US Politics Mega-thread - Page 9181

On November 09 2017 03:00 Adreme wrote:


You don't have to wait, we had an assault weapons ban for years, if they are "reintroducing" it then its those exact same weapons.

On November 09 2017 04:27 GreenHorizons wrote:
I mean I know the interest of citizens is not even on the top 10 of reasons this would happen, but I'd be perfectly fine if the message was "News media shouldn't be mouthpieces of supercorps".

On November 09 2017 04:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Someone is taking last night well...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/928325667556548608

On November 09 2017 03:44 mozoku wrote:

Because taxes are based on percentages?

If you want to stay counting taxes by absolute dollar amounts contributions stratified by income, your position gets immensely weaker so I don't know why you're even going there.

The guy making $10M per year generally makes many times the economic contribution than the guy making $10k. Given that, why should the guy making $10M pay more in taxes? The cost to the government of support to each is probably comparable. Why are we charging the people who make us rich more money to live here, when their cost to us is the same?

The answer is that a progressive tax has little philosophical justification if you acknowledge that someone should pay his what he costs to his/her government and no more.

Granted, there are plenty of utilitarian reasons to argue for a progressive tax system (which is why we have one), but the moral argument that's typically invoked in politics (and is being bandied about here) is intellectually bankrupt from a moral perspective. Unless you're willing to argue that you're morally entitled to essentially steal/shakedown high earners people to increase your own happiness.

You can sort of try to sidestep this reality by assuming a "fair" tax system is one that's based on percentages. Which is the default assumption in our society (probably because of what's above), though I've never heard a compelling moral or philosophical argument for why that is.

On November 09 2017 04:08 Danglars wrote:

More like exact same easy classifications of features, rather than weapons. They’d be fools to go through with this.

On November 09 2017 04:43 GreenHorizons wrote:


Everything about Trump's new twitter banner creeps me out.

On November 09 2017 05:05 kollin wrote:

Utilitarianism IS a moral argument. But beside that, saying that taxation is 'essentially' stealing is breathtakingly ignorant of the relationship between individuals and society.

On November 09 2017 05:33 Plansix wrote:
I don’t see a lot of point with new guns laws restricting fire arms when the current gun laws are barely enforced. Democrats should just double down on enforcing existing guns laws and funding agencies that are supposed to maintain data bases. Considering domestic violence is such a common factor in these mass shootings: an outstanding charge or conviction a reason to be denied a gun seems like a perfect solution.

On November 09 2017 05:39 mozoku wrote:

Absolute utilitarianism is also a thoroughly and nearly universally rejected moral system, so I'm not sure what your point is except to be annoyingly anal.

I said taxation beyond an individual's cost to the government is morally unjustifiable without invoking (to clarify, some degree of) utilitarianism. There's nothing unreasonable or ignorant about that. To make utilitarian calculations with someone else's money necessarily means you're imposing your values onto them. Granted, this can be justified but it can only rationally and morally be justified when consciously weighed against the value of the infringement on their values/agency as an individual.

Of course, as a Democratic politician, it make sense to ignore all that and brainwash your base into believing that the rich have somehow cheated you to get their money and that you're actually entitled to it as much of it as you want. Notice there's no moral consideration even involved in the process. It's a political/electoral consideration in the interest of the politician. Much as the same as "white nationalism" is for a faction of the GOP, and just as morally/intellectually bankrupt.

On November 09 2017 05:55 Wulfey_LA wrote:


I can't see how you increase enforcement without some kind of legislation. And whatever increased enforcement is almost certainly going to have law changes. EDIT: look I also think increased enforcement is the way to go, but I don't think splitting that line is actually viable at a political sales level.