Occupy Wall Street vs. the Tea Party

Post Reply New Topic

Well, I'm not... lol I just think you want me to be so you have decided it is so.

I'm not that familiar with Hobbes and Locke, I just live in this world. It is what it is.

If you really want the truth, between the lines, I was actually thinking that this whole mess could have been avoided had the government kept their big noses out of religion. People don't read the Bible anymore but they sure know how to bash on the Christians.

Bash the Christians long enough and who takes care of all the sick and diseased now? Who takes care of the alcoholics and drug addicts now that the Christians have been prevented from spreading the Gospel? There's too much hate in the world to run off the ones preaching love.

People need faith and the Bible presents a healthy package - but you have to read the Bible, not the people, or what people say. You have to read it for yourself.

Now, how will you psyco analyze me?

First, I'm not some generic conservative or libertarian, I know you've heard me state before that even libertarian is only a label of convenience for me as I got tired of trying to explain exactly what I am politically. Even if I were a doctrinaire libertarian, it's neither my job nor my responsibility to support or explain everything ever said by others claiming to be libertarians, I'm not a spokesman.

Secondly, you just moved the goalposts. You asked me how a pronouncement against taxes was not a moral pronouncement, and I answered that. Then you broadened the scope to things other, nebulous "conservatives/libertarians" have said, which I addressed above. My own belief is that wealth redistribution as an end unto itself is wrong, but that utilized in measured quantities it can be a useful policy tool. I also have my own utilitarian reasons for supporting a number of programs that many libertarians do not, but even most libertarians are not looking to completely abolish social programs, like they are so often falsely portrayed as.

Thirdly, tax cuts alone may not shrink the state, but they will definitely be part of any plan to do so. I'm not a simpleton and you know this, I don't just think pulling the funding plug will magically accomplish the results I desire. It's kind of like trying to lose fat by starving yourself, you'll just lose muscle mass as your body does things you don't want it to. Now combine dieting (tax cuts) with exercise (better policy) and lose some vices (pork, waste, overreach, etc) and you'll start to see the body (or state) that you desire. Sounds so easy, right?

Finally, on a somewhat unrelated note, I'm fully aware of what you're doing by trying to tie my beliefs to subjective morals, presumably to insulate your own moral pronouncement from future criticism. I've also noted that you've returned to PPR and sought me out of your own volition, hopefully things go better this time. Welcome back.

Um, secular humanists, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.?

By the way, what do you think Achan and his kids felt when they were being stoned to death at the command of God?

Yeah, but the problem is none of the organized religions care for the needy anymore. To many pitfalls. We threw all the mental patients out onto the streets in the 80's and the Feds told the religions to keep their hands off. NO ONE is taking care of them but themselves and the prison system.

Clearly, it is an example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Achan - left field point? I don't get the relevance.

Last edited by unduki on 08 Dec 2011, 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

@ Dox

These are not moral pronouncements?

Also, you make it seem as if any suggestion that the wealthy should pay more taxes is some scheme for the poor to take from the rich in the form of pure handouts. This is a misrepresentation of most people's actual position.



Not necessarily. It's more of a pragmatic argument. In the minds of liberals, raising taxes is needed in order to close the deficit and save certain programs that the majority of Americans would not like to see drastically cut or eliminated. It is argued that putting a greater tax burden on the middle class will have a greater detrimental effect on the economy than placing it more heavily on the wealthy. You may disagree with this Keynesian assessment, but that's a factual disagreement rather than a moral one.

OTOH, your insistence against raising taxes on the wealthy sounds a lot like a moral pronouncement to me. Especially when you use words like "have no obligation" and "rightfully owned property". What exactly are "rights" and how do you defend them without making moral injunctions?

Forgive me if I can't read your mind and automatically know exactly why you hold certain positions. I only have your own words to go on.

I'm back on this forum but I don't really have the time or energy to engage in lengthy back-and-forth debates on here anymore. All that seems to do is wear on my patience and bring down my mood. I'm trying to stick with only posting once in a while if something catches my eye and I can't resist the urge to comment.

A flat tax would solve a lot of problems. 10% across the board - no fancy tricks.

I actually know exactly how you feel. If you saw my odd post in WilliamWDelany's Obama thread, I laid out pretty specifically why I too am shying away from prolonged slugging matches as much as possible. The only reason to post here is because you enjoy it in some way, it took me a while to catch on to that one and I wasted a lot of time and energy trying to change people's opinions before it clicked. I try to help other people, I believe including you, to get over that mental hump because it's tremendously liberating, but I know it's a difficult hurdle and most people need to get there on their own. It's not emotional detachment, it's actually more like selective interpersonal detachment to insulate your self from negative engagement.

You might relate to this; I had to stop watching the news and reading the papers for about 2 years in my early 20's because I could not control my empathy, and things like sexual violence or horrific oppression literally made me sick to my stomach. I punched holes in walls, dug my fingernails into my palms hard enough to leave scars, and generally had my entire day or week ruined if I happened to hear some awful story. Gradually, I learned to control my emotional response with some assistance from benzo class anxiety drugs, and then I was able to slowly reenter the news arena, though I still avoid the local papers as they often carry crime stories that make me upset. Sound at all familiar? I think you're a little farther back on the path then I am, but learning to deal with these things is possible, and it doesn't require shutting yourself off from your emotions either. Being an empath can really suck sometimes, but I wouldn't trade it for the alternative either.

Your new plan sounds like a good idea, and I'll try to disengage rather than retrench if things get heated again. Last time my ego got out of the cage a bit and let me take things further than I really wanted to, but I think I'm also in a slightly better place at the moment. Now I'm not going to go easy on you, but I don't want anything to get personal again.

Here's a basic question

How does taking more from the rich improve the lives of the poor/middle class?

It seems some people want to take more from the rich just as a form of revenge or jealousy. Others seem to think that this will somehow magically translate into more money for the poor/middle class and don't realize that this simply won't happen.

i can only speak from the point of view of the uk. the mental health system here does indeed leave much to be desired, but for the majority, it does seem care in the community works a lot better than keeping the mentally ill in asylums.

If I wanted to take revenge on the rich I would give the rich even more money so the rich can go to hell with all of their money.

I thought you knew what the Bible says.

Surely that'd require you to be rich yourself? Also this just makes no sense...

Yea. I understand the perceived "lets stick it to the rich by making them pay their share" attitude is a pet peeve of yours and I reacted with my own pet peeve which was more based on other encounters I've had with self-professed libertarians than you personally. In any case I don't really want to come off as being testy or itching for a fight considering what's happened in the past. Sometimes I just can't stop from responding.

Thanks for the kind words, but I think I may need to take a break again.

You might try low intensity reposting for a while, it's what I do when I want to pull back from PPR but still feel like I've got a toe in the water. I don't know if you do what I do, browsing multiple news/politics sites while doing other things, but if you do have a similar habit it's pretty easy to C&P the occasional article or column that speaks to you and says something you think bears repeating. Like I said, it's a low energy way to feel engaged here without having to devote the amount of time and energy that full on attack and defend debate does, good for recharging the mental batteries.

If you tax a person on the low end who makes just enough to stay alive, then you condemn him to starvation. There has to be a low end cut-off for taxation. A person who is just hanging on by his fingernails should not be taxed.

Milton Friedman came up with the best tax scheme yet. Set a lower bound for income. Below that income the person starves or is unable to maintain his health. How for those making above this lower bound, tax the difference at a flat rate. For those making below the the lower bound, mail them a check for the difference. This could be done with a minimum of burocratic overhead and no incomprehensible tax rules.

ruveyn

How would 10% condemn someone to starvation?

I think a low flat tax would be a good idea.