EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 448
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 17 2013 12:46 sam!zdat wrote: yes we should seek to simplify bureaucracy wherever possible. Which is one of the advantages of minimum basic income over welfare. Sure. Welfare also outsources morality to the government (the government decides what's a 'good' and 'bad' purchase). | ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On September 17 2013 12:09 farvacola wrote: No one is idolizing "mindless dissent" On September 17 2013 02:08 sam!zdat wrote: Teach the little fuckers how to never stop asking questions and never trust anyone who gives them answers On September 17 2013 06:45 DoubleReed wrote: Unreasoned and stupid dissent is useful too, actually. It forces people to ask the question "Why do I believe what I believe?" which is the fundamental question of rationality. It is unreasonable to never stop asking questions and it is entirely unreasonable to trust no one who gives you the answers to those questions. It is unreasonable to think that simply challenging the basis of one's beliefs somehow leads to a better understanding of one's beliefs. It often does the exact opposite. and methinks you have a very odd take on education if you think that building a foundation requires nothing but swallowing. This is a complete misunderstanding of what I've said. I didn't say that children should not be taught different ideas, only that they should be taught fundamental truths, and that a foundation is necessary for rational questioning. Indoctrinating children into instinctively doubting any and every moral/philosophical/political claim won't lead to rational thought, but rather to apathy. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
No, doubt and skepticism don't mean you don't believe anything, it means you question something and don't take it at face value. And heck, what's wrong with doubting things? If the doubt has no reason, then you have nothing to fear. Are you that convinced your fragile little system is going to collapse if you start questioning its truth? Then let it go! | ||
|
Myrddraal
Australia937 Posts
On September 17 2013 12:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Capitalist perspective here: I don't think there's anything inherently inefficient with companies of any size being owned more broadly. Transaction costs used to make that an issue, but we have the inerwebs and mutual funds now. The only technical complaint I have with the idea is that profits are not the same thing is free cash flow that can easily go to owners. Also, there's usually a need for even the free cash flow to get invested into something else. So in other words, you probably wouldn't want it all to get used for consumption. The only other question would be how you go about the redistribution (OK, this is a big question). Farv posted a few pages back an article on "inclusive capitalism". You could also check out ideas like a guaranteed minimum income and wage subsidies. Yeah that is true, it would probably have to be a system similar to the current with shares and dividends, and I can imagine companies just reinvesting in order to avoid having to pay out dividends so perhaps there would have to be some kind of regulation in place to prevent that. As for the actual redistribution, something this big would be worked out between governments and large corporations, where the government would need to convince the corporations that it was in the best interests of everybody. Initially I was just thinking that the amount of shares would be doubled and half would be put under control of the government, but I can't see big businesses or stockholders agreeing to that since they would be essentially giving away half of what they would feel is rightfully theirs. I guess the only satisfaction that they could gain from it would be receiving a part ownership in other large corporations, but I'm sure to a big business owner that would be negligible. Perhaps the government would be able to sweeten the deal with some sort of tax cut on large corporations. I don't know, in my head it seems like it could solve a lot of problems, but I think the biggest block I have when trying to imagine how it would play out is, with the money spread out this thin, how much would it really be for the individual? Would it really be enough to really make a difference, or the opposite end of the spectrum, would it be too much such that nobody would be willing to perform low paying jobs?* *Alternatively, this could turn out to be a good thing, if nobody wants to perform low paying jobs, companies might have to increase the pay for jobs that currently nobody wants to do and don't pay well. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
your understanding of what I mean by 'question everything' is a caricature, I am as far from being anti foundationalist as it is possible to be in the academy today. My advisor thinks I am crazy because I told him I thought the church served an important social function which we are missing today. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 17 2013 12:53 sc2superfan101 wrote: It is unreasonable to never stop asking questions and it is entirely unreasonable to trust no one who gives you the answers to those questions. It is unreasonable to think that simply challenging the basis of one's beliefs somehow leads to a better understanding of one's beliefs. It often does the exact opposite. This is a complete misunderstanding of what I've said. I didn't say that children should not be taught different ideas, only that they should be taught fundamental truths, and that a foundation is necessary for rational questioning. Indoctrinating children into instinctively doubting any and every moral/philosophical/political claim won't lead to rational thought, but rather to apathy. As Augustine says in his Confessions, when losing faith in his young man's Manichaeism, "the notion began to grow in me that the philosophers whom they call Academics were wiser than the rest, because they held that everything should be treated as a matter of doubt, and affirmed that no truth can be understood by men" (Confessions. V. 10.). | ||
|
Myrddraal
Australia937 Posts
On September 17 2013 12:53 sc2superfan101 wrote: It is unreasonable to never stop asking questions and it is entirely unreasonable to trust no one who gives you the answers to those questions. It is unreasonable to think that simply challenging the basis of one's beliefs somehow leads to a better understanding of one's beliefs. It often does the exact opposite. If you stop asking questions you will stagnate. Asking questions about something doesn't mean you have to doubt it. This: "It is unreasonable to think that simply challenging the basis of one's beliefs somehow leads to a better understanding of one's beliefs. It often does the exact opposite." is strictly your opinion, I strongly disagree and found that challenging the basis my beliefs is by far the best if not only way to understand them, so please refrain from making statements about what is reasonable or unreasonable, it's really not your place or anyone's to make that definition for anyone but themself. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
WASHINGTON — A potential federal shutdown looming, President Barack Obama on Monday warned congressional Republicans they could trigger national "economic chaos" if they demand a delay of his health care law as the price for supporting continued spending for federal operations. House Republican leaders were to meet Tuesday in hopes of finding a formula that would avoid a shutdown on Oct. 1 without alienating party conservatives who insist on votes to undercut the Affordable Care Act. Even more daunting is a mid- to late-October deadline for raising the nation's borrowing limit, which some Republicans also want to use as leverage against the Obama administration. "Are some of these folks really so beholden to one extreme wing of their party that they're willing to tank the entire economy just because they can't get their way on this issue?" Obama said in a speech at the White House. "Are they really willing to hurt people just to score political points?" The Republicans don't see it that way. House Speaker John Boehner, who opposes the threat of a shutdown, said, "It's a shame that the president could not manage to rise above partisanship today." Obama, said Boehner, "should be working in a bipartisan way to address America's spending problem, the way presidents of both parties have done before," and should delay implementation of the health care law. While some conservatives supported by the tea party have been making shutdown threats, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky said Monday that was "a dumb idea." At a community meeting in Louisville, he said, "We should fight for what we believe in and then maybe we find something in between the two. ... I am for the debate, I am for fighting. I don't want to shut the government down, though. I think that's a bad solution." Source | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 17 2013 13:04 sam!zdat wrote: screw your fundamental truths. I'm hardly a postmodernist but I want to teach kids how to think about the question of fundamental truth for themselves not just lay it out for them. You just wanna quash their independent thought like the good catholic you are. your understanding of what I mean by 'question everything' is a caricature, I am as far from being anti foundationalist as it is possible to be in the academy today. My advisor thinks I am crazy because I told him I thought the church served an important social function which we are missing today. I'm still waiting for your full explanation on the usefulness of organized religion point. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On September 17 2013 14:55 xDaunt wrote: I'm still waiting for your full explanation on the usefulness of organized religion point. ^^ | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 17 2013 16:39 sam!zdat wrote: no no then somebody will accuse me of derailing the thread and it will be all 'naughty naughty sam' I thought derailing the thread with arcane hyperboles was your principal role? New feudalism. Corporations are stalinists. Question everything or we're not a democracy. I can hardly think your views on religion in modern society could be any different or worse. I mean aside from the preservation of ancient traditions like marriage, that is. Can't well trust godless atheists with that. | ||
|
Rollin
Australia1552 Posts
On September 17 2013 12:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote: I'd rather raise sales taxes (on non essentials), also institute a carbon tax and abolish wage taxes (FICA). No comment on the rest, I'm getting exhausted! Glad to see some area of agreement  Edit: Sales taxes are pretty cool because you can nab criminal and foreign tourist income. You'd also nab domestic wage and capital income, but the elimination of FICA could net it out for the wages. Edit 2: My real concern with taxing the rich is that they do all the saving and investing ('job creators'). So if you tax the shit out of them I want something to replace their saving and investing, meaning the middle and lower class will have to pick up the slack somehow. If you take away progressive income tax and instead only have sales tax and similar schemes, the rich will end up spending a much lower amount on tax per dollar earned than the poor. It's the major failing of a sales tax, the more money you earn, proportionally the less you spend on goods and services and the more you invest (hence 'avoiding' the tax). If this happened it would probably be the worst thing for wealth distribution in the history of every democratic country. I love the idea of a fairer system, where people are rewarded based on how hard they work, not how lucky they are. The problem I have with welfare payments is that it encourages people to sponge off others, which is terrible for everyone (even their wellbeing!). So in practice, there probably isn't a proper fair and equitable system, so I just accept what we have now because it at least seems to work in Australia, even if it doesn't seem to go so well for the rest of the world :/. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
People who invest do not produce annything with the investment, they only give capital,yet they get a huge income from it. This income and purchase power has to come from somewhere in the end and it can only come from thoose people who work and do produce things. It are not the jobless people who are lazy and leaching on the system, it are the big capital investors who do so. | ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5775 Posts
http://www.columbia.edu/~wk2110/bin/estate_nyu.pdf | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
On September 17 2013 12:05 sc2superfan101 wrote: And where has it been shown that the question itself is what is important and not the eventual answer? Why do I believe what I believe? If I am to trust no answer and believe nothing said by anyone then asking that question is useless. I believe because I want to believe. And what then? A self-examination? What does that self-examination bring other than confusion or apathy? This is the problem with this idolization of mindless dissent. It creates nothing but confusion for the average person. They are told to question everything and believe nothing and so they reject even trying. They perceive the world of politics and economics as a realm too murky for them to understand and cast everything in that light. By asking for more dissent you have created a society filled with much less true dissent because the majority of the population is so apathetic and disillusioned with the process that they could care less about changing the process or truly protesting against it. They are much more easily controlled by demagogues and cheap slogans, I'll give you that. But if your goal is to create an analytical population, then asking for mindless, irrational, cheap dissent only serves to create a far more obedient subject. They will obey the first person who comes along offering cheap, easy solutions because they know nothing else. A person who has no firm ground to stand upon should not attempt to run, so why would you ask a person with no strong moral foundation to leap into making examinations about their lives and society? Forge within your citizens a strong moral and philosophical foundation, and then allow them to ask the questions they want to ask, not force them to ask the questions you want to ask. Where could you possibly get the impression that I'm idolizing mindless dissent??? I said seemingly stupid (and bigoted) questions can actually raise one's awareness and understanding of their own beliefs. It is one of the major positives of free speech. I'm actually surprised that you disagree with this. It makes me think you have a strong anti-intellectual streak in you. I have no idea why you think I'm telling you to trust nothing and believe in nothing. That's only true if you don't have any good reasons to believe what you believe. Do you believe because you want to believe? Is that accurate? Is that why you think the holocaust happened? Because you want it to have happened? You seem to not really like critical thinking while demanding it of others. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 17 2013 18:24 Rollin wrote: If you take away progressive income tax and instead only have sales tax and similar schemes, the rich will end up spending a much lower amount on tax per dollar earned than the poor. It's the major failing of a sales tax, the more money you earn, proportionally the less you spend on goods and services and the more you invest (hence 'avoiding' the tax). If this happened it would probably be the worst thing for wealth distribution in the history of every democratic country. I love the idea of a fairer system, where people are rewarded based on how hard they work, not how lucky they are. The problem I have with welfare payments is that it encourages people to sponge off others, which is terrible for everyone (even their wellbeing!). So in practice, there probably isn't a proper fair and equitable system, so I just accept what we have now because it at least seems to work in Australia, even if it doesn't seem to go so well for the rest of the world :/. Income tax is not FICA. FICA isn't progressive. FICA Tax On September 17 2013 19:06 Rassy wrote: Income from investing is one of the more pervert things of the system. People who invest do not produce annything with the investment, they only give capital,yet they get a huge income from it. This income and purchase power has to come from somewhere in the end and it can only come from thoose people who work and do produce things. It are not the jobless people who are lazy and leaching on the system, it are the big capital investors who do so. If you are just providing capital you aren't going to get a high rate of return on your money. If you have a lot of it it'll add up to a big income, sure, but typically people get that big income by earning big labor incomes (some will inherit their parent's labor derived wealth). Anyways, I don't know how you are going to organize capital without putting a price on it. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
banks though functionally create money by lending, so they do have some power to extract rent with enough volume | ||
| ||
