On October 26 2008 01:01 Jibba wrote: Savio, do you think an adequate minimum (level of treatment, services, etc.) should exist? Not simply wage, but things like vaccinations, education, etc.
Not for wage, but certainly YES for vaccinations and education. Both of those exhibit strong positive externalities (herd immunity and crime reduction respectively) on society so it makes sense for the government to step in. The existence of externalities (negative or positive) are one of the instances in which government intervention can unambiguously raise total welfare. That's not across the board, but it means that everywhere there is an externatility, the government should look into whether or not it is appropriate to step in.
Thus you can see that I am very conservative, but not quite libertarian.
You wouldnt be able to make money if there wasant an entire infrastructure of roads, energy, police etc... to support the society that produces/consumes.
Taxes is just a way of paying back the support the society gives people/business, and if you think Taxes are wrong you are wronger
On October 26 2008 04:17 boghat wrote: I doubt history will see Bush as a worse president than Franklin Pierce or James Buchanan. Those are the two guys that were president before Abraham Lincoln, the years leading up to the American Civil War. They did little to stop the war and even agreed with and promoted slavery. Obama is lucky because often times the presidents to come after the "worst" presidents end up being regarded as the best presidents, as is the case with Lincoln. The state of this country is nothing like it was before the civil war so saying Bush was the worst president is a bit dumb. Although you could regard this sharp division in politics as a political civil war, but politics has always been like this, it's just worse now with mass media. The Iraq War may even be looked back at in history as a success even if it's generally agreed it shouldn't have happened in the first place. You can't say that about Vietnam, that was certainly no success, Iraq at least can be more successful than Vietnam was.
Point is, Obama is very lucky, if he's a good president he will be regarded as great just because of the historical circumstances his presidency is put in. Birth of the US - George Washington, Civil War - Abraham Lincoln, Great Depression - Franklin Roosevelt, Subprime mortgage crisis/credit crisis/overall really bad economic situation, plus two ongoing wars, 9/11 happened only 7 years ago, global reputation very bad, etc. - ???; this is a pivotal time, and even if Bush didn't make so many bad decisions, this economic crisis probably would have happened anyway so everyone hating Bush so much just adds the icing on the cake for Obama. Does anyone really see John McCain, a 72-year-old that definitely looks and talks like it, having the energy and strength to do this?
Obama is 47 FDR was 51 when he took office, he died at 63 Lincoln was 52 when he took office, died at 56 Washington was 57 when he took office, died at 67
Obviously you have to remember our life expectancy is much longer now but McCain looks visibly drained of energy after this long campaign and if he wins he has 4 long years to run this country still. Anyway the polls indicate this one is over so it doesn't matter.
There's some really good points in here. However, I would also point out that for Obama, not only is the potential reward great, but the potential downfall.
For example, if troops are pulled out of Iraq too quickly and IF the country does fall into chaos with the eventual rise of a tyrant, that would reflect very badly on him considering that Bush is leaving Iraq is an improving and relatively stable position.
Also, if the recession worsens, that tends to be bad for the sitting President. Lots of bad stuff could occur in the world (Iran gets nuke, NK restarts nuke program, and who knows what else).
Obama is coming in in a high risk, high yield situation. Its not exactly a seat that I would want right now.
On October 26 2008 04:17 boghat wrote: I doubt history will see Bush as a worse president than Franklin Pierce or James Buchanan. Those are the two guys that were president before Abraham Lincoln, the years leading up to the American Civil War. They did little to stop the war and even agreed with and promoted slavery. Obama is lucky because often times the presidents to come after the "worst" presidents end up being regarded as the best presidents, as is the case with Lincoln. The state of this country is nothing like it was before the civil war so saying Bush was the worst president is a bit dumb. Although you could regard this sharp division in politics as a political civil war, but politics has always been like this, it's just worse now with mass media. The Iraq War may even be looked back at in history as a success even if it's generally agreed it shouldn't have happened in the first place. You can't say that about Vietnam, that was certainly no success, Iraq at least can be more successful than Vietnam was.
Irak war a success? Wtf is wrong with you? A success for whom? Weapons and construction multinationals, maybe... That's it. Irak is probably a bigger disaster than Vietnam if you look at the long terms consequences.
Those are just ridiculous statements. If Iraq stabilizes well into a successful democracy (think South Korea), history will almost surely see it as a success.
Any blank statement that Iraq is worse than Vietnam is.....well its just retarded. Vietnam was a MUCH bigger war with MUCH stronger resentment against it and the end result was terrible. Iraq is a tiny thing by comparison.
On October 26 2008 04:17 boghat wrote: Point is, Obama is very lucky, if he's a good president he will be regarded as great just because of the historical circumstances his presidency is put in. Birth of the US - George Washington, Civil War - Abraham Lincoln, Great Depression - Franklin Roosevelt, Subprime mortgage crisis/credit crisis/overall really bad economic situation, plus two ongoing wars, 9/11 happened only 7 years ago, global reputation very bad, etc. - ???; this is a pivotal time, and even if Bush didn't make so many bad decisions, this economic crisis probably would have happened anyway so everyone hating Bush so much just adds the icing on the cake for Obama. Does anyone really see John McCain, a 72-year-old that definitely looks and talks like it, having the energy and strength to do this?
I think its more accurate to say that in situations like this it is possible for the country to elect a leader that pushes the country back in a better direction. Obama with his policys of today probably couldn't have been elected four or eight years ago. Suggesting anything like the new deal or policy's similar to it in the 20s wouldn't have worked. I agree that Obama is lucky and the timing is right for him but I don't think that the current circumstances will automaticly make him regarded as a great president in the future if he is a good president today but rather that the current circumstances will enable him to be a great president if he want to.
That's a good way of saying it. One reason I say he'd go from good to great automatically is because if he enacted similar "good" economic plans in a recession and in a time of growth, the plans would have a sharper view of being successful during the recession, thus being "great", than at a time when the economy is already growing, just "good". A lot of the economy's ebbs and flows are beyond the president's control. Other things like foreign policy though are more in the president's control and certainly Obama has a very good opportunity to be great in that aspect, making up for Bush's horrible foreign policy.
On October 26 2008 05:10 D10 wrote: You wouldnt be able to make money if there wasant an entire infrastructure of roads, energy, police etc... to support the society that produces/consumes.
Taxes is just a way of paying back the support the society gives people/business, and if you think Taxes are wrong you are wronger
Taxes per se aren't wrong. But excessive taxation is wrong imo. Roads, police, education, etc. are all necessary and make taxes necessary. But its when it gets out of hand that it is a problem.
When the mindset of politicians is that they know better than you do, what you need, that is a problem.
Also, when taxes are raised simply to redistribute, that is generally wrong imo, except for a few circumstances.
On October 26 2008 04:17 boghat wrote: I doubt history will see Bush as a worse president than Franklin Pierce or James Buchanan. Those are the two guys that were president before Abraham Lincoln, the years leading up to the American Civil War. They did little to stop the war and even agreed with and promoted slavery. Obama is lucky because often times the presidents to come after the "worst" presidents end up being regarded as the best presidents, as is the case with Lincoln. The state of this country is nothing like it was before the civil war so saying Bush was the worst president is a bit dumb. Although you could regard this sharp division in politics as a political civil war, but politics has always been like this, it's just worse now with mass media. The Iraq War may even be looked back at in history as a success even if it's generally agreed it shouldn't have happened in the first place. You can't say that about Vietnam, that was certainly no success, Iraq at least can be more successful than Vietnam was.
Point is, Obama is very lucky, if he's a good president he will be regarded as great just because of the historical circumstances his presidency is put in. Birth of the US - George Washington, Civil War - Abraham Lincoln, Great Depression - Franklin Roosevelt, Subprime mortgage crisis/credit crisis/overall really bad economic situation, plus two ongoing wars, 9/11 happened only 7 years ago, global reputation very bad, etc. - ???; this is a pivotal time, and even if Bush didn't make so many bad decisions, this economic crisis probably would have happened anyway so everyone hating Bush so much just adds the icing on the cake for Obama. Does anyone really see John McCain, a 72-year-old that definitely looks and talks like it, having the energy and strength to do this?
Obama is 47 FDR was 51 when he took office, he died at 63 Lincoln was 52 when he took office, died at 56 Washington was 57 when he took office, died at 67
Obviously you have to remember our life expectancy is much longer now but McCain looks visibly drained of energy after this long campaign and if he wins he has 4 long years to run this country still. Anyway the polls indicate this one is over so it doesn't matter.
There's some really good points in here. However, I would also point out that for Obama, not only is the potential reward great, but the potential downfall.
For example, if troops are pulled out of Iraq too quickly and IF the country does fall into chaos with the eventual rise of a tyrant, that would reflect very badly on him considering that Bush is leaving Iraq is an improving and relatively stable position.
Also, if the recession worsens, that tends to be bad for the sitting President. Lots of bad stuff could occur in the world (Iran gets nuke, NK restarts nuke program, and who knows what else).
Obama is coming in in a high risk, high yield situation. Its not exactly a seat that I would want right now.
Things could definitely go wrong but I think there are better odds they'll go right and things will get better. Most likely the recession will be getting better during the second half of the term. It's impossible to have a worse global reputation than Bush. Pretty much, Obama has most things going for him but he still has to prove himself with good legislation and diplomacy, and maybe get a little lucky. Also, I'm pretty sure this is exactly the seat Obama would want to be in, his temperament seems perfect for the task.
Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable ; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.
On October 25 2008 09:33 HeadBangaa wrote: Gain without merit. Wealth redistribution is not concerned with desert, but with fairness. To ensure all people have a bite to eat is fair. To take from my plate what I have earned, however, is unjust.
People accept taxes as a cost of living these days, so I understand why you think it absurd to question it.
veil of ignorance + minimax yo
huh? so?
So fairness and justice can be applied together. Every Western democracy already subscribes to Rawls, it's just a matter of degree. No sane person wants to remove incentive, we're just talking about raising the minimum to a relative level, because service programs have never been adequately measured or adjusted since LBJ first started them.
WHERE ARE THE SCHOOL SHOOTERS NOW GET THEM AT THE MCCAIN RALLIES GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO (Not really) But srsly, someone needs to educate these ignorant fools. The most ignorant fools are also the most narcissistic arrogant people that shout the loudest and talk the most but have the least to say. =[
On October 26 2008 04:38 HeadBangaa wrote: lol biff
On October 25 2008 10:22 Jibba wrote:
On October 25 2008 09:33 HeadBangaa wrote: Gain without merit. Wealth redistribution is not concerned with desert, but with fairness. To ensure all people have a bite to eat is fair. To take from my plate what I have earned, however, is unjust.
People accept taxes as a cost of living these days, so I understand why you think it absurd to question it.
veil of ignorance + minimax yo
huh? so?
So fairness and justice can be applied together. Every Western democracy already subscribes to Rawls, it's just a matter of degree. No sane person wants to remove incentive, we're just talking about raising the minimum to a relative level, because service programs have never been adequately measured or adjusted since LBJ first started them.
oic, was confused because philosophical point countered with an implementation suggestion. Layer of indirection created by said veil simply spreads said injustice in a fair way. I'm not speaking pragmatically, though.
On October 26 2008 04:38 HeadBangaa wrote: lol biff
On October 25 2008 10:22 Jibba wrote:
On October 25 2008 09:33 HeadBangaa wrote: Gain without merit. Wealth redistribution is not concerned with desert, but with fairness. To ensure all people have a bite to eat is fair. To take from my plate what I have earned, however, is unjust.
People accept taxes as a cost of living these days, so I understand why you think it absurd to question it.
veil of ignorance + minimax yo
huh? so?
So fairness and justice can be applied together. Every Western democracy already subscribes to Rawls, it's just a matter of degree. No sane person wants to remove incentive, we're just talking about raising the minimum to a relative level, because service programs have never been adequately measured or adjusted since LBJ first started them.
oic, was confused because philosophical point countered with an implementation suggestion. Layer of indirection created by said veil simply spreads said injustice in a fair way. I'm not speaking pragmatically, though.
The veil is specifically to find what is just. Obviously equality will never be achieved, but things can still be pretty fair and pretty just.
On October 26 2008 04:38 HeadBangaa wrote: lol biff
On October 25 2008 10:22 Jibba wrote:
On October 25 2008 09:33 HeadBangaa wrote: Gain without merit. Wealth redistribution is not concerned with desert, but with fairness. To ensure all people have a bite to eat is fair. To take from my plate what I have earned, however, is unjust.
People accept taxes as a cost of living these days, so I understand why you think it absurd to question it.
veil of ignorance + minimax yo
huh? so?
So fairness and justice can be applied together. Every Western democracy already subscribes to Rawls, it's just a matter of degree. No sane person wants to remove incentive, we're just talking about raising the minimum to a relative level, because service programs have never been adequately measured or adjusted since LBJ first started them.
oic, was confused because philosophical point countered with an implementation suggestion. Layer of indirection created by said veil simply spreads said injustice in a fair way. I'm not speaking pragmatically, though.
The veil is specifically to find what is just.
Yes but justice as redefined by some arbitrary deontological perspective of "all men are equal". The veil enforces fairness by hiding natural stratifications in talent and ability, among others. That is fairness, at the cost of natural justice, by saying justice should be blind to natural merit.
edit: sorry for continuing this tangent, but I think about this stuff frequently and appreciate your insights.
On October 26 2008 04:38 HeadBangaa wrote: lol biff
On October 25 2008 10:22 Jibba wrote:
On October 25 2008 09:33 HeadBangaa wrote: Gain without merit. Wealth redistribution is not concerned with desert, but with fairness. To ensure all people have a bite to eat is fair. To take from my plate what I have earned, however, is unjust.
People accept taxes as a cost of living these days, so I understand why you think it absurd to question it.
veil of ignorance + minimax yo
huh? so?
So fairness and justice can be applied together. Every Western democracy already subscribes to Rawls, it's just a matter of degree. No sane person wants to remove incentive, we're just talking about raising the minimum to a relative level, because service programs have never been adequately measured or adjusted since LBJ first started them.
oic, was confused because philosophical point countered with an implementation suggestion. Layer of indirection created by said veil simply spreads said injustice in a fair way. I'm not speaking pragmatically, though.
The veil is specifically to find what is just.
Yes but justice as redefined by some arbitrary deontological perspective of "all men are equal". The veil enforces fairness by hiding natural stratifications in talent and ability, among others. That is fairness, at the cost of natural justice, by saying justice should be blind to natural merit.
edit: sorry for continuing this tangent, but I think about this stuff frequently and appreciate your insights.
You don't hide the natural stratification though. The veil provides ignorance of future circumstances, but not current/past. We know a rich dude probably has more characteristics that make him more likely to succeed, I don't think Rawls wanted to discount that entirely. But he did want to create a system where everyone has some opportunity, so when you combine that with minimax you find that you should attempt to eliminate the very worst conditions. So everyone gets the adequate minimum and the talented person can still excel well beyond that line. Now of course much of the funding would come from the rich, which may be unjust initially, but there is a trickle up effect as well. Part of Rawls' inequality is that it must have an overall advantage (or minimum disadvantage) so I think just as you can use it to justify trickle down economics, you can also justify tricle up (healthcare being the main example.)
I haven't actually read his newest book (the one right before he died) but I think it gives much better clarifications and more practical explanations.
in the abstraction of the veil to a bundle of basic goods, there is some ignorance of current and past. but that's not the main problem, i dont think. one of the major point of rawls' framework is that it is abstracted from specific political situations, where the problem is not always the lack of particular basic goods, or at any rate the translation between basic goods and the steps taken to secure them are not clear.
the rawlsian framework is valuable because it makes contractarians accept some positive rights, however, it is not the strongest argument for these.
EPT
