US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9067

On October 27 2017 01:37 IgnE wrote:


uh what about 4

in any case citing 1, 2, and 5 without irony or qualification deserves a pause

On October 27 2017 00:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:


Really? As a self-defined leftist, I don't really give a crap about 2,3 and 4 there. individual liberty is incredibly important (a good part of why I'm a leftist is that I think a significantly greater degree of equality is a requirement for liberty to be possible). Civic virtue and morality I also think are very important - but I feel my definition of both differ significantly from the conservative definition.

importance of family from my perspective is in conflict with individual liberty, especially when coupled with the current incarnation of capitalism, because the wealth (& other capital) of the family you are born into is such a strong indicator of your personal success. national strength much the same, focus on competition between nations can negative for global cooperation which is important for the lowest rungs of global society, and raising them is a requirement for improving their individual liberty.

Not only has liberty nothing to do with any other sort of equality + Show Spoiler +, but it is even bound to produce inequality in many respects. This is the necessary result and part of the justification of individual liberty: if the result of individual liberty did not demonstrate that some manners of living are more successful than others, much of the case for it would vanish.

If there was one thing the Revolutionary generation agreed on — and those guys who dress up like them at Tea Party conventions most definitely do not — it was the incompatibility of democracy and inherited wealth.

With Thomas Jefferson taking the lead in the Virginia legislature in 1777, every Revolutionary state government abolished the laws of primogeniture and entail that had served to perpetuate the concentration of inherited property. Jefferson cited Adam Smith, the hero of free market capitalists everywhere, as the source of his conviction that (as Smith wrote, and Jefferson closely echoed in his own words), "A power to dispose of estates for ever is manifestly absurd. The earth and the fulness of it belongs to every generation, and the preceding one can have no right to bind it up from posterity. Such extension of property is quite unnatural." Smith said: "There is no point more difficult to account for than the right we conceive men to have to dispose of their goods after death."

The states left no doubt that in taking this step they were giving expression to a basic and widely shared philosophical belief that equality of citizenship was impossible in a nation where inequality of wealth remained the rule. North Carolina's 1784 statute explained that by keeping large estates together for succeeding generations, the old system had served "only to raise the wealth and importance of particular families and individuals, giving them an unequal and undue influence in a republic" and promoting "contention and injustice." Abolishing aristocratic forms of inheritance would by contrast "tend to promote that equality of property which is of the spirit and principle of a genuine republic."

Others wanted to go much further; Thomas Paine, like Smith and Jefferson, made much of the idea that landed property itself was an affront to the natural right of each generation to the usufruct of the earth, and proposed a "ground rent" — in fact an inheritance tax — on property at the time it is conveyed at death, with the money so collected to be distributed to all citizens at age 21, "as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property.

On October 27 2017 02:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
that's the thing. I actually think I could get behind 'real' capitalism if not for the whole 'but that's just gonna keep on increasing differences and create permanent class division'. 5% income taxes, 100% estate tax? I mean that probably doesn't add up and there'd have to be a way to not simply let people give away their money to their kids right before death, but in principle, I can see the appeal of that. Free market capitalism in every area and inherited wealth though? That's always going to be ridiculously unfair.

On October 27 2017 02:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
that's the thing. I actually think I could get behind 'real' capitalism if not for the whole 'but that's just gonna keep on increasing differences and create permanent class division'. 5% income taxes, 100% estate tax? I mean that probably doesn't add up and there'd have to be a way to not simply let people give away their money to their kids right before death, but in principle, I can see the appeal of that. Free market capitalism in every area and inherited wealth though? That's always going to be ridiculously unfair.

On October 27 2017 00:53 ChristianS wrote:

I mean, things are a bit vague and meaningless with high-level "values" like this, but I don't think the left cares about family (at least in the sense conservatives mean) and they're often quite hostile to capitalism.

That's an interesting list though. If those are what conservatives care about, why would they choose Trump as their champion? He doesn't seem to give a shit about individual liberty, he's an insult to family values, represents capitalism only in its ugliest, most dystopian sense, and is almost completely amoral in his philosophy. The only one on that list he's big on is national strength, making him more a nationalist than a conservative.

Some #NeverTrump-type conservatives insist he isn't a real conservative, but they seem to be a tiny minority. If those five things are what conservatives care about, in what sense is he even on their side?

On October 27 2017 03:07 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Danglars, I can see it from your perspective. But try to look at it from another. How can individuals realize their potential if they are born into abject poverty in a dysfunctional family and without decent education offered? I get that if you strictly look at children born to stable upper middle class families then you can interpret those children as being in competition with one other and that their success derives from their talent and hard work, and that you want to reward both. But surely you agree that many (I don't care what percentage) never really have a chance to realize their personal potential because of the hopelessness of their birth lottery? Don't you agree that some degree of wealth redistribution from the top rungs of society (already have enough to realize their potential and will continue having enough even if they are 10% less wealthy) to the bottom layers can increase individual liberty for society as a whole because it gives more children the chance to accomplish great deeds through the fruits derived from their talents and hard work?

I do get that there's an element of personal liberty endowed to parents as well with regard to how they should choose to raise their children (although I virtually always value the right of the child above the right of the parent). But I think it's possible to allow children to benefit from having great parents without dooming the children of lousy parents - however, I don't see how that is possible without some degree of government redistribution, especially through making public education competitive with private education.

On October 27 2017 03:37 Danglars wrote:

I want good schools and good opportunities. I want a society that rewards functional families. I see your programs as aimed at increasing dysfunctional families (society as a whole is responsible for your children, you're less needed) and the poor (society is responsible for giving you a leg up). You and I may argue over what minor level of assistance is appropriate.

That having been said, the best chance to thrive despite birth lottery is availability of education and a level playing field (your daddy isn't connected in government so you can't get the waivers for making your business). Schools get the kids for a great deal of the day, and I want strong teachers to show their individual hard work and success will be rewarded. Not punished because the government raises a progressive income tax to punish the more successful in society. Because they owe it, or something. I can't join with you beyond locally administered food assistance, education (and high school choice), and CPS funded by government.

I see high rates of taxation as hurting business growth/economic growth meaning Liquid'Drone's policies doom the children of lousy parents ... by ensuring job creation is lower and they're competing for fewer opportunities against the advantaged. You want to earn that extra dollar, invest in your business, hire low-skilled employees looking to make a living and advance? Sorry, government policy has made it the lifter of those in poverty and not market forces, so you'll only keep 55 cents of that dollar despite all your business success, and that's all you'll have available to grow your business and invest in others to grow. I think America has gone too far to your end of the spectrum (high rates of taxation, high and growing rates of government spending), which already has hurt economic growth and social mobility. I'll add that our education system is the real doom of the poor, with piss-poor results and entrenched interests not focused on educational achievement.

I see your system as creating more invisible victims than my preference.