Remind me in which election everyone voted for this

[Francesca R]

The outcome. That's the point of the OP. The American populace cannot reasonably be believed to have been voting all along for the trend we are seeing.

It has been pointed out already that one does not and can not vote for outcomes. Only policies. And the electorate does appear to have (had) the choice to vote for policies that increase income and wealth re-distribution.

I obviously mean those things the people have control over, like the distribution of resources among themselves.

Yes--see above.

 

[daenku32]

Time for more redistribution to increase our freedom and prosperity.

It would benefit us all.

 

[Ziggurat]

That's not how it works, Zig, and I suspect you quite well know it.

Taxes are apportioned by law, not by individual preference. You don't get to determine how much you pay, you pay what the government says you will pay.

Apparently my meaning was not clear. You are free to pay as much additional money as you choose to. Yes, there is a legal minimum, but there is no legal maximum. Since IXP was complaining about not paying enough, I thought it was obvious that this was the relevant limit. If you are unsure about how to pay additional money to the federal government (and do so legally, I might add), I can provide you with directions. It's actually quite easy.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

This is a bizarre post. As though you think that Ziggurat has expressed an intent not to pay legally required tax. I can see no such statement. So your reply does not, actually, apply.

And of course one can send additional money to the US Treasury if one wishes. Barack Obama did exactly that last year.

What Zig is saying, in effect, is: "You pay the additional money. I chose not to do so..." This implies that it is morally correct for him to foist some or all of his just share of the cost of government off on "voluntary" contribution on the part of others.

Another way to put it would be "If you think [program] is so important, then [you] pay for it...I don't agree and I therefore refuse to do my part.

That's not how government works. These issues are decided by the vote of the people through their representatives (in theory, assuming legitimate elections). Implicit is the agreement that whatever the majority decides all will abide by.

No nullification allowed, either by state OR by individual.

Apparently my meaning was not clear. You are free to pay as much additional money as you choose to. Yes, there is a legal minimum, but there is no legal maximum. Since IXP was complaining about not paying enough, I thought it was obvious that this was the relevant limit. If you are unsure about how to pay additional money to the federal government (and do so legally, I might add), I can provide you with directions. It's actually quite easy.

Oh you were quite "clear", Zig. Transparent, even. I deal with your non-argument all the time.

You are trying to get us to implicitly accept the "cafeteria" idea of government (in this case taxes), to wit: "I will have some of A and a little of B but I refuse C, D, and E. If you think C, D, and E are important then you volunteer to pay for them.

That's not how democratic societies work, Zig. You know it. I know it.

 

[Ziggurat]

That Marx's prescriptions may not (yet) have been fulfilled is no disproof of his historical interpretations, obviously.

Under that standard, nothing is or ever can be a disproof of his interpretation.

Which should tell you something about the value of that interpretation.

China may be set to be the next economic power house. Last time I looked, it was communist.

They have become a powerhouse because they have abandoned communist economic doctrine. Their rise correlates perfectly with this shift.

Toqueville's prediction was based on Russia's sheer size.

Which had quite a lot to do with why they were a superpower as a communist country too. That, plus nuclear weapon secrets that they stole.

All of which is in passing. What metric should I use?

You're the one who insists upon judging everything by the level of inequality, not me. I'm not going to do your work for you.

Are you suggesting that nothing can ever be characterised as unfair unless what would be fair can be defined with precision?

You really don't get it. Life is unfair. The biological and physical reality of human existence is unfair. It can never be made fair.

But you don't merely claim that unfairness exists. You seem to believe that there is some level of unfairness that becomes unacceptable, which requires action to change, but you cannot tell me what that level is, or why that level (and not some other) is where we should draw the line. If you cannot even tell me what is fair or unfair, let alone what level of unfairness is acceptable and what is not, how can we ever satisfy your criteria even if we choose to try? We cannot. So why then should I care about what you think is fair or unfair, when you can give me no answer beyond your whim?

 

[Francesca R]

What Zig is saying, in effect, is: "You pay the additional money. I chose not to do so..." This implies that it is morally correct for him to foist some or all of his just share of the cost of government off on "voluntary" contribution on the part of others.

If you check the post above yours you will see that this is not the case.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

If you check the post above yours you will see that this is not the case.

And if you check my reply to that, you will see that that is ENTIRELY the case. What I describe is EXACTLY the implicit premise of what he said: that government should be funded at the sufferance of individual decisions about what part they agree with and what part they don't agree with.

It's Nullification, individual-style. And it's a BS argument, pure and simple.

 

[Ziggurat]

What Zig is saying, in effect, is: "You pay the additional money. I chose not to do so..." This implies that it is morally correct for him to foist some or all of his just share of the cost of government off on "voluntary" contribution on the part of others.

If you believe that you are not paying your fair share, if you really believe that the government can better spend your money than you can, then it is morally wrong to NOT pay additional money to the federal government.

If you are not doing so, then either you are choosing to act immorally, or you believe that in fact you can spend your money more wisely than the federal government. You might be willing to pay more in taxes, but it's not because you actually think the government can do better with your money than you can, it's because you think that the government can spend other people's money better than they can, and you're only willing to pay more in order to force others to pay more.

At the end of the day, though, it always amounts to the same thing: you don't actually want to pay more taxes yourself (because you can and you aren't), you only really want other people to be taxed more. That is quite progressive, but I'm not so convinced about it being very Christian.

 

[Francesca R]

What I describe is EXACTLY the implicit premise of what he said: that government should be funded at the sufferance of individual decisions about what part they agree with and what part they don't agree with.

Unless you can quote where Ziggurat says that anybody is--or should be--entitled to pay an amount of tax below what they are legally required to do . . . . your replies are straw men.

 

[Ziggurat]

And if you check my reply to that, you will see that that is ENTIRELY the case. What I describe is EXACTLY the implicit premise of what he said: that government should be funded at the sufferance of individual decisions about what part they agree with and what part they don't agree with.

It's Nullification, individual-style. And it's a BS argument, pure and simple.

No. You are completely wrong. Nothing I have said has anything to do with nullification.

It's purely about the question of whether or not you actually want your own taxes increased. And basically nobody does. Everybody always wants other people's taxes increased. Some people are willing to having their own taxes increased in order to increase taxes on other people, but taxing other people more is always the actual goal.

 

[anglolawyer]

It has been pointed out already that one does not and can not vote for outcomes. Only policies. And the electorate does appear to have (had) the choice to vote for policies that increase income and wealth re-distribution.

Yes--see above.

But this is a legalistic and circular answer. TAKE NOTICE - I have a monopoly on those!

If America has a properly-functioning democracy then yes, the people have indeed had their chance and must be taken to have decided on the policies that have led to the present state of things. My question is: in which election did they vote for the policies which have led to the present state of things? Which party stood on a platform of increasing and glaring inequality?

 

[ChristianProgressive]

You really don't get it. Life is unfair. The biological and physical reality of human existence is unfair. It can never be made fair.

Ah, the "Law of the Jungle" argument...keystone of all Social Darwinist/Libertari-tool thought.

First, you assume that human beings are nothing but animals, and capable of no higher standard of reasoning or morality than "nature, red of tooth and claw".

Man is, by nature, an improver. He takes what he finds and attempts to reshape it into more than "nature" intended. With the first event of agri/horticulture and animal husbandry, man left the idea of "taking things as they naturally are" behind forever.

Mind you, man doesn't always succeed. Soviet Russia and Mao China are two examples (and extreme ones at that). However, the idea that because those systems failed, therefore the Victorian system of industrial feudalism is therefore the correct structure for an economy does not follow.

The best economy is the mixed economy, also known as "regulated capitalism" or Socialism. It is practiced in Europe today, in Canada, and elsewhere to great success.

But you don't merely claim that unfairness exists. You seem to believe that there is some level of unfairness that becomes unacceptable, which requires action to change, but you cannot tell me what that level is, or why that level (and not some other) is where we should draw the line.

When the system leaves masses of people at the bottom with insufficient means and wealth to maintain their lives in dignity and sufficiency, it is unacceptable and requires action to change.

Especially with the knowledge that it is in fact the 99% who are actually responsible for producing all wealth. Without their labor, their spending, the profits that bloat the bank accounts of the 1% simply do not exist.

Houses are built from the bottom up, not the top down. So are economies.

 

[Francesca R]

Which party stood on a platform of increasing and glaring inequality?

If the Democrats had enough votes to hold both houses and the presidency, my understanding is that various tax rates would have already risen and there would be greater redistribution.

Is that not correct?

 

[Ziggurat]

If America has a properly-functioning democracy then yes, the people have indeed had their chance and must be taken to have decided on the policies that have led to the present state of things. My question is: in which election did they vote for the policies which have led to the present state of things? Which party stood on a platform of increasing and glaring inequality?

You're making unjustified logical leaps.

Suppose, for example, that a politician advocates raising the minimum wage to $15/hour, arguing that this will help the working poor. Suppose he gets elected, enacts this policy, and the minimum wage increase causes businesses to cut back on hours and jobs, thus hurting the working poor.

Did democracy not function because people didn't get the outcome they wanted? No, democracy functioned just fine. They voted for a politician who promised a policy change, and he delivered on that policy. The policy is what failed.

You cannot prevent people from voting for policies which will fail. If that's your metric for what makes a democracy fail, then no democracy can be successful.

 

[anglolawyer]

Under that standard, nothing is or ever can be a disproof of his interpretation.

Which should tell you something about the value of that interpretation.

If you can point me to a disprovable world view, capitalist, communist or anything in-between then I will answer your question.

They have become a powerhouse because they have abandoned communist economic doctrine. Their rise correlates perfectly with this shift.

They have introduced a measure of liberalisation. Nonetheless. the Chinese are commies and are not a democracy either. Far from it. The thread is n to about capitalism -v-communism but about American democracy. Please try to stay on-topic.

Which had quite a lot to do with why they were a superpower as a communist country too. That, plus nuclear weapon secrets that they stole.

It had a lot to do with a massive, planned programme of rapid industrialisation between the wars and the catalytic effect of WW2.

You're the one who insists upon judging everything by the level of inequality, not me. I'm not going to do your work for you.

This is no answer. You say the present arrangement cannot be unfair until we have defined 'fair'. I disagree and I have said why. We know unfair when we see it.

You really don't get it. Life is unfair. The biological and physical reality of human existence is unfair. It can never be made fair.

Nonsense! This is what democracy is for. THis is why we have democracy - because it is fair!

But you don't merely claim that unfairness exists. You seem to believe that there is some level of unfairness that becomes unacceptable, which requires action to change, but you cannot tell me what that level is, or why that level (and not some other) is where we should draw the line. If you cannot even tell me what is fair or unfair, let alone what level of unfairness is acceptable and what is not, how can we ever satisfy your criteria even if we choose to try? We cannot. So why then should I care about what you think is fair or unfair, when you can give me no answer beyond your whim?

I can tell you quite easily - the wealth distribution described in the OP is unfair. That level is unfair. Other similar levels are also unfair. The level many years ago was less unfair. We can travel in the direction of 'fairness' away from the direction of 'unfairness' without defining either in absolute terms.

Are you suggesting that a democratic assembly, charged with making 'fair distribution' of assets is disabled by the inability to come up with an all-encompassing definition of fairness? If so, I suggest you try to follow democratic politics more closely because that is basically what it is.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Unless you can quote where Ziggurat says that anybody is--or should be--entitled to pay an amount of tax below what they are legally required to do . . . . your replies are straw men.

And there's the other half of the sophist ploy at work. Because he is careful to couch his concept in a seemingly innocuous way that does not (on the surface) seem to do so, then he is able to argue from literalism that "I didn't say that..."

No, but you certainly implied it. The concept is inherent in the argument made, if left unspoken.

 

[anglolawyer]

If the Democrats had enough votes to hold both houses and the presidency, my understanding is that various tax rates would have already risen and there would be greater redistribution.

Is that not correct?

I am not a student of American politics at such a granular level. HAve not the democrats been in office for the last 6 years? Wasn't Clinton a democrat, and Carter? Have the houses not had periods of democratic control? What's up? Just raise taxes on the rich and reduce them on the poor. Next problem please!

 

[Ziggurat]

Ah, the "Law of the Jungle" argument...keystone of all Social Darwinist/Libertari-tool thought.

It's an incontrovertible fact that life is unfair. Are you claiming that progressive ideology is in the habit of denying facts? This seems a particularly bizarre one to deny, since progressivism's entire call to action is premised on the existence of unfairness: without it, the progressive agenda would be entirely pointless.

First, you assume that human beings are nothing but animals, and capable of no higher standard of reasoning or morality than "nature, red of tooth and claw".

I have done nothing of the sort. You are deeply, deeply confused.

It is a fact that people get sick from diseases. This is not a pleasant fact, and I would choose it not to be so if I could, but I cannot. Reality is adamant on the topic: nothing I can ever do will make disease vanish. I can make moral decisions about how to treat people who get sick, but I cannot simply will away their sickness. Just like I cannot simply will away unfairness. I can act to ameliorate certain unpleasant consequences of unfairness, and if you had paid attention you would notice that I have never argued against doing so, but I cannot make unfairness not exist.

 

[Francesca R]

The concept is inherent in the argument made, if left unspoken.

So you can't quote anything.

Discarded then.

 

[anglolawyer]

You're making unjustified logical leaps.

Suppose, for example, that a politician advocates raising the minimum wage to $15/hour, arguing that this will help the working poor. Suppose he gets elected, enacts this policy, and the minimum wage increase causes businesses to cut back on hours and jobs, thus hurting the working poor.

Did democracy not function because people didn't get the outcome they wanted? No, democracy functioned just fine. They voted for a politician who promised a policy change, and he delivered on that policy. The policy is what failed.

You cannot prevent people from voting for policies which will fail. If that's your metric for what makes a democracy fail, then no democracy can be successful.

I get that, Ziggurat, and I think it a reasonable argument, but we are talking about a very long term trend of increasingly glaring inequality, not in an Indian Satrapy or a banana republic but in a modern, advanced, sophisticated, democratic state.

How did it come to pass without anyone willing it, certainly without either major party pursuing it, that eye watering measures of wealth ended up in the hands of a tiny fraction of the populace? I have already suggested the answer - that Americans believe so strongly in 'the rules' of capitalism that, wherever that takes them they are OK with it. I have no answer to that save to say the people are fools who have been deliberately brainwashed into supinely absorbing a doctrine that suits their masters, not themselves. Who wants to be poorer. Who wants to be relatively poorer? Nobody. That's who.