US Politics Mega-thread - Page 448

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.

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.

and methinks you have a very odd take on education if you think that building a foundation requires nothing but swallowing.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

On September 17 2013 14:55 xDaunt wrote:

I'm still waiting for your full explanation on the usefulness of organized religion point.

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'

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.

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.

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 :/.

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.