|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 14 2020 08:39 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2020 08:24 KwarK wrote:On November 14 2020 08:17 Wegandi wrote:On November 14 2020 08:01 WarSame wrote:
The good news (for Canada) is that we have an extremely promising opportunity to get tons of really highly skilled immigrants. Every cloud has a silver lining.
Though I agree with you Wegandi, I fear governments getting too much power. I think in general you should be fairly libertarian(left or right) but during emergencies(wars, pandemics, droughts) you should be willing to become more centralized and authoritarian for pragmatic reasons. The issue is that it's hard to unroll the authoritarianism. I would love to see a President come in and work on lowering their powers, devolving them back to Congress, remove the power from EOs, etc.
I can buy in with you on the centralization of power and the personal liberty part of libertarianism. I just can't buy the raw market approach libertarians seem to believe must happen. Voucher schools could be very useful, but libertarians seem to be so against things like UBI for principle reasons when that just shouldn't be the case. The problem with UBI just like with Georgism is in practice - they're meant to get rid of the welfare bureaucracy and reduce overall welfare spending (and in the case of Georgism significantly reduce taxation burden), but that never happens. What happens is it just adds to the existing structure and piles on more redistribution and disincentive for productive work. Plus how can you disentangle the idea of a centralized powerful State and then give it enormous economic power? The USSR would have been no less authoritarian if it kept the Gosplan, but had high marks for civil liberties. They kind of go together in practice, never mind the logical and moral implications where our liberties originate from - from self-propriety/ownership. From there you get Lockean homesteading, contracts, notion of what is just or unjust concerning trade and property, etc. There's no logic to the folks who are for civil rights, but want centralized State authority over your entire sphere of life (and yes, economics is that - it is our time, our labor, our dreams and bodily action). You say I can't trade because I don't have a permit - that's an imposition on my body, or you take 60% of my income (basically 60% of my time and thus of my working life that has been stolen from me). Your rate of pay within a society doesn’t represent your productivity in a vacuum. Losing 60% of that number doesn’t mean losing 60% of your intrinsic worth. The number is a product of the system in which taxes are taken out. Without the taxes the number would be different. My number is surprisingly high but I wouldn’t claim that I was worth that in a vacuum. It is only in this narrow time period of stability, centralized military spending, arbitrary labor restrictions, and spreadsheets that I come into my own. Viewing your payrate as your value in a vacuum is naive beyond belief. Only a child could believe such an absurdity. The government isn’t taking 60% of the mushrooms I forage or the firewood I collect, it’s taking 60% of a number of imaginary paper that is completely divorced from any rational measure of labour or productivity. Who is talking about productivity and intrinsic worth (something that doesn't exist by the way - didn't you have to take economics with accounting? Jevons, Walras, Menger, you know, subjective theory of value)? Your 2nd paragraph is a huge strawman and is really a non-sequitur to my point. View it in time then - you work an 8 hour day and they take 60% of that time (your pay). Really, I am just using any arbitrary #. Tax and liberty are antithetical. It's why there was no income tax in the US until 1913 and the Government mostly funded itself through use-fee's and tariffs (all things considered - considerably less authoritarian than property and income taxes).
Yes, we all dream of those halcyon days of 1912, when women couldn't vote, child labor was legal, the Irish were persecuted, a husband raping his wife was legal, wife beating was legal, phrenology was treated as a real science, workers were regularly bombed by their employers or the government, the triangle shirtwaist fire could occur, and the most common method of lights at night was whale oil. You know, those days of real freedom.
|
Northern Ireland26763 Posts
On November 14 2020 08:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2020 08:31 WombaT wrote:On November 14 2020 08:24 KwarK wrote:On November 14 2020 08:17 Wegandi wrote:On November 14 2020 08:01 WarSame wrote:
The good news (for Canada) is that we have an extremely promising opportunity to get tons of really highly skilled immigrants. Every cloud has a silver lining.
Though I agree with you Wegandi, I fear governments getting too much power. I think in general you should be fairly libertarian(left or right) but during emergencies(wars, pandemics, droughts) you should be willing to become more centralized and authoritarian for pragmatic reasons. The issue is that it's hard to unroll the authoritarianism. I would love to see a President come in and work on lowering their powers, devolving them back to Congress, remove the power from EOs, etc.
I can buy in with you on the centralization of power and the personal liberty part of libertarianism. I just can't buy the raw market approach libertarians seem to believe must happen. Voucher schools could be very useful, but libertarians seem to be so against things like UBI for principle reasons when that just shouldn't be the case. The problem with UBI just like with Georgism is in practice - they're meant to get rid of the welfare bureaucracy and reduce overall welfare spending (and in the case of Georgism significantly reduce taxation burden), but that never happens. What happens is it just adds to the existing structure and piles on more redistribution and disincentive for productive work. Plus how can you disentangle the idea of a centralized powerful State and then give it enormous economic power? The USSR would have been no less authoritarian if it kept the Gosplan, but had high marks for civil liberties. They kind of go together in practice, never mind the logical and moral implications where our liberties originate from - from self-propriety/ownership. From there you get Lockean homesteading, contracts, notion of what is just or unjust concerning trade and property, etc. There's no logic to the folks who are for civil rights, but want centralized State authority over your entire sphere of life (and yes, economics is that - it is our time, our labor, our dreams and bodily action). You say I can't trade because I don't have a permit - that's an imposition on my body, or you take 60% of my income (basically 60% of my time and thus of my working life that has been stolen from me). Your rate of pay within a society doesn’t represent your productivity in a vacuum. Losing 60% of that number doesn’t mean losing 60% of your intrinsic worth. The number is a product of the system in which taxes are taken out. Without the taxes the number would be different. My number is surprisingly high but I wouldn’t claim that I was worth that in a vacuum. It is only in this narrow time period of stability, centralized military spending, arbitrary labor restrictions, and spreadsheets that I come into my own. Viewing your payrate as your value in a vacuum is naive beyond belief. Only a child could believe such an absurdity. Kwark while I find you a valuable contributor to society and my general browsing existence I do agree with your assessment you aren’t worth what you’re remunerated with. Coincidentally I feel somewhat undervalued in that metric so what you say we split the difference? Undervalued relative to what? What number on an app on a phone made by children representing a quantity of paper that is in turn representing an idea created by a central bank do you feel best quantities the value you bring into the world? Now consider a coffee bean harvester in Africa who gets a far, far lower number than you due to factors that neither you nor him really understand. What is the correct value of you and him? And denominated in what? How many bushels of grain should you each get? The whole system is so far beyond any rational quantification that any attempt to do so quickly devolves into the absurd. And that’s the point I’m making here, that saying 60% of a made up number is too high is nonsensical because the 60% is produced of the same incomprehensible and unjustifiable system as the number it is applied to.
Well no I agree, hence the absurd suggestion. Sorry, sensible suggestion.
|
United States43969 Posts
On November 14 2020 08:39 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2020 08:24 KwarK wrote:On November 14 2020 08:17 Wegandi wrote:On November 14 2020 08:01 WarSame wrote:
The good news (for Canada) is that we have an extremely promising opportunity to get tons of really highly skilled immigrants. Every cloud has a silver lining.
Though I agree with you Wegandi, I fear governments getting too much power. I think in general you should be fairly libertarian(left or right) but during emergencies(wars, pandemics, droughts) you should be willing to become more centralized and authoritarian for pragmatic reasons. The issue is that it's hard to unroll the authoritarianism. I would love to see a President come in and work on lowering their powers, devolving them back to Congress, remove the power from EOs, etc.
I can buy in with you on the centralization of power and the personal liberty part of libertarianism. I just can't buy the raw market approach libertarians seem to believe must happen. Voucher schools could be very useful, but libertarians seem to be so against things like UBI for principle reasons when that just shouldn't be the case. The problem with UBI just like with Georgism is in practice - they're meant to get rid of the welfare bureaucracy and reduce overall welfare spending (and in the case of Georgism significantly reduce taxation burden), but that never happens. What happens is it just adds to the existing structure and piles on more redistribution and disincentive for productive work. Plus how can you disentangle the idea of a centralized powerful State and then give it enormous economic power? The USSR would have been no less authoritarian if it kept the Gosplan, but had high marks for civil liberties. They kind of go together in practice, never mind the logical and moral implications where our liberties originate from - from self-propriety/ownership. From there you get Lockean homesteading, contracts, notion of what is just or unjust concerning trade and property, etc. There's no logic to the folks who are for civil rights, but want centralized State authority over your entire sphere of life (and yes, economics is that - it is our time, our labor, our dreams and bodily action). You say I can't trade because I don't have a permit - that's an imposition on my body, or you take 60% of my income (basically 60% of my time and thus of my working life that has been stolen from me). Your rate of pay within a society doesn’t represent your productivity in a vacuum. Losing 60% of that number doesn’t mean losing 60% of your intrinsic worth. The number is a product of the system in which taxes are taken out. Without the taxes the number would be different. My number is surprisingly high but I wouldn’t claim that I was worth that in a vacuum. It is only in this narrow time period of stability, centralized military spending, arbitrary labor restrictions, and spreadsheets that I come into my own. Viewing your payrate as your value in a vacuum is naive beyond belief. Only a child could believe such an absurdity. The government isn’t taking 60% of the mushrooms I forage or the firewood I collect, it’s taking 60% of a number of imaginary paper that is completely divorced from any rational measure of labour or productivity. Who is talking about productivity and intrinsic worth (something that doesn't exist by the way - didn't you have to take economics with accounting? Jevons, Walras, Menger, you know, subjective theory of value)? Your 2nd paragraph is a huge strawman and is really a non-sequitur to my point. View it in time then - you work an 8 hour day and they take 60% of that time (your pay). Really, I am just using any arbitrary #. Tax and liberty are antithetical. It's why there was no income tax in the US until 1913 and the Government mostly funded itself through use-fee's and tariffs (all things considered - considerably less authoritarian than property and income taxes).
Again, you’re missing the point. You can’t split it up into working the first five hours of the day for the taxman and the remaining three for yourself, the concept betrays the childish misunderstanding that I mentioned before that treats them as distinct and separable activities. They are not. The three hours for yourself only exists as an arbitrary division within the context of a society built on the five hours for the taxman. Hell, dollars as a currency only have value because the government insists on payment in them. You can’t break it down into separate components because it’s inseparable. Remove the government and it’s due from the day and the remainder you’re identifying as your own cannot be quantified.
You’re taking the childish idea of “if I spend 10 hours picking mushrooms and the government takes 60% of them then really I spent 6 hours picking mushrooms for the government” and trying to apply it to the labour economy as a whole. It doesn’t work like that which is why we don’t let children set tax policy.
|
On November 14 2020 08:49 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2020 08:39 Wegandi wrote:On November 14 2020 08:24 KwarK wrote:On November 14 2020 08:17 Wegandi wrote:On November 14 2020 08:01 WarSame wrote:
The good news (for Canada) is that we have an extremely promising opportunity to get tons of really highly skilled immigrants. Every cloud has a silver lining.
Though I agree with you Wegandi, I fear governments getting too much power. I think in general you should be fairly libertarian(left or right) but during emergencies(wars, pandemics, droughts) you should be willing to become more centralized and authoritarian for pragmatic reasons. The issue is that it's hard to unroll the authoritarianism. I would love to see a President come in and work on lowering their powers, devolving them back to Congress, remove the power from EOs, etc.
I can buy in with you on the centralization of power and the personal liberty part of libertarianism. I just can't buy the raw market approach libertarians seem to believe must happen. Voucher schools could be very useful, but libertarians seem to be so against things like UBI for principle reasons when that just shouldn't be the case. The problem with UBI just like with Georgism is in practice - they're meant to get rid of the welfare bureaucracy and reduce overall welfare spending (and in the case of Georgism significantly reduce taxation burden), but that never happens. What happens is it just adds to the existing structure and piles on more redistribution and disincentive for productive work. Plus how can you disentangle the idea of a centralized powerful State and then give it enormous economic power? The USSR would have been no less authoritarian if it kept the Gosplan, but had high marks for civil liberties. They kind of go together in practice, never mind the logical and moral implications where our liberties originate from - from self-propriety/ownership. From there you get Lockean homesteading, contracts, notion of what is just or unjust concerning trade and property, etc. There's no logic to the folks who are for civil rights, but want centralized State authority over your entire sphere of life (and yes, economics is that - it is our time, our labor, our dreams and bodily action). You say I can't trade because I don't have a permit - that's an imposition on my body, or you take 60% of my income (basically 60% of my time and thus of my working life that has been stolen from me). Your rate of pay within a society doesn’t represent your productivity in a vacuum. Losing 60% of that number doesn’t mean losing 60% of your intrinsic worth. The number is a product of the system in which taxes are taken out. Without the taxes the number would be different. My number is surprisingly high but I wouldn’t claim that I was worth that in a vacuum. It is only in this narrow time period of stability, centralized military spending, arbitrary labor restrictions, and spreadsheets that I come into my own. Viewing your payrate as your value in a vacuum is naive beyond belief. Only a child could believe such an absurdity. The government isn’t taking 60% of the mushrooms I forage or the firewood I collect, it’s taking 60% of a number of imaginary paper that is completely divorced from any rational measure of labour or productivity. Who is talking about productivity and intrinsic worth (something that doesn't exist by the way - didn't you have to take economics with accounting? Jevons, Walras, Menger, you know, subjective theory of value)? Your 2nd paragraph is a huge strawman and is really a non-sequitur to my point. View it in time then - you work an 8 hour day and they take 60% of that time (your pay). Really, I am just using any arbitrary #. Tax and liberty are antithetical. It's why there was no income tax in the US until 1913 and the Government mostly funded itself through use-fee's and tariffs (all things considered - considerably less authoritarian than property and income taxes). Yes, we all dream of those halcyon days of 1912, when women couldn't vote, child labor was legal, the Irish were persecuted, a husband raping his wife was legal, wife beating was legal, phrenology was treated as a real science, workers were regularly bombed by their employers or the government, the triangle shirtwaist fire could occur, and the most common method of lights at night was whale oil. You know, those days of real freedom.
Why are you listing completely unrelated things in reply to a statement about taxation?
|
On November 14 2020 08:39 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2020 08:24 KwarK wrote:On November 14 2020 08:17 Wegandi wrote:On November 14 2020 08:01 WarSame wrote:
The good news (for Canada) is that we have an extremely promising opportunity to get tons of really highly skilled immigrants. Every cloud has a silver lining.
Though I agree with you Wegandi, I fear governments getting too much power. I think in general you should be fairly libertarian(left or right) but during emergencies(wars, pandemics, droughts) you should be willing to become more centralized and authoritarian for pragmatic reasons. The issue is that it's hard to unroll the authoritarianism. I would love to see a President come in and work on lowering their powers, devolving them back to Congress, remove the power from EOs, etc.
I can buy in with you on the centralization of power and the personal liberty part of libertarianism. I just can't buy the raw market approach libertarians seem to believe must happen. Voucher schools could be very useful, but libertarians seem to be so against things like UBI for principle reasons when that just shouldn't be the case. The problem with UBI just like with Georgism is in practice - they're meant to get rid of the welfare bureaucracy and reduce overall welfare spending (and in the case of Georgism significantly reduce taxation burden), but that never happens. What happens is it just adds to the existing structure and piles on more redistribution and disincentive for productive work. Plus how can you disentangle the idea of a centralized powerful State and then give it enormous economic power? The USSR would have been no less authoritarian if it kept the Gosplan, but had high marks for civil liberties. They kind of go together in practice, never mind the logical and moral implications where our liberties originate from - from self-propriety/ownership. From there you get Lockean homesteading, contracts, notion of what is just or unjust concerning trade and property, etc. There's no logic to the folks who are for civil rights, but want centralized State authority over your entire sphere of life (and yes, economics is that - it is our time, our labor, our dreams and bodily action). You say I can't trade because I don't have a permit - that's an imposition on my body, or you take 60% of my income (basically 60% of my time and thus of my working life that has been stolen from me). Your rate of pay within a society doesn’t represent your productivity in a vacuum. Losing 60% of that number doesn’t mean losing 60% of your intrinsic worth. The number is a product of the system in which taxes are taken out. Without the taxes the number would be different. My number is surprisingly high but I wouldn’t claim that I was worth that in a vacuum. It is only in this narrow time period of stability, centralized military spending, arbitrary labor restrictions, and spreadsheets that I come into my own. Viewing your payrate as your value in a vacuum is naive beyond belief. Only a child could believe such an absurdity. The government isn’t taking 60% of the mushrooms I forage or the firewood I collect, it’s taking 60% of a number of imaginary paper that is completely divorced from any rational measure of labour or productivity. Who is talking about productivity and intrinsic worth (something that doesn't exist by the way - didn't you have to take economics with accounting? Jevons, Walras, Menger, you know, subjective theory of value)? Your 2nd paragraph is a huge strawman and is really a non-sequitur to my point. View it in time then - you work an 8 hour day and they take 60% of that time (your pay). Really, I am just using any arbitrary #. Tax and liberty are antithetical. It's why there was no income tax in the US until 1913 and the Government mostly funded itself through use-fee's and tariffs (all things considered - considerably less authoritarian than property and income taxes).
You are trying too hard to simplify the world into easily digested tidbits. Nothing is nearly as simple as you keep trying to describe. This is a common failing of libertarian thinking. By trying to paint so much of the world in simple black, easily understood bits, you are missing the nuance and complexity that actually makes the world function. A lot of what you are saying are just buzz phrases like "tax and liberty are antithetical", which, again, is extremely lacking in nuance. You shouldn't expect anything you boil down to such simple terms to be a good representation of reality.
|
On November 14 2020 07:18 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2020 07:08 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On November 14 2020 07:01 Mohdoo wrote:
The government needs to be specifically targeting thanksgiving. They need to be yelling from towers "PLEASE JUST SKIP THANKSGIVING THIS YEAR" Yeah about that...The goverment is holding a mass welcome dinner for the new house members + Show Spoiler + Pelosi continues to be a embarrassing Karen
Shouldn't Biden shut it down? Just say "as the leader of the party, nah".
|
On November 14 2020 08:59 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2020 08:49 Nevuk wrote:On November 14 2020 08:39 Wegandi wrote:On November 14 2020 08:24 KwarK wrote:On November 14 2020 08:17 Wegandi wrote:On November 14 2020 08:01 WarSame wrote:
The good news (for Canada) is that we have an extremely promising opportunity to get tons of really highly skilled immigrants. Every cloud has a silver lining.
Though I agree with you Wegandi, I fear governments getting too much power. I think in general you should be fairly libertarian(left or right) but during emergencies(wars, pandemics, droughts) you should be willing to become more centralized and authoritarian for pragmatic reasons. The issue is that it's hard to unroll the authoritarianism. I would love to see a President come in and work on lowering their powers, devolving them back to Congress, remove the power from EOs, etc.
I can buy in with you on the centralization of power and the personal liberty part of libertarianism. I just can't buy the raw market approach libertarians seem to believe must happen. Voucher schools could be very useful, but libertarians seem to be so against things like UBI for principle reasons when that just shouldn't be the case. The problem with UBI just like with Georgism is in practice - they're meant to get rid of the welfare bureaucracy and reduce overall welfare spending (and in the case of Georgism significantly reduce taxation burden), but that never happens. What happens is it just adds to the existing structure and piles on more redistribution and disincentive for productive work. Plus how can you disentangle the idea of a centralized powerful State and then give it enormous economic power? The USSR would have been no less authoritarian if it kept the Gosplan, but had high marks for civil liberties. They kind of go together in practice, never mind the logical and moral implications where our liberties originate from - from self-propriety/ownership. From there you get Lockean homesteading, contracts, notion of what is just or unjust concerning trade and property, etc. There's no logic to the folks who are for civil rights, but want centralized State authority over your entire sphere of life (and yes, economics is that - it is our time, our labor, our dreams and bodily action). You say I can't trade because I don't have a permit - that's an imposition on my body, or you take 60% of my income (basically 60% of my time and thus of my working life that has been stolen from me). Your rate of pay within a society doesn’t represent your productivity in a vacuum. Losing 60% of that number doesn’t mean losing 60% of your intrinsic worth. The number is a product of the system in which taxes are taken out. Without the taxes the number would be different. My number is surprisingly high but I wouldn’t claim that I was worth that in a vacuum. It is only in this narrow time period of stability, centralized military spending, arbitrary labor restrictions, and spreadsheets that I come into my own. Viewing your payrate as your value in a vacuum is naive beyond belief. Only a child could believe such an absurdity. The government isn’t taking 60% of the mushrooms I forage or the firewood I collect, it’s taking 60% of a number of imaginary paper that is completely divorced from any rational measure of labour or productivity. Who is talking about productivity and intrinsic worth (something that doesn't exist by the way - didn't you have to take economics with accounting? Jevons, Walras, Menger, you know, subjective theory of value)? Your 2nd paragraph is a huge strawman and is really a non-sequitur to my point. View it in time then - you work an 8 hour day and they take 60% of that time (your pay). Really, I am just using any arbitrary #. Tax and liberty are antithetical. It's why there was no income tax in the US until 1913 and the Government mostly funded itself through use-fee's and tariffs (all things considered - considerably less authoritarian than property and income taxes). Yes, we all dream of those halcyon days of 1912, when women couldn't vote, child labor was legal, the Irish were persecuted, a husband raping his wife was legal, wife beating was legal, phrenology was treated as a real science, workers were regularly bombed by their employers or the government, the triangle shirtwaist fire could occur, and the most common method of lights at night was whale oil. You know, those days of real freedom. Why are you listing completely unrelated things in reply to a statement about taxation?
Everything Nevuk said is directly responsive to Wegandi’s pointing to the historical moment of the passage of the federal income tax, sterilized, one dimensional historical references are libertarian bread and butter after all
|
On November 14 2020 06:47 Mohdoo wrote:Oregon is back on lockdown starting the 18th, thank god. Amazingly stupidly, churches can have up to 25 people in person at a time, despite the fact that many churches are doing just fine using zoom. Super frustrating. https://www.kgw.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/oregon-governor-kate-brown-new-covid-19-measures-announcement/Show nested quote +Limiting faith based organizations to a maximum of 25 people indoors or 50 people outdoors.
Limiting restaurants and bars to take-out only.
Closing gyms and fitness organizations.
Closing indoor recreational facilities, museums, indoor entertainment activities, and indoor pools and sports courts.
Closing outdoor recreational facilities, zoos, gardens, aquariums, outdoor entertainment activities, and outdoor pools.
Limiting grocery stores and pharmacies to a maximum of 75% capacity and encouraging curbside pick-up.
Limiting retail stores and retail malls (indoor and outdoor) to a maximum of 75% capacity and encouraging curbside pick-up.
Closing venues (that host or facilitate indoor or outdoor events).
Requiring all businesses to mandate work-from-home to the greatest extent possible and closing offices to the public.
Prohibiting indoor visiting in long-term care facilities.
I praise your state's competent leadership. In the last month the daily cases in my county has triples and is the highest it's ever been and continues growing at a staggering rate. Response? We can't afford another shutdown and need to learn from what's happening and take it seriously. Despite learning and taking it seriously being "shut down again stupid."
|
On November 14 2020 09:23 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2020 06:47 Mohdoo wrote:Oregon is back on lockdown starting the 18th, thank god. Amazingly stupidly, churches can have up to 25 people in person at a time, despite the fact that many churches are doing just fine using zoom. Super frustrating. https://www.kgw.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/oregon-governor-kate-brown-new-covid-19-measures-announcement/Limiting faith based organizations to a maximum of 25 people indoors or 50 people outdoors.
Limiting restaurants and bars to take-out only.
Closing gyms and fitness organizations.
Closing indoor recreational facilities, museums, indoor entertainment activities, and indoor pools and sports courts.
Closing outdoor recreational facilities, zoos, gardens, aquariums, outdoor entertainment activities, and outdoor pools.
Limiting grocery stores and pharmacies to a maximum of 75% capacity and encouraging curbside pick-up.
Limiting retail stores and retail malls (indoor and outdoor) to a maximum of 75% capacity and encouraging curbside pick-up.
Closing venues (that host or facilitate indoor or outdoor events).
Requiring all businesses to mandate work-from-home to the greatest extent possible and closing offices to the public.
Prohibiting indoor visiting in long-term care facilities. I praise your state's competent leadership. In the last month the daily cases in my county has triples and is the highest it's ever been and continues growing at a staggering rate. Response? We can't afford another shutdown and need to learn from what's happening and take it seriously. Despite learning and taking it seriously being "shut down again stupid."
Any area with open bars and restaurants is gonna just continue surging. You can't have Karens laughing like goblins over brunch without cases rising. Everything where you can be masked 100% of the time and stay distant should remain open. Everything that requires ever taking off your mask should be closed.
|
On November 14 2020 09:17 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2020 08:59 Sent. wrote:On November 14 2020 08:49 Nevuk wrote:On November 14 2020 08:39 Wegandi wrote:On November 14 2020 08:24 KwarK wrote:On November 14 2020 08:17 Wegandi wrote:On November 14 2020 08:01 WarSame wrote:
The good news (for Canada) is that we have an extremely promising opportunity to get tons of really highly skilled immigrants. Every cloud has a silver lining.
Though I agree with you Wegandi, I fear governments getting too much power. I think in general you should be fairly libertarian(left or right) but during emergencies(wars, pandemics, droughts) you should be willing to become more centralized and authoritarian for pragmatic reasons. The issue is that it's hard to unroll the authoritarianism. I would love to see a President come in and work on lowering their powers, devolving them back to Congress, remove the power from EOs, etc.
I can buy in with you on the centralization of power and the personal liberty part of libertarianism. I just can't buy the raw market approach libertarians seem to believe must happen. Voucher schools could be very useful, but libertarians seem to be so against things like UBI for principle reasons when that just shouldn't be the case. The problem with UBI just like with Georgism is in practice - they're meant to get rid of the welfare bureaucracy and reduce overall welfare spending (and in the case of Georgism significantly reduce taxation burden), but that never happens. What happens is it just adds to the existing structure and piles on more redistribution and disincentive for productive work. Plus how can you disentangle the idea of a centralized powerful State and then give it enormous economic power? The USSR would have been no less authoritarian if it kept the Gosplan, but had high marks for civil liberties. They kind of go together in practice, never mind the logical and moral implications where our liberties originate from - from self-propriety/ownership. From there you get Lockean homesteading, contracts, notion of what is just or unjust concerning trade and property, etc. There's no logic to the folks who are for civil rights, but want centralized State authority over your entire sphere of life (and yes, economics is that - it is our time, our labor, our dreams and bodily action). You say I can't trade because I don't have a permit - that's an imposition on my body, or you take 60% of my income (basically 60% of my time and thus of my working life that has been stolen from me). Your rate of pay within a society doesn’t represent your productivity in a vacuum. Losing 60% of that number doesn’t mean losing 60% of your intrinsic worth. The number is a product of the system in which taxes are taken out. Without the taxes the number would be different. My number is surprisingly high but I wouldn’t claim that I was worth that in a vacuum. It is only in this narrow time period of stability, centralized military spending, arbitrary labor restrictions, and spreadsheets that I come into my own. Viewing your payrate as your value in a vacuum is naive beyond belief. Only a child could believe such an absurdity. The government isn’t taking 60% of the mushrooms I forage or the firewood I collect, it’s taking 60% of a number of imaginary paper that is completely divorced from any rational measure of labour or productivity. Who is talking about productivity and intrinsic worth (something that doesn't exist by the way - didn't you have to take economics with accounting? Jevons, Walras, Menger, you know, subjective theory of value)? Your 2nd paragraph is a huge strawman and is really a non-sequitur to my point. View it in time then - you work an 8 hour day and they take 60% of that time (your pay). Really, I am just using any arbitrary #. Tax and liberty are antithetical. It's why there was no income tax in the US until 1913 and the Government mostly funded itself through use-fee's and tariffs (all things considered - considerably less authoritarian than property and income taxes). Yes, we all dream of those halcyon days of 1912, when women couldn't vote, child labor was legal, the Irish were persecuted, a husband raping his wife was legal, wife beating was legal, phrenology was treated as a real science, workers were regularly bombed by their employers or the government, the triangle shirtwaist fire could occur, and the most common method of lights at night was whale oil. You know, those days of real freedom. Why are you listing completely unrelated things in reply to a statement about taxation? Everything Nevuk said is directly responsive to Wegandi’s pointing to the historical moment of the passage of the federal income tax, sterilized, one dimensional historical references are libertarian bread and butter after all
What's the point of countering those references with unrelated historical facts? It's like saying abortion is bad because nazis and communists made it legal. Why not just say the government gained a lot of new responsibilities since 1912 and the income tax is a fair way to pay for those?
|
On November 14 2020 09:51 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2020 09:17 farvacola wrote:On November 14 2020 08:59 Sent. wrote:On November 14 2020 08:49 Nevuk wrote:On November 14 2020 08:39 Wegandi wrote:On November 14 2020 08:24 KwarK wrote:On November 14 2020 08:17 Wegandi wrote:On November 14 2020 08:01 WarSame wrote:
The good news (for Canada) is that we have an extremely promising opportunity to get tons of really highly skilled immigrants. Every cloud has a silver lining.
Though I agree with you Wegandi, I fear governments getting too much power. I think in general you should be fairly libertarian(left or right) but during emergencies(wars, pandemics, droughts) you should be willing to become more centralized and authoritarian for pragmatic reasons. The issue is that it's hard to unroll the authoritarianism. I would love to see a President come in and work on lowering their powers, devolving them back to Congress, remove the power from EOs, etc.
I can buy in with you on the centralization of power and the personal liberty part of libertarianism. I just can't buy the raw market approach libertarians seem to believe must happen. Voucher schools could be very useful, but libertarians seem to be so against things like UBI for principle reasons when that just shouldn't be the case. The problem with UBI just like with Georgism is in practice - they're meant to get rid of the welfare bureaucracy and reduce overall welfare spending (and in the case of Georgism significantly reduce taxation burden), but that never happens. What happens is it just adds to the existing structure and piles on more redistribution and disincentive for productive work. Plus how can you disentangle the idea of a centralized powerful State and then give it enormous economic power? The USSR would have been no less authoritarian if it kept the Gosplan, but had high marks for civil liberties. They kind of go together in practice, never mind the logical and moral implications where our liberties originate from - from self-propriety/ownership. From there you get Lockean homesteading, contracts, notion of what is just or unjust concerning trade and property, etc. There's no logic to the folks who are for civil rights, but want centralized State authority over your entire sphere of life (and yes, economics is that - it is our time, our labor, our dreams and bodily action). You say I can't trade because I don't have a permit - that's an imposition on my body, or you take 60% of my income (basically 60% of my time and thus of my working life that has been stolen from me). Your rate of pay within a society doesn’t represent your productivity in a vacuum. Losing 60% of that number doesn’t mean losing 60% of your intrinsic worth. The number is a product of the system in which taxes are taken out. Without the taxes the number would be different. My number is surprisingly high but I wouldn’t claim that I was worth that in a vacuum. It is only in this narrow time period of stability, centralized military spending, arbitrary labor restrictions, and spreadsheets that I come into my own. Viewing your payrate as your value in a vacuum is naive beyond belief. Only a child could believe such an absurdity. The government isn’t taking 60% of the mushrooms I forage or the firewood I collect, it’s taking 60% of a number of imaginary paper that is completely divorced from any rational measure of labour or productivity. Who is talking about productivity and intrinsic worth (something that doesn't exist by the way - didn't you have to take economics with accounting? Jevons, Walras, Menger, you know, subjective theory of value)? Your 2nd paragraph is a huge strawman and is really a non-sequitur to my point. View it in time then - you work an 8 hour day and they take 60% of that time (your pay). Really, I am just using any arbitrary #. Tax and liberty are antithetical. It's why there was no income tax in the US until 1913 and the Government mostly funded itself through use-fee's and tariffs (all things considered - considerably less authoritarian than property and income taxes). Yes, we all dream of those halcyon days of 1912, when women couldn't vote, child labor was legal, the Irish were persecuted, a husband raping his wife was legal, wife beating was legal, phrenology was treated as a real science, workers were regularly bombed by their employers or the government, the triangle shirtwaist fire could occur, and the most common method of lights at night was whale oil. You know, those days of real freedom. Why are you listing completely unrelated things in reply to a statement about taxation? Everything Nevuk said is directly responsive to Wegandi’s pointing to the historical moment of the passage of the federal income tax, sterilized, one dimensional historical references are libertarian bread and butter after all What's the point of countering those references with unrelated historical facts? It's like saying abortion is bad because nazis and communists made it legal. Why not just say the government gained a lot of new responsibilities since 1912 and the income tax is a fair way to pay for those?
When the crux of an argument is the inherent value/ethics of a governing state, the overall topic of government is an appropriate response.
|
On November 14 2020 09:51 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2020 09:17 farvacola wrote:On November 14 2020 08:59 Sent. wrote:On November 14 2020 08:49 Nevuk wrote:On November 14 2020 08:39 Wegandi wrote:On November 14 2020 08:24 KwarK wrote:On November 14 2020 08:17 Wegandi wrote:On November 14 2020 08:01 WarSame wrote:
The good news (for Canada) is that we have an extremely promising opportunity to get tons of really highly skilled immigrants. Every cloud has a silver lining.
Though I agree with you Wegandi, I fear governments getting too much power. I think in general you should be fairly libertarian(left or right) but during emergencies(wars, pandemics, droughts) you should be willing to become more centralized and authoritarian for pragmatic reasons. The issue is that it's hard to unroll the authoritarianism. I would love to see a President come in and work on lowering their powers, devolving them back to Congress, remove the power from EOs, etc.
I can buy in with you on the centralization of power and the personal liberty part of libertarianism. I just can't buy the raw market approach libertarians seem to believe must happen. Voucher schools could be very useful, but libertarians seem to be so against things like UBI for principle reasons when that just shouldn't be the case. The problem with UBI just like with Georgism is in practice - they're meant to get rid of the welfare bureaucracy and reduce overall welfare spending (and in the case of Georgism significantly reduce taxation burden), but that never happens. What happens is it just adds to the existing structure and piles on more redistribution and disincentive for productive work. Plus how can you disentangle the idea of a centralized powerful State and then give it enormous economic power? The USSR would have been no less authoritarian if it kept the Gosplan, but had high marks for civil liberties. They kind of go together in practice, never mind the logical and moral implications where our liberties originate from - from self-propriety/ownership. From there you get Lockean homesteading, contracts, notion of what is just or unjust concerning trade and property, etc. There's no logic to the folks who are for civil rights, but want centralized State authority over your entire sphere of life (and yes, economics is that - it is our time, our labor, our dreams and bodily action). You say I can't trade because I don't have a permit - that's an imposition on my body, or you take 60% of my income (basically 60% of my time and thus of my working life that has been stolen from me). Your rate of pay within a society doesn’t represent your productivity in a vacuum. Losing 60% of that number doesn’t mean losing 60% of your intrinsic worth. The number is a product of the system in which taxes are taken out. Without the taxes the number would be different. My number is surprisingly high but I wouldn’t claim that I was worth that in a vacuum. It is only in this narrow time period of stability, centralized military spending, arbitrary labor restrictions, and spreadsheets that I come into my own. Viewing your payrate as your value in a vacuum is naive beyond belief. Only a child could believe such an absurdity. The government isn’t taking 60% of the mushrooms I forage or the firewood I collect, it’s taking 60% of a number of imaginary paper that is completely divorced from any rational measure of labour or productivity. Who is talking about productivity and intrinsic worth (something that doesn't exist by the way - didn't you have to take economics with accounting? Jevons, Walras, Menger, you know, subjective theory of value)? Your 2nd paragraph is a huge strawman and is really a non-sequitur to my point. View it in time then - you work an 8 hour day and they take 60% of that time (your pay). Really, I am just using any arbitrary #. Tax and liberty are antithetical. It's why there was no income tax in the US until 1913 and the Government mostly funded itself through use-fee's and tariffs (all things considered - considerably less authoritarian than property and income taxes). Yes, we all dream of those halcyon days of 1912, when women couldn't vote, child labor was legal, the Irish were persecuted, a husband raping his wife was legal, wife beating was legal, phrenology was treated as a real science, workers were regularly bombed by their employers or the government, the triangle shirtwaist fire could occur, and the most common method of lights at night was whale oil. You know, those days of real freedom. Why are you listing completely unrelated things in reply to a statement about taxation? Everything Nevuk said is directly responsive to Wegandi’s pointing to the historical moment of the passage of the federal income tax, sterilized, one dimensional historical references are libertarian bread and butter after all What's the point of countering those references with unrelated historical facts? It's like saying abortion is bad because nazis and communists made it legal. Why not just say the government gained a lot of new responsibilities since 1912 and the income tax is a fair way to pay for those?
Because Wegandi's argument is that income tax inherently reduces freedom. I just find that to fly in the face of all logic, considering freedoms in 1912 when no income tax existed were massively curtailed compared to now for all except a very narrow class of wealthy males.
(The whale oil was a little irrelevant, I guess?).
|
On November 14 2020 09:51 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2020 09:17 farvacola wrote:On November 14 2020 08:59 Sent. wrote:On November 14 2020 08:49 Nevuk wrote:On November 14 2020 08:39 Wegandi wrote:On November 14 2020 08:24 KwarK wrote:On November 14 2020 08:17 Wegandi wrote:On November 14 2020 08:01 WarSame wrote:
The good news (for Canada) is that we have an extremely promising opportunity to get tons of really highly skilled immigrants. Every cloud has a silver lining.
Though I agree with you Wegandi, I fear governments getting too much power. I think in general you should be fairly libertarian(left or right) but during emergencies(wars, pandemics, droughts) you should be willing to become more centralized and authoritarian for pragmatic reasons. The issue is that it's hard to unroll the authoritarianism. I would love to see a President come in and work on lowering their powers, devolving them back to Congress, remove the power from EOs, etc.
I can buy in with you on the centralization of power and the personal liberty part of libertarianism. I just can't buy the raw market approach libertarians seem to believe must happen. Voucher schools could be very useful, but libertarians seem to be so against things like UBI for principle reasons when that just shouldn't be the case. The problem with UBI just like with Georgism is in practice - they're meant to get rid of the welfare bureaucracy and reduce overall welfare spending (and in the case of Georgism significantly reduce taxation burden), but that never happens. What happens is it just adds to the existing structure and piles on more redistribution and disincentive for productive work. Plus how can you disentangle the idea of a centralized powerful State and then give it enormous economic power? The USSR would have been no less authoritarian if it kept the Gosplan, but had high marks for civil liberties. They kind of go together in practice, never mind the logical and moral implications where our liberties originate from - from self-propriety/ownership. From there you get Lockean homesteading, contracts, notion of what is just or unjust concerning trade and property, etc. There's no logic to the folks who are for civil rights, but want centralized State authority over your entire sphere of life (and yes, economics is that - it is our time, our labor, our dreams and bodily action). You say I can't trade because I don't have a permit - that's an imposition on my body, or you take 60% of my income (basically 60% of my time and thus of my working life that has been stolen from me). Your rate of pay within a society doesn’t represent your productivity in a vacuum. Losing 60% of that number doesn’t mean losing 60% of your intrinsic worth. The number is a product of the system in which taxes are taken out. Without the taxes the number would be different. My number is surprisingly high but I wouldn’t claim that I was worth that in a vacuum. It is only in this narrow time period of stability, centralized military spending, arbitrary labor restrictions, and spreadsheets that I come into my own. Viewing your payrate as your value in a vacuum is naive beyond belief. Only a child could believe such an absurdity. The government isn’t taking 60% of the mushrooms I forage or the firewood I collect, it’s taking 60% of a number of imaginary paper that is completely divorced from any rational measure of labour or productivity. Who is talking about productivity and intrinsic worth (something that doesn't exist by the way - didn't you have to take economics with accounting? Jevons, Walras, Menger, you know, subjective theory of value)? Your 2nd paragraph is a huge strawman and is really a non-sequitur to my point. View it in time then - you work an 8 hour day and they take 60% of that time (your pay). Really, I am just using any arbitrary #. Tax and liberty are antithetical. It's why there was no income tax in the US until 1913 and the Government mostly funded itself through use-fee's and tariffs (all things considered - considerably less authoritarian than property and income taxes). Yes, we all dream of those halcyon days of 1912, when women couldn't vote, child labor was legal, the Irish were persecuted, a husband raping his wife was legal, wife beating was legal, phrenology was treated as a real science, workers were regularly bombed by their employers or the government, the triangle shirtwaist fire could occur, and the most common method of lights at night was whale oil. You know, those days of real freedom. Why are you listing completely unrelated things in reply to a statement about taxation? Everything Nevuk said is directly responsive to Wegandi’s pointing to the historical moment of the passage of the federal income tax, sterilized, one dimensional historical references are libertarian bread and butter after all What's the point of countering those references with unrelated historical facts? It's like saying abortion is bad because nazis and communists made it legal. Why not just say the government gained a lot of new responsibilities since 1912 and the income tax is a fair way to pay for those?
As a couple of others have said, its essentially a parodical argument pointing out the absurdity of trying to tie taxation to concepts of freedom or that the development of said taxation is itself responsible for a reduction of said freedom.
The exact same 'logic' implies that increased taxation actually leads to vastly increased levels of freedom per square 'murica because personal liberties are so much more... well... liberated today. Complaints about voter suppression are valid, but they're still a step up from when at least half the population of America couldn't vote period or you'd be executed for being gay.
|
Y'all going way deep into cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Let him make his libertarian point about taxation without dragging all the social context to drag it down.
Unless you really want to argue that lower rates of taxation and his points necessarily bring about the wife beating and phrenology.
|
Looks like Democrats are switching the dinner thing to a "grab and go". I'll take that as the first win in pushing Democrats and it working (assuming they don't still essentially do the same thing while changing the wording). It was pushing them to follow their own advice they've been harping on for months, but nonetheless, a push and a win in my book.
|
In an Establishment win, guess who's joining the Biden team?
Yeah, it's Cecilia Muñoz. The Obama defender of family separations (kids in cages). Some of you may remember the pictures in 2014 with the little kids behind chain link fences.
Short writeup
Now paging AOC. I'd like to know if kids in cages is now the tough-nosed immigration policy we need in a crisis, or Biden must compromise with Justice Democrats and change the appointment to make sure no immigrant child is subjected to such inhumane conditions ever again.
|
The establishment is going to slowly kill your country, whether Democrat or Republican. You shouldn't be fighting each other so much about this stupid cultural issues. It should be a war between those with the power and the people. You might even call it a class war.
|
Americans are very much tied to their electoralism in cases where they feel they have anything to really lose. And in the electoralism arena the Democrats and Republicans have us by the balls when it comes to power and leverage.
|
That's why I'm slowly moving towards that GH mentality of "fuck the establishment" whether they're Democrats or Republicans. If they are not willing to provide structural changes to the political system at their own expense for the benefit of the country then they aren't worth anything. They're screwing the country over to benefit themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
