The nature of "individuality": Debating an article

[Section 8]

Originally posted by Eggs
The problem with charging people on a variable tax scale is that as I said before, the government should only give you what you put into it, and take what you give it. In return the people get something back from it, and truly we should get back out of it a measure of what we put into it. But those who put more into it do not get more out of it. Its nothing more than sanctioned theft then. Because a value is not returned equal to one invested.

I've got one. Why don't we discuss the role of the free market in relation to the nature of community and the state? I think that would allow us to discuss everything that we wish, without getting too far off track in abstract economics.

This is a simple thing...

The government should help fund her education because in turn it will receive something of value from her. She is an investment.

On the other hand, the "well off" individuals have no more obligation to support her or those like her than anybody else. Why should they? Because she is a charity case? Hardly... the service that she will provide and the reason that the government should help fund her is that she is going to provide a service to all people equally. She isnt necessarily going to work for the high school in town where all the rich kids go, so why should their parents have some obligation to her? They really dont. The people do, but no specific individual.

However, what one owes society and what one charitably gives to society are two different things. By requiring the rich to pay they do them a disservice by taking away their opportunity to give freely. Some would not, but many would still. Look at all the University/Colleges that receive monies from alumni. Obviously then giving isnt the problem. Once you begin to take without asking, however, you leave a bad taste in the persons mouth for charity.

It depend if she should pay that money back. If she stays employed by the school system long enough to return an equal value to them I do not believe so. If she doesnt then she should.

This is all based on the premis that man is equal. Variable taxes and similar punishments for those who make money say that man isnt. Ethically, and truly in a Democracy, we must recognize the equality of man.

No, its not a simple thing. Such thinking is a result of what I was referring to earlier (vertical ethical thought). We ought to argue in the context of present social realities, certain aspects of those that ought to be different (and why), and what the best means for achieving those are.

Man is only equal in the sense of the law. Dante explained why well enough that I won't touch on it more until later.

A few thoughts and then I'm out for a while, as I'm absolutely swamped with busy work right now. If I get too into this I'll never get anything done.

What you are suggesting is inimical to the nature of our society. All Americans are bound by an obligation to uphold the social contract that stitches our society together, whether they like it or not.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity..."

Its right there in the preamble of the Constitution. The federal government has a right to provide for the general welfare. The question is how it should go about these matters. As a nation, we agree that public education is essential to promoting the general welfare. As such, every American citizen invests in it, regardless of their preference in schools. Currently, the government floats student grants to anyone with low enough income so long as they do not fail out of school. Why? Why should we, as a nation, equally support two individuals - one, such as listed in my example, and another who skirts the system with a D+ average, for no reason other than the fact that he or she thinks they will make more money with a college degree? Shouldn't we disproportionately support those individuals who bust their asses (work to make good on the nation's investment), and do even moreso for those individuals who do so in order to provide a tangible service to the community? We lack something that could very easily be remedied: accountability. Fuck the people who think that money is their's to abuse. Support the people who are grateful for it, and will do everything in their power to show the society that their investment was not misplaced.

On flat taxes. Like it or not, right now the top 10% of our country's earners keep the government functioning. They produce over 60% of the government's income. We won't see flat taxes any time soon. Yes, it sucks. I'm not even going to start to touch on what I think should be done about it, as I will never get done with my bullshit work if I do. For kicks, I'll leave with this comment:

Short of a Constitutional ammendment, those who contribute more to the government will never have a disproportionate say (vote) than those who contribute less. Tax rates are determined by popular beliefs about who should pay what. Most people in this country just plain suck at life. The only way the system will ever change, is if they learn how to put some steel in their spines and bust their asses. Many well-to-do people are disdainful of most people for that reason; they have forged themselves with steel and have reaped the benefits of it. They have a thought of: "Well, I did it, so they are just lazy. They choose not to." Just because someone is good at business doesn't mean they understand the nature of social disposition, or what is necessary to enact a change in the dominant social sentiment. A friend of mine's dad commonly makes remarks like: "The biggest problem in our country is that all of the lazy white kids worship the spineless drug-addict niggers they see on TV." His dad owns one of the largest investment banks in the country. We're in big trouble if such people ever get to decide where their tax money goes. IMO the management of certain social provisions needs to be taken out of the hands of the public entirely.

 

[Eggs]

Good posting... I'm going to have to get going so this will only be brief.

What you are suggesting is inimical to the nature of our society. All Americans are bound by an obligation to uphold the social contract that stitches our society together, whether they like it or not.

This is true to an extent, but at the same time holds us bondage to simply being born US citizens. That does not remove our obligation to contributing to fundamental units of society, but at the same time if a society behaves unfairly towards specific units then they must hold ample power to take issue with it. Unfortunately in a society this size that would be too complicated to be practical. So in reality, we are in a way sold into slavery and told that it is for our own good. I am being a tad frivilous with the word slavery perhaps. There really isnt any way out of that predicament however, so bringing it up doesnt really do any good.

I too take fault with a government that provides funds to those who are satisfied with a D+. Instead of raising up those who strive for achievement and earn their share through blood, sweat and tears... the government instead chooses to revel with the swine of laziness. Accordingly I take fault with the "no child left behind" program. I want instead facilities for those children that stand out from the pack... not with laziness or stupidity, but with effort and intelligence. Not only are we setting a shitty example right now with these programs, but we are hamstringing ourselves.

The problem with accountability is that no one wants to take it. Its like playing hot potato when you were a kid, dont want to hold on to that thing for more than a second. Instead of holding the people accountable for their own lack of motivation, we the society bends down to try and sooth the strain on them and pick them up from their knees. But they are damned on their knees because they choose to crawl everywhere instead of walking as men of distinction.

Oh, I fully understand the economic dependency upon that top 10% of the wage earners in our country. If the US were not flagrantly abusing the monies entrusted them, however, that would not be the case. If they performed the function for which they were created, and not which the leeches of society have turned it into... well then. That is in itself the problem. In a Democracy where a majority of voters being those that want to suck what they can out of those that are doing better than they are... then the minority will suffer accordlingly. These people are content not to earn their way through life, but instead to take it from those who are. Parasites.

While I dont believe men are equal outside of law, I do not think that contribute more should have more say in its operation. As you pointed out with your friends Dad, contribution doesnt necessarily mean one will do what is best for society. Though I think that you're friends Dad might be getting a tough rap, he is indeed right about the misplaced heros of todays society. Black or white. Instead of having heros that are actually heroic, we have heros that are common thugs that put out good music. Individuals shouldnt necessarily have a say where their tax money goes (outside of a what society votes to happen), but if Government provided only those services necessary to allow us to function as a society I dont think that'd be a problem anyhow.

As I was saying earlier, Supply and Demand will dictate that we do not go without. If there is a big enough demand for something, there will always be someone there to pay it. Look at the USPS... is it necessary? Hardly, I think that it could be privatized. Truth tell, UPS offers better pricing and faster service than they do anyhow. Of course they are not a regular delivery service. But with decent systems set up, and with todays technology, mail could be privatized and split up into regions, etc and still be handled efficiently.

So could much of the infrastructure. Private toll roads are an example of this. Electricity is. The Internet. and so on. We truly need government for very little.

Anyhow, have to run, take care.

 

[Dante B.]

I'm sorry, I've been out of my mind.

Righto Honey. Now stop yer bitchin!

So this it what it's like to be loved. I'm disappointed. Maybe it's because you're a bad lover, or maybe I'm just like my mother---she's never satisfied.

I see no unfair advantage that any person or group has over another these days. A person can make themself rich, or let themself be poor. Thats one of the best aspects of capitalism.

I'm not speaking of that. I'm speaking of special interest groups who exist by government handouts and support.

Except in very few situations (inheritance, etc), a person becomes rich because of themselves. As to the beginning and end of the rope, what are your thoughts on that?

I believe in a Laissez Faire Capitalism. The problem, now, is that we as a society hold communistic notions, as well as destructive sentiments of "equality."

True, so the only way to limit this is through a laissez-faire system. However, then problems arise such as - Should there be copyrights? Should the government infrastructure (roads)? and so on. If so, where do we stop?

And why can't copyrights exist in a LF system. Why must roads be constructed under government watch.

Agreed. I think that much of the services that the government provides today besides law enforcement, etc could be handled by society effectively. It would have to be, there is money to be made, and there are needs to be filled for it.

Do explain the "etc" part, specifically. Let's discuss how law enforcement comes about, and if this is a service that by nature has to be removed from the market process.

If a person voluntarily parts with their money then it is up to them to determine the value of their investment. They are not getting a return on their investment, but it could be positively affecting others.

That's irrelevant, we're speaking of the government making "investments."

To be realistic, taxes are only necessary to provide services that if run by non-government entities would put the people of their society at risk. Such as lack of law enforcement.

I guess we all feel safe under the Argus-eyed aegis of our government, and police-force.

Right, so if she provides her services equally to all people, all people should then pay equally for them.

Wrong. Again, the government was making the "investment" in this case. How do you know if her services are being provided "equally" to everyone, and if those services are exactly what each person wanted.

Supply and Demand. Anyhow, I'm up for discussing the free market.

Wrong. We were discussing the government and how they try to take the place of the free market process.

Thus, "supply and demand," in a market sense, is an absolutely faulty manner of discussing government services.

Very true. When we gave power to the government to do mostly as it wants... we gave it the ability to distort the market to suit its own objectives. Which very well might not be to provide us with the services we want, but rather to allow them to do as they please.

That's almost the truth. They can't do as they please, but they can only please a certain segment of the population (thus the creation of special interest groups).

Allowing someone to vote with the money of another person disports the market, and each person's will.

Its right there in the preamble of the Constitution. The federal government has a right to provide for the general welfare. The question is how it should go about these matters. As a nation, we agree that public education is essential to promoting the general welfare.

And what is the "general welfare." Anything beyond mere protection can easily explode into the Welfare/Warfare state.

But that's irrelevant. The Constitution means nothing, in the end. People will interpret it according to their desires.

It's more fruitful, and logical, to discuss what is actually proper and feasible for a society that wishes to live a certain way, than it is to argue whether or not something is according to Constitutional principles.

Regardless, knowledge of "constitutional principles" means absolutely nothing unless a person actually understands the essential that are necessary for a rationally structured society. That is something we should discuss.

The problem with accountability is that no one wants to take it. Its like playing hot potato when you were a kid, dont want to hold on to that thing for more than a second. Instead of holding the people accountable for their own lack of motivation, we the society bends down to try and sooth the strain on them and pick them up from their knees

It's impossible to hold people accountable when they have recourse to the government.

While I dont believe men are equal outside of law, I do not think that contribute more should have more say in its operation. As you pointed out with your friends Dad, contribution doesnt necessarily mean one will do what is best for society

All of this is nonsensical and irrelevant. We are not discussing fundamentals.

Again, what is the "general welfare," what should be the proper role of government, and taxes.

Without a discussion on that, all of this is pointless.

 

[Dante B.]

I've been in a pissy mood. Sorry for the harsh tone; it's not conducive to an intelligent debate.

 

[ZECH]

Originally posted by Section 8

As a nation, we agree that public education is essential to promoting the general welfare.

No, that is what is wrong with America. Schools suck and they don't teach what needs to be taught. Too much liberal ass pantie waste, bledding heart, somebody owes me something, somebody done me wrong, politically incorrect shit!

 

[Mudge]

Originally posted by Dante B.
Most people are definitely a "product" of their environment and upbringing. The question is---are all people this way. Is there something that remains in our control.

It depends on the strength of the individual of course. I remember a young kid who was putting himself through college while taking care of his 4 siblings, becuase his mom was a crack addict, so while living in the ghetto and growing up as he did, he still pulled through not only for himself but his brothers and sisters.

Bill Gates had poor parents.

 

[Dante B.]

Exactly.

 

[Eggs]

Originally posted by Dante B.
I'm sorry, I've been out of my mind.

It happens.

So this it what it's like to be loved. I'm disappointed. Maybe it's because you're a bad lover, or maybe I'm just like my mother---she's never satisfied.

It takes two to tango. If you've got gripes about the action you're getting, stop blaming your mother and blame yourself

I'm not speaking of that. I'm speaking of special interest groups who exist by government handouts and support.

This on the other hand does exist, and is prevelant in society. However, its not empowering, it accomplishes the opposite of what they profess they are attempting. The issue exists not in potential, but in having a high locus of control and taking responsibility for your actions. If you want to succeed, you must do it on your own terms. Well, not in our society, which hampers us.

I believe in a Laissez Faire Capitalism. The problem, now, is that we as a society hold communistic notions, as well as destructive sentiments of "equality."

As I said, locus of control. Some people are willing to take charge of themselves, the majority however prefer to let someone else lead them through life like cattle with a nose ring. To change this, you must have a society that assumes responsibility for their own existence. Where do we send the 200 million others?

And why can't copyrights exist in a LF system. Why must roads be constructed under government watch.

My point wasnt about those individual entities... but rather about what is critical for society to exist, what are the key components that are necessary for it to function.

Do explain the "etc" part, specifically. Let's discuss how law enforcement comes about, and if this is a service that by nature has to be removed from the market process.

Government offices - IRS, which you are going to ask why that couldnt be handled by a civilian organization. For one, it would just be outsourcing it, and dependence on one civilian organization, which by its very nature is somewhat unpredictable, would be hazardous. Others are - our military. Which cant be civilian (as in non government affiliated) owned, because it would put too much power in the hands of an individual who for as much as we might know could take over the US if they felt like it. There are other agencys, but really this isnt about specifics such as those anyways.

That's irrelevant, we're speaking of the government making "investments."

Our conversation at the time was hardly isolated to the government making investments. If you wish to only speak about government investments, you should have informed us of that.

I guess we all feel safe under the Argus-eyed aegis of our government, and police-force.

Everyones a critic... but you'll often find critics lack the ability to do that which they criticise. They're just good at tearing down. I wished they'd be more constructive and accomplish something besides criticism.

Wrong. Again, the government was making the "investment" in this case. How do you know if her services are being provided "equally" to everyone, and if those services are exactly what each person wanted.

Her services are not being provided equally to everyone. There will never be completely equal service to everyone, its not possible. Unless you provide service to no one, then equality is guaranteed.

Wrong. We were discussing the government and how they try to take the place of the free market process.

Thus, "supply and demand," in a market sense, is an absolutely faulty manner of discussing government services.

You were talking about how the government is trying to take the plae of the free market process. I on the other hand was being constructive and speaking of what the possibilities are if the government was not over reaching itself. In this sense, my statement is that we can do without the government in many areas because supply and demand will bring about those business needed to keep the economy running. Which it will. Which you agree with if you belief in Laissez-Faire.

That's almost the truth. They can't do as they please, but they can only please a certain segment of the population (thus the creation of special interest groups).

Allowing someone to vote with the money of another person disports the market, and each person's will.

True, but its unavoidable. As long as you have a government, small or large, people will vote with eachothers money. Unless you prefer a dictatorship or communism to our current Democracy. I'd rather someone vote with my money than controlled my life for the good of the state.

And what is the "general welfare." Anything beyond mere protection can easily explode into the Welfare/Warfare state.

But that's irrelevant. The Constitution means nothing, in the end. People will interpret it according to their desires.

It's more fruitful, and logical, to discuss what is actually proper and feasible for a society that wishes to live a certain way, than it is to argue whether or not something is according to Constitutional principles.

Regardless, knowledge of "constitutional principles" means absolutely nothing unless a person actually understands the essential that are necessary for a rationally structured society. That is something we should discuss.

Thats kind of what we are working towards, just taking our time getting there. Our conversation that is. A question that I have is... it is obviously feasible for our society to exist as it does, should our society do so and what are the necessary outcomes of change? If we truly did want a laissez-faire system, and instituted it, would there be true benefits. Or would those of us with the potential to make all the money later have an uprising and get slaughtered? I guess that question is... is change possible, and what rate?

All of this is nonsensical and irrelevant. We are not discussing fundamentals.

Again, what is the "general welfare," what should be the proper role of government, and taxes.

Without a discussion on that, all of this is pointless.

Bah humbug, if S8 and I wish to explore side topics between ourselves no harm. You sure use the word pointless alot... if you got laid more you'd come into the conversation using words like "heavenly bliss" and "nirvana" instead. Haha, work got ya jumpy Dante? Or did one of your co-workers exchange your vitamin supplements with estrogen

 

[Eggs]

By the way, I'm feeling a bit bitchy too. Mines due to an overzealous mechanic putting the wrong coolant in my engine and causing my coolant pump to explode. Then the fluids mixed in my engine, and now my wallet is feeling substantially thinner

Damn all lazy machanics.

 

[Mudge]

Dexcool with standard coolant? Other than Evans NPG that is the only incompatibility I'm aware of, and you wont see Evans in a street car.

 

[Eggs]

Nah, there are two kinds of coolants used in VWs. One is red, one green, thats about as technical as I can get... either way, my 96 Passat uses the older type, but the new VWs use the other type. When mixed they thicken somehow and cause corrosion as well.

Saw the corosion, etc. Man I wish I lived in a place where public transportation was feasible. I enjoy the metro and buses.

Oh, and I meant damn all mechanics that are lazy, not that all are lazy and should be damned

 

[Dante B.]

Sorry I let this one drop.

Will get back to all of it soon, although my responses may not be consistent.

Suffice it to say: I'm right, you're wrong, too bad, so sad (does that count as an argument? )

Have a good holiday.

 

[Dante B.]

Getting back to this. I haven't been in a mood to argue anything of this nature, so, I'm here for the moment.

However, its not empowering, it accomplishes the opposite of what they profess they are attempting. The issue exists not in potential, but in having a high locus of control and taking responsibility for your actions. If you want to succeed, you must do it on your own terms. Well, not in our society, which hampers us.

If anything it accomplishes their goals in full. It's a false and ready-made method of identity, and success.

"Success," means many things to different people, and most often "success" is being able to taste a drop of "power," letting everyone know that you drink only the finest of water, without ever knowing that someone has pissed in your cup.

As I said, locus of control. Some people are willing to take charge of themselves, the majority however prefer to let someone else lead them through life like cattle with a nose ring. To change this, you must have a society that assumes responsibility for their own existence. Where do we send the 200 million others?

To a side of the fence in a political system where they cannot ask for more than they can farm.

My point wasnt about those individual entities... but rather about what is critical for society to exist, what are the key components that are necessary for it to function.

And what are these key components.

Government offices - IRS, which you are going to ask why that couldnt be handled by a civilian organization. For one, it would just be outsourcing it, and dependence on one civilian organization, which by its very nature is somewhat unpredictable, would be hazardous.

I can argue this in many ways, but I'll settle to crack a hammer on one coconut:

Your IRS example assumes that such an organization is needed, or rather, that a system of enforced taxation is necessary, or at least to such an extent that it now is.

Do tell me why.

Others are - our military. Which cant be civilian (as in non government affiliated) owned, because it would put too much power in the hands of an individual who for as much as we might know could take over the US if they felt like it. There are other agencys, but really this isnt about specifics such as those anyways.

And how would this army come about in order to give so much power to one individual, against the majority's consent.

Our conversation at the time was hardly isolated to the government making investments. If you wish to only speak about government investments, you should have informed us of that.

As I recall, you spoke of the government "investing" in those avenues which were likely to produce the greatest returns. I argued why the government can't truly invest, as they can't truly judge that which is desired and that which is not.

Everyones a critic... but you'll often find critics lack the ability to do that which they criticise. They're just good at tearing down. I wished they'd be more constructive and accomplish something besides criticism.

And before you dump me into this heap of critics, perhaps you should read into where my arguments are going, following along in the process, so I can actually expand my thoughts step by step (it's pointless and confusing to just blurt out an entire viewpoint in a debate).

Her services are not being provided equally to everyone. There will never be completely equal service to everyone, its not possible. Unless you provide service to no one, then equality is guaranteed.

That doesn't matter. The point again being that a person who holds their wallet in hand is the best judge of what face is best fit to be smacked with a dollar.

You were talking about how the government is trying to take the plae of the free market process. I on the other hand was being constructive and speaking of what the possibilities are if the government was not over reaching itself. In this sense, my statement is that we can do without the government in many areas because supply and demand will bring about those business needed to keep the economy running. Which it will. Which you agree with if you belief in Laissez-Faire.

Yes, and you spoke of supply and demand, which isn't a relevant concept in a managed market.

True, but its unavoidable. As long as you have a government, small or large, people will vote with eachothers money. Unless you prefer a dictatorship or communism to our current Democracy. I'd rather someone vote with my money than controlled my life for the good of the state.

How is it that a government must go hand in hand with forced taxation? Even then, "people will vote with each others money," isn't true in any reasonable sense unless we establish what system of political thought and government philosophy that they're living under.

Beyond that, if someone is voting with your money, for the "good of society," how will this be any different from a life governed by the state. I doubt you'll argue that "what's good for the people," rarely goes hand in hand with political enforcement and thus, state control.

Thats kind of what we are working towards, just taking our time getting there. Our conversation that is. A question that I have is... it is obviously feasible for our society to exist as it does, should our society do so and what are the necessary outcomes of change? If we truly did want a laissez-faire system, and instituted it, would there be true benefits. Or would those of us with the potential to make all the money later have an uprising and get slaughtered? I guess that question is... is change possible, and what rate?

It is not obviously feasible. At some point the ball will swing in one direction or the other, destroying either the current political philosophy or our general manner of living.

If a program is put in place, and doesn't achieve its goals in full (welfare for example, or the war on drugs), then an increase in resources is inevitably asked for and granted; along with that, something must decrease.

Is change possible? Honestly, I believe we can try, but it's pointless in our society.

Either we start a new society on an island, or we destroy this nation. In either case, unless we attack the general philosophical outlook, we'll end up in the same situation as we find ourselves in now.

Why do I care, or care to try? My existence serves no other purpose.

Bah humbug, if S8 and I wish to explore side topics between ourselves no harm. You sure use the word pointless alot... if you got laid more you'd come into the conversation using words like "heavenly bliss" and "nirvana" instead:

Simply divine.

 

[Dante B.]

I'm in a mood to continue this debate.

Come on, someone has to call bullshit on me!

 

[god hand]

It depends on the strength of the individual of course. I remember a young kid who was putting himself through college while taking care of his 4 siblings, becuase his mom was a crack addict, so while living in the ghetto and growing up as he did, he still pulled through not only for himself but his brothers and sisters.

Bill Gates had poor parents.

 

[The Monkey Man]

Don't be surprised GotHand...

Bill Gates is smart