipients). Conservatives won't budge on military spending. Apparently none of them will budge on earmarks or their own salaries/pensions.
I believe this was in the OP.
Please be CIVIL!
Sorry, lost the meat of the quote. You can look at history (even just the history of this nation) and see that raising taxes during a recession never helps economic recovery. Hasn't happened once here. Bush 41's tax increase actually triggered the recession that caused Perot to jump in in 92 and siphon votes away, allowing Clinton to win with a mere 43% of the vote. Clinton's tax increase didn't help when the internet bubble burst and we slipped into a recession in his last year in office. Bush's tax cuts, for better or worse, were followed by 50 some off months of steady economic growth and 4.6% unemployment, that is, until '06 when Dems took over, Pelosi started flapping her gums and investors ran scared. It still amazes me how the economy turned on a dime almost to the day the "Class of '06" was sworn in. And how the status of the Bush cuts has more or less paralyzed investment (in a time when the recession allegedly "ended" some time in the summer of '09 - funny how that is so, considering unemployment hasn't moved much, we're still losing private sector jobs, and investment is anemic).
How would you describe the years before the internet bubble burst, then? Economic growth or just false hope? Cuz we were doing pretty well during those years. I would also argue that there were other factors involved in the growth following Bush's tax cuts, but I don't have any evidence to cite for this other than a feeling and memories of what was going on in Brooklyn and NY at the time. I would also argue that it wasn't Pelosi's gum flapping that scared off investors so much as the individuals that supported said investors leaving office as there was a lot of cooperation(I would not be so gauche as to say collusion) between investors and politicos at the time. I'm not saying you're wrong, per se, in fact you have a lot of good points in the above(yeah, I remember '06...a little TOO well)- but there's more to it than what you said, I think.
How about cutting spending and bring the basic tax back until we are nto swimming in debt then talk about cutting them?What spending to you cut? Liberals won't budge on cleaning up waste in social spending (far more money goes to sustaining the bureaucracy than to the targeted recipients). Conservatives won't budge on military spending. Apparently none of them will budge on earmarks or their own salaries/pensions.
Why is it that we can only agree on the depressing things?
|
Lets see....America is embracing every failed socialist policy that Europe is quickly abandoning for its collective survival. Take a good look at Europe to see were socialism can take a nation. I don't expect the hard core socialist, communists and America haters to agree with me. So for all you red, white and blue Americans who are a little right or left of center be proud of your country, its the best in the world!Except in education (18th), life expectancy (49th behind most of those evil socialist countries in Europe, btw), law abiding (as you're first for people in prison)... I could go on but what do I know? I'm part of Europe where even our right wing parties would get called soailist in the US by ignorant people who have no idea what the term means.
+1 Have you ever lived abroad ?
|
|
Plenty of countries have a decent minimum wage.The U.S. has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world.
Huh ?
out of Curiosity : How much exactly ?
The top end is 35%, but the U.S. taxes gross income, not net, like most European nations do, so the comparison is even more stark. Furthermore, Europe allows for more deductions on capital gains, therefore avoiding quite a bit of the disincentive to invest that the American system creates, particularly in poor economic climates where investors get very jumpy when they think government is actively working against them (like, say, the last two years).
The top end is 35%, but the U.S. taxes gross income, not net, like most European nations do, so the comparison is even more stark. Furthermore, Europe allows for more deductions on capital gains, therefore avoiding quite a bit of the disincentive to invest that the American system creates, particularly in poor economic climates where investors get very jumpy when they think government is actively working against them (like, say, the last two years).Plenty of countries have a decent minimum wage.The U.S. has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world.
Huh ?
out of Curiosity : How much exactly ?
Would you prefer a switch to net? I've heard as much before from some folks. I would also counter the last part with the fears myself and many others have had with respect to the role the business/investors play in government.
|
|
Would you prefer a switch to net? I've heard as much before from some folks. I would also counter the last part with the fears myself and many others have had with respect to the role the business/investors play in government.The top end is 35%, but the U.S. taxes gross income, not net, like most European nations do, so the comparison is even more stark. Furthermore, Europe allows for more deductions on capital gains, therefore avoiding quite a bit of the disincentive to invest that the American system creates, particularly in poor economic climates where investors get very jumpy when they think government is actively working against them (like, say, the last two years).Plenty of countries have a decent minimum wage.The U.S. has some of the highest corporate taxes in the world.
Huh ?
out of Curiosity : How much exactly ?
Well, the separation of store and state should be as solid as the separation of church and state, imo. Business shouldn't be influencing government because there shouldn't be that much government interfering with business (beyond a "play fair" patina of laws). If you insist on having government stick its nose in every aspect of business, you have to allow for the higher level of government corruption and favoritism that comes with it. Government is naturally corrupt, which is why the F.F.s tried so hard to limit its power. But then Progressives came along and decided government is everything (and, again, people who want to argue what "progressive" means in politics need to understand there was a whole, historical, Progressive Movement that does a nice job of defining the term). Of course, they existed to counter a completely different collusion between government and business and the inherent corruption that came from government getting involved.
And, yes, I'd prefer a switch to net. Quite a few times taxing gross prevents a net from happening (thereby continuing government's ability to only stifle private sector growth, not promote it).
It is strange to me that a combination of fear and religion can make the majority of people vote against their own best interest.
Bingo, though I'd personally include a healthy dose of ignorance. It's funny how everyone has an opinion on the economy, for example. The U.S. is a nation of closet economists!
"I think _______ isn't doing enough on jobs. The stimulus ___________."
Really?
What's wrong with a consumption tax that excludes, say, medicine, non-prepared food, and rent/mortgage (at least up to a ceilng)? That would provide a strong incentive to save and invest, and those that consume more would pay more. I'm no conservative, but I'd embrace that in a heartbeat.
|
|
What's wrong with a consumption tax that excludes, say, medicine, non-prepared food, and rent/mortgage (at least up to a ceilng)? That would provide a strong incentive to save and invest, and those that consume more would pay more. I'm no conservative, but I'd embrace that in a heartbeat.
The problem is (and this is sort of a VAT) what tax does this replace? In Europe it didn't replace any tax, it is just another tax added to the rest.
|
How about cutting spending and bring the basic tax back until we are not swimming in debt then talk about cutting them?What spending to you cut? Liberals won't budge on cleaning up waste in social spending (far more money goes to sustaining the bureaucracy than to the targeted recipients). Conservatives won't budge on military spending. Apparently none of them will budge on earmarks or their own salaries/pensions.
Personally, I say all three; But hey, that's just me.
The problem is (and this is sort of a VAT) what tax does this replace? In Europe it didn't replace any tax, it is just another tax added to the rest.
I didn't know that -- all I really know about VAT is what the acronym stands for -- you've given me something to read.
As for what it would replace -- income tax and capital gains tax. That's the whole point, right? I'm curious; if we set the rent/mortgage exemption @ 200% of the median for a state/region/whatever, what would the % have to look like to keep revenue in line with what we've got today?
We also have to cut spending. ALL spending. Personally, the education cuts would be hardest for me, but the longer we wait the worse it's going to get.
How about cutting spending and bring the basic tax back until we are not swimming in debt then talk about cutting them?
Yes, please. Notice neither major party in the U.S. is seriously proposing this -- they mostly disagree on how high up the income ladder the tax cuts should extend.
|
|
The problem is (and this is sort of a VAT) what tax does this replace? In Europe it didn't replace any tax, it is just another tax added to the rest.I didn't know that -- all I really know about VAT is what the acronym stands for -- you've given me something to read.
As for what it would replace -- income tax and capital gains tax. That's the whole point, right? I'm curious; if we set the rent/mortgage exemption @ 200% of the median for a state/region/whatever, what would the % have to look like to keep revenue in line with what we've got today?
We also have to cut spending. ALL spending. Personally, the education cuts would be hardest for me, but the longer we wait the worse it's going to get.
see education is about the one area, and maybe Law enforcement, that I feel should not be cut. Maybe specific stupid earmarks under those headings.
see education is about the one area, and maybe Law enforcement, that I feel should not be cut. Maybe specific stupid earmarks under those headings.
I agree that cutting education would be a mistake. Presumably, however, others feel just as strongly about not cutting something else. If we can't reach consensus (which sure looks to be the case), then cutting everything beats insolvency.
|
|
see education is about the one area, and maybe Law enforcement, that I feel should not be cut. Maybe specific stupid earmarks under those headings.I agree that cutting education would be a mistake. Presumably, however, others feel just as strongly about not cutting something else. If we can't reach consensus (which sure looks to be the case), then cutting everything beats insolvency.
Or we give up and put a "benevolent" dictator into power to fix all this silliness.
Or we give up and put a "benevolent" dictator into power to fix all this silliness.
Unfortunately, (and I'm sure you know this), even if we could somehow guarantee a benevolent dictator, the very mechanisms that allow him/her to exercise power are bound to be abused in the future. :/
|
|
The problem is (and this is sort of a VAT) what tax does this replace? In Europe it didn't replace any tax, it is just another tax added to the rest.I didn't know that -- all I really know about VAT is what the acronym stands for -- you've given me something to read.
As for what it would replace -- income tax and capital gains tax. That's the whole point, right? I'm curious; if we set the rent/mortgage exemption @ 200% of the median for a state/region/whatever, what would the % have to look like to keep revenue in line with what we've got today?
We also have to cut spending. ALL spending. Personally, the education cuts would be hardest for me, but the longer we wait the worse it's going to get.
I would love a 100% consumer tax (along with the Constitutionally outlined duties, tariffs and excise taxes), get rid of the income and capital gains tax (especially since capital gains is a double dip tax).
And we could save a TON of money in education just by eliminating much of the bureaucracy and getting rid of public sector unions (who only exist to extort the taxpayer, imo).
I think eliminating the GSA would go far in cutting down costs. When I was in UNICOR the GSA price for just about EVERYTHING was a little to much higher than just going to the local strip mall for the same thing.
There are several things that could be done to cut down costs without reducing the actual benefits people get by even a dime, but waste is a sacred cow in government, apparently...
How about cutting spending and bring the basic tax back until we are not swimming in debt then talk about cutting them?Yes, please. Notice neither major party in the U.S. is seriously proposing this -- they mostly disagree on how high up the income ladder the tax cuts should extend.
I don't think taxes should go up. Why would anyone trust DC with more tax dollars and more power when they have done such an abysmal job of managing what they have already taken away from us? This is what mystifies me about progressives; it seems that no matter how badly the government screws anything up the solution is always to give more power to the government.
I don't think taxes should go up. Why would anyone trust DC with more tax dollars and more power when they have done such an abysmal job of managing what they have already taken away from us? This is what mystifies me about progressives; it seems that no matter how badly the government screws anything up the solution is always to give more power to the government.
First of all, taxes shouldn't go up -- the temporary tax cuts should be allowed to expire (though this is largely a question of semantics -- for both sides).
Second, I don't want the government to have more power. On the contrary, with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts should come a balanced budget amendment with TEETH (with a nice kicker that Congress gets a salary of $0 for any year with a deficit), and a mandated, across-the-board spending cuts (which will have the effect of shrinking government, not enlarging it). Once the deficit is gone, the debt should be attacked. Once the debt is gone, then taxes should be cut.
As far as cutting taxes == higher revenue, I agree there is a point at which this happens, but I remained unconvinced that we're anywhere close to that point.
I don't think taxes should go up. Why would anyone trust DC with more tax dollars and more power when they have done such an abysmal job of managing what they have already taken away from us? This is what mystifies me about progressives; it seems that no matter how badly the government screws anything up the solution is always to give more power to the government.First of all, taxes shouldn't go up -- the temporary tax cuts should be allowed to expire (though this is largely a question of semantics -- for both sides).
Second, I don't want the government to have more power. On the contrary, with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts should come a balanced budget amendment with TEETH (with a nice kicker that Congress gets a salary of $0 for any year with a deficit), and a mandated, across-the-board spending cuts (which will have the effect of shrinking government, not enlarging it). Once the deficit is gone, the debt should be attacked. Once the debt is gone, then taxes should be cut.
As far as cutting taxes == higher revenue, I agree there is a point at which this happens, but I remained unconvinced that we're anywhere close to that point.
First of all, I don't tend to think of you as a progressive, but semantics aside, the tax rates would go up and exemptions would go down.
Second if the government has more of our money and we have less of it then I would argue that they have taken part of our power away. Progressives seem to think that this is a good thing.
The notion of increasing taxes and cutting taxes to balance the budget would be a perfectly reasonable approach if congress and the US Government were not entirely dysfunctional. Congress seems to be a lot like a crack whore. If you give them money to fix a problem it just winds up going to feed their addiction. Now you have less money, and they are no less addicted.
EDIT: I apologize to crack whore for comparing you to congress.
The boards ate my last post. Dammit.
I agree that war and violence aren't the right solution for just about anything short of a goal of escalation. However, I don't think patriotisim is as bad as you make it out to be. You're doing it right now by freely discussing this with me.It's so easy to do, it's hard to realize you're doing it at times. Just keep thinking freely and doing what you think is good and I will continue considering it to be patriotic. :D
It just doesn't have anything to do with this or any other country in my mind, so I have trouble seeing ordinary things we should expect of everyone like liberal universalism, anti-racism, a commitment to reason and empiricism, a willingness to admit when wrong and correct oneself, and so forth as patriotic. I still think they're quite good values, even when I'm not demonstrating them, but that they might improve a nation's quality is accidental.
I definitely don't see myself as patriotic in either the popular or dictionary definitions of the term. I don't love America. (More often the opposite.) I don't particularly support it. I get a bit nauseated when I see a bunch of flags flying.
Are you just saying that you have a special definition of patriotism that embraces any kind of support of bettering society, on the grounds that such would presumptively lead to better nations too?
First of all, I don't tend to think of you as a progressive, but semantics aside, the tax rates would go up and exemptions would go down.
Second if the government has more of our money and we have less of it then I would argue that they have taken part of our power away. Progressives seem to think that this is a good thing.
The notion of increasing taxes and cutting taxes to balance the budget would be a perfectly reasonable approach if congress and the US Government were not entirely dysfunctional. Congress seems to be a lot like a crack whore. If you give them money to fix a problem it just winds up going to feed their addiction. Now you have less money, and they are no less addicted.
EDIT: I apologize to crack whore for comparing you to congress.
Strangely, I do tend to think of myself as progressive, or at least I frequently identify with those often labeled progressive. However, I am firmly of the opinion that we must kill the deficit and the debt as quickly as possible -- but that just seems like common sense to me, whichever side of the aisle you're on.
First of all, I don't tend to think of you as a progressive, but semantics aside, the tax rates would go up and exemptions would go down.
Second if the government has more of our money and we have less of it then I would argue that they have taken part of our power away. Progressives seem to think that this is a good thing.
The notion of increasing taxes and cutting taxes to balance the budget would be a perfectly reasonable approach if congress and the US Government were not entirely dysfunctional. Congress seems to be a lot like a crack whore. If you give them money to fix a problem it just winds up going to feed their addiction. Now you have less money, and they are no less addicted.
EDIT: I apologize to crack whore for comparing you to congress.
Strangely, I do tend to think of myself as progressive, or at least I frequently identify with those often labeled progressive. However, I am firmly of the opinion that we must kill the deficit and the debt as quickly as possible -- but that just seems like common sense to me, whichever side of the aisle you're on.
I agree on the debt. I still think the national debt is an existential threat to the republic, but even if tax rates doubled congress would find a way to waste any additional funds they got their hands on.
F*ck it. I'm so damned tired of all this impotent political h*rseh*t getting flung back and forth. It solves nothing. It accomplishes nothing but spreading virulent negativity and resentment. Isn't there enough places on the Internet for this type of crap with tainted this place too?!
If the trolls get to run free and poison it all, maybe it's time to just let them have it.
|
|
F*ck it. I'm so damned tired of all this impotent political h*rseh*t getting flung back and forth. It solves nothing. It accomplishes nothing but spreading virulent negativity and resentment. Isn't there enough places on the Internet for this type of crap with tainted this place too?!
If the trolls get to run free and poison it all, maybe it's time to just let them have it.
Whoa, whoa, WHOA! This one has been fairly civil so far! :P
|
|
Or we give up and put a "benevolent" dictator into power to fix all this silliness.Unfortunately, (and I'm sure you know this), even if we could somehow guarantee a benevolent dictator, the very mechanisms that allow him/her to exercise power are bound to be abused in the future. :/
I am sorry it was my sad attempt at dry humor. Sigh
|
|
Whoa, whoa, WHOA! This one has been fairly civil so far! :PF*ck it. I'm so damned tired of all this impotent political h*rseh*t getting flung back and forth. It solves nothing. It accomplishes nothing but spreading virulent negativity and resentment. Isn't there enough places on the Internet for this type of crap with tainted this place too?!
If the trolls get to run free and poison it all, maybe it's time to just let them have it.
Or rather it has become civil, it started poorly and looked to be going downhill quick but has since leveled off.
Whoa, whoa, WHOA! This one has been fairly civil so far! :PF*ck it. I'm so damned tired of all this impotent political h*rseh*t getting flung back and forth. It solves nothing. It accomplishes nothing but spreading virulent negativity and resentment. Isn't there enough places on the Internet for this type of crap with tainted this place too?!
If the trolls get to run free and poison it all, maybe it's time to just let them have it.
Yeah, we've been good to each other! I had and continue to have high hopes for this thread. Perhaps we can all agree upon some things while agreeing to disagree on others.
The problem is (and this is sort of a VAT) what tax does this replace? In Europe it didn't replace any tax, it is just another tax added to the rest.I didn't know that -- all I really know about VAT is what the acronym stands for -- you've given me something to read.
As for what it would replace -- income tax and capital gains tax. That's the whole point, right? I'm curious; if we set the rent/mortgage exemption @ 200% of the median for a state/region/whatever, what would the % have to look like to keep revenue in line with what we've got today?
We also have to cut spending. ALL spending. Personally, the education cuts would be hardest for me, but the longer we wait the worse it's going to get.
I would love a 100% consumer tax (along with the Constitutionally outlined duties, tariffs and excise taxes), get rid of the income and capital gains tax (especially since capital gains is a double dip tax).
And we could save a TON of money in education just by eliminating much of the bureaucracy and getting rid of public sector unions (who only exist to extort the taxpayer, imo).
I think eliminating the GSA would go far in cutting down costs. When I was in UNICOR the GSA price for just about EVERYTHING was a little to much higher than just going to the local strip mall for the same thing.
There are several things that could be done to cut down costs without reducing the actual benefits people get by even a dime, but waste is a sacred cow in government, apparently...
Okay. More details on the consumer tax. Income tax I don't think we're going to see the end of, but I would consider joining forces with you to get rid of the capital gains tax in most situations.
The problem with eliminating educational bureaucracy is that that would be seen as an attack on jobs. Unfortunately, these people are employed, and perhaps should recieve better than a pink slip in the name of balancing the budget(especially in this time where unemployment is so high- it could easily be seen as increasing unemployment numbers). Getting rid of public sector unions, while interesting, also has its pitfalls- I am not in a union, but I technically(VERY technically) work for the city, and would enjoy the benefits of being in one. I think it would have to depend on the individual union as opposed to just geting rid of all of them. Also, what is the GSA?
I don't think taxes should go up. Why would anyone trust DC with more tax dollars and more power when they have done such an abysmal job of managing what they have already taken away from us? This is what mystifies me about progressives; it seems that no matter how badly the government screws anything up the solution is always to give more power to the government.First of all, taxes shouldn't go up -- the temporary tax cuts should be allowed to expire (though this is largely a question of semantics -- for both sides).
Second, I don't want the government to have more power. On the contrary, with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts should come a balanced budget amendment with TEETH (with a nice kicker that Congress gets a salary of $0 for any year with a deficit), and a mandated, across-the-board spending cuts (which will have the effect of shrinking government, not enlarging it). Once the deficit is gone, the debt should be attacked. Once the debt is gone, then taxes should be cut.
As far as cutting taxes == higher revenue, I agree there is a point at which this happens, but I remained unconvinced that we're anywhere close to that point.
I have to agree with the bug again. BT, what are your thoughts on the Bush Tax Cuts? I know you realize they were supposed to be temporary, but many people don't seem to.
I consider myself a liberal, so guess it wouldn't hurt to add my views here.
Broad tenets of my political views:
1. The purpose of society is to improve the lot of all those within it(as this improves the chances of our genes being carried onto the next generation). This purpose is intrinsic, and the result of the biological evolution of our species as social animals society.
2. All the available evidence points to the fact that we live in natural universe, with laws that can be understood.
3. Human Morality is an evolutionary construct, which promotes the first purpose of society. As such, Human morality is quantifiable function of society, and we are capable of understanding it in rational manner. As such we should build systems of ethics which reflect this. Utilitarianism is the best currently existing approach to such questions.
4. Science has a proven record of improving the lot of humans, as such its riggers should be applied to policy making. As such we should have a system of peer review for all public policy, and ensure that evidence, not ideology, guides the direction of policy making.
Specific Policies
Reduction of Income in equality:
The current balances of evidence suggests that in developed countries income inequality is a major cause of a whole range of social issues, from lower life expectancy to teenage pregnancy. Societies, with lower income inequality tend to suffer from these issues less.
As such, in the interest of following tenet 1 and 4, I believe we should work to reduce income inequality.
This is based upon the work of Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, seeHere for details of their work, and the evidence supporting it.
Neighbourhood effects and regulation as the mother of innovation:
We now face an ever increasing number of demonstrably Anthropogenic environmental problems, from acid rain to Anthropogenic Climate Change.
The potential suffering of inaction, far outways the potential suffering caused by action. As such action is justified under tenet 1, 2, 3 and 4.
Moreover, the available evidence points use towards a different course of action than that currently favoured. The current favoured approach is to use a market based approach, using emittions cap and trade, along the lines of that used to attempt to deal with acid rain. While such an approach has lead to a large decrease in emission, it has not been enough. Acid rain is still a major threat. Now, by including analysis and adjustment apparatus within the cap and trade frame work, it is possible that this could be over come, there is a strong positive reason to suggest regulation, with a fixed emissions standard, and close of date.
Regulation as the Mother of Innovation: The Case of SO2 Control.,makes the case that regulation very efficiently drives business to innovate it's way out of the problem. Such innovation may even end up saving the company money, as obsolete technology is replaced.
I have to agree with the bug again. BT, what are your thoughts on the Bush Tax Cuts? I know you realize they were supposed to be temporary, but many people don't seem to.I don't think taxes should go up. Why would anyone trust DC with more tax dollars and more power when they have done such an abysmal job of managing what they have already taken away from us? This is what mystifies me about progressives; it seems that no matter how badly the government screws anything up the solution is always to give more power to the government.First of all, taxes shouldn't go up -- the temporary tax cuts should be allowed to expire (though this is largely a question of semantics -- for both sides).
Second, I don't want the government to have more power. On the contrary, with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts should come a balanced budget amendment with TEETH (with a nice kicker that Congress gets a salary of $0 for any year with a deficit), and a mandated, across-the-board spending cuts (which will have the effect of shrinking government, not enlarging it). Once the deficit is gone, the debt should be attacked. Once the debt is gone, then taxes should be cut.
As far as cutting taxes == higher revenue, I agree there is a point at which this happens, but I remained unconvinced that we're anywhere close to that point.
I am fundamentally in favor of tax cuts for everyone for economic and political reasons. I don't care for what I see as some of the socialist elements of Bush's particular law. The earned income credit allows very low end earners to get a larger return than what they paid in, and I have no enthusiasm for government redistribution of wealth by force. I'm in favor of tax breaks for the rich, and the notion that allowing someone to keep more of the money that they earned is a "give away" or "welfare for the rich" infuriates me. These are fairly standard contrasting views regarding taxes.
I think the immense failing of the Bush administration (beyond Iraq) and the Republican legislature in particular was the utter failure to reduce the size, scope and invasiveness of the federal government. In fact the Republicans increased the size and power of government. I don't think bigger government and deeper debt help us. In fact I think they may destroy us.
If Americans want to continue down the road of our currently massive government we must either continue to borrow in the trillions every year which I think everyone agrees is unsustainable,or we have to raise taxes by trillions of dollars. I think that would cause immense harm to the economy.
If Americans want to have a balanced budget and lower taxes then we have to cut defense spending and make massive and real changes to entitlements.
Any of these actions are likely to be politically suicidal with moderate voters in particular, so we remain at a functional impasse.
I consider myself a liberal, so guess it wouldn't hurt to add my views here.
Broad tenets of my political views:
1. The purpose of society is to improve the lot of all those within it(as this improves the chances of our genes being carried onto the next generation). This purpose is intrinsic, and the result of the biological evolution of our species as social animals society.
2. All the available evidence points to the fact that we live in natural universe, with laws that can be understood.
3. Human Morality is an evolutionary construct, which promotes the first purpose of society. As such, Human morality is quantifiable function of society, and we are capable of understanding it in rational manner. As such we should build systems of ethics which reflect this. Utilitarianism is the best currently existing approach to such questions.
4. Science has a proven record of improving the lot of humans, as such its riggers should be applied to policy making. As such we should have a system of peer review for all public policy, and ensure that evidence, not ideology, guides the direction of policy making.
Specific Policies
Reduction of Income in equality:
The current balances of evidence suggests that in developed countries income inequality is a major cause of a whole range of social issues, from lower life expectancy to teenage pregnancy. Societies, with lower income inequality tend to suffer from these issues less.As such, in the interest of following tenet 1 and 4, I believe we should work to reduce income inequality.
This is based upon the work of Richard G. Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, seeHere for details of their work, and the evidence supporting it.
Neighbourhood effects and regulation as the mother of innovation:
We now face an ever increasing number of demonstrably Anthropogenic environmental problems, from acid rain to Anthropogenic Climate Change.
The potential suffering of inaction, far outways the potential...
In your utilitarian model are individual human rights granted by society?
|
Wealthy people tend to have children that become wealthy themselves (either through inheritance or by virtue of parents passing on the habits and strategies of success to their children).
Poor people, likewise, tend to have children who grow up to be poor (again due to parents passing on to their children habits and behaviors that prevent them from being financially successful, thus wealthy).
Taking wealthy away from the wealthy and giving it to the poor is a losing strategy because the poor do not have the necessary tools (habits, strategies, and behaviors) to be effective stewards of the wealth they are handed.
Therefore, the only effective solution for breaking the habits of poverty and instilling the behaviors of wealth-building is for the state to mandate that all children of poor families be removed at birth and raised by wealthy parents. This eliminates the need for state involvement in the redistribution of wealth because it will occur naturally. This is best for the children because it removes them from impoverished environments, which are both dangerous and unhealthy. This is best for the poor parents because it relieves them of the burden (and expense) of raising children in poverty.
-Skeld
In your utilitarian model are individual human rights granted by society?
Yes, society does grant individual rights, because for the most part not doing so cause great harm to those individuals, and the harm caused tends to outway the benefits. But the rights exist for a reason, not just bacause someone says so.
If you give me a bit of time i can write up what the human rights are within this system.
In your utilitarian model are individual human rights granted by society?Yes, society does grant individual rights, because for the most part not doing so cause great harm to those individuals, and the harm caused tends to outway the benefits. But the rights exist for a reason, not just bacause someone says so.
If you give me a bit of time i can write up what the human rights are within this system.
I'm familiar with the social contract model of human rights, but you're welcome to post or link what you would like. I see it as fairly foundational to the contrast between centralized government function and individual liberty.
I am a proponent of the self ownership model of rights, so we have fundamentally different world views for the purpose of society and the state.
Is it possible that both are correct and not purely in conflict?
That is to say, that a person inherently has rights in an ethical/idealistic sense, but in a practical/pragmatic sense those rights have to be granted/supported by the society in order to exist?
In your utilitarian model are individual human rights granted by society?Yes, society does grant individual rights, because for the most part not doing so cause great harm to those individuals, and the harm caused tends to outway the benefits. But the rights exist for a reason, not just bacause someone says so.
If you give me a bit of time i can write up what the human rights are within this system.
I'm familiar with the social contract model of human rights, but you're welcome to post or link what you would like. I see it as fairly foundational to the contrast between centralized government function and individual liberty.
I am a proponent of the self ownership model of rights, so we have fundamentally different world views for the purpose of society and the state.
Question: What is your evidence basis for holding to the self ownership model, and how do you explain the evolution of social behaviour and altruism, if not by the pathways described by socio-biology?
Is it possible that both are correct and not purely in conflict?
That is to say, that a person inherently has rights in an ethical/idealistic sense, but in a practical/pragmatic sense those rights have to be granted/supported by the society in order to exist?
Most people seem to think so, but I think that when we compromise fundamental human rights for expedience or social benefit we are basically accepting that fundamental human rights are allowed by society when they are convenient. I think this is a bad idea, but I am a tiny minority.
Is it possible that both are correct and not purely in conflict?
That is to say, that a person inherently has rights in an ethical/idealistic sense, but in a practical/pragmatic sense those rights have to be granted/supported by the society in order to exist?
The ethical/idealistic sense is still a social construct, something that one or more persons believes to be the case and reacts to.
If john's right to freedom of speech is curtailed, no party other than John, the transgresser of a member of a wider human society acts to interviene. rights can only exist where humans create and enforce them.
Most people seem to think so, but I think that when we compromise fundamental human rights for expedience or social benefit we are basically accepting that fundamental human rights are allowed by society when they are convenient. I think this is a bad idea, but I am a tiny minority.Is it possible that both are correct and not purely in conflict?
That is to say, that a person inherently has rights in an ethical/idealistic sense, but in a practical/pragmatic sense those rights have to be granted/supported by the society in order to exist?
Question: What makes them fundimental?
Can you demonstrate a way in which any 'fundimental right' exists, without humans creating it and enforcing.
Most people seem to think so, but I think that when we compromise fundamental human rights for expedience or social benefit we are basically accepting that fundamental human rights are allowed by society when they are convenient. I think this is a bad idea, but I am a tiny minority.Is it possible that both are correct and not purely in conflict?
That is to say, that a person inherently has rights in an ethical/idealistic sense, but in a practical/pragmatic sense those rights have to be granted/supported by the society in order to exist?
Question: What makes them fundimental?
Can you demonstrate a way in which any 'fundimental right' exists, without humans creating it and enforcing.
For me self ownership is the fundamental human right from which all others extend.
Not really, but I can't accept a model that maintains that rights are simply what society allows you to do either.
If Americans want to have a balanced budget and lower taxes then we have to cut defense spending and make massive and real changes to entitlements.
Any of these actions are likely to be politically suicidal with moderate voters in particular, so we remain at a functional impasse.
Exactly correct, though I'd add "...as we go over the cliff" to the end of what you said. :(
I fear the further we go down the current road, the less likely we'll be able to ever find a politically viable solution. In fact, I'm pretty well convinced we're already past the point of no return, though I hope I'm wrong.
I think setting social security's retirement age to (average US life expectancy -N), where N = whatever is needed to make SS solvent, would be a good start.
Anyone see something like that getting seriously proposed, let alone enacted?
Most people seem to think so, but I think that when we compromise fundamental human rights for expedience or social benefit we are basically accepting that fundamental human rights are allowed by society when they are convenient. I think this is a bad idea, but I am a tiny minority.Is it possible that both are correct and not purely in conflict?
That is to say, that a person inherently has rights in an ethical/idealistic sense, but in a practical/pragmatic sense those rights have to be granted/supported by the society in order to exist?
Question: What makes them fundimental?
Can you demonstrate a way in which any 'fundimental right' exists, without humans creating it and enforcing.
For me self ownership is the fundamental human right from which all others extend.
Not really, but I can't accept a model that maintains that rights are simply what society allows you to do either.
There are a lot of people who can't accept a lot of things, because they hold a belief in something else that they can provide no proof for the existence off.
I am afraid that doesn't make them right.
Even if these intrinsic right you believe exist do, I am afraid that the reality is that it is socially ascribed rights which govern your life. Because the intrinsic right you describe have no teeth. Extrinsic rights granted by society however do have teeth, because society backs them up.
There is a reason that the animal welfare movement has done considerable more good for animals than the Animal rights movement ever will, it is because they use an extrinsic rights frame work and evidence, to change the way people behave.
If Americans want to have a balanced budget and lower taxes then we have to cut defense spending and make massive and real changes to entitlements.
Any of these actions are likely to be politically suicidal with moderate voters in particular, so we remain at a functional impasse.
Exactly correct, though I'd add "...as we go over the cliff" to the end of what you said. :(
I fear the further we go down the current road, the less likely we'll be able to ever find a politically viable solution. In fact, I'm pretty well convinced we're already past the point of no return, though I hope I'm wrong.
I think setting social security's retirement age to (average US life expectancy -N), where N = whatever is needed to make SS solvent, would be a good start.
Anyone see something like that getting seriously proposed, let alone enacted?
Retirement age is certainly going to have to raise, all across the developed world. We are living longer, it's that simple.