Cuomo's Brownshirts put squeeze on AIG

[mhaze]

I....First off, you shouldn't get your quotes of wisdom from WND or Freep or whatever blog you gleaned that from. Additionally, for someone who decries the "leftistelitistintelligensia" in so many of your posts, it's interesting that you'd embrace an objectivist, elitist and almost Platonic* utopian vision of how society should be striatified. Have you been reading Aldous Huxley as well? .....

You are reading too much into too little to achieve a position too serious and too critical, but since you ask:

• This style of criticism of Marxist thought (the bridge builder) is obviously not limited to Objectivists.
• Technology driving culture is nowhere mentioned in Objectivism.
• The paragraphs are my work alone.
• I'm genuinely curious what Lefty 's response is.

 

[BPSCG]

No, 81% say Congress does not have the right to raise taxes on all Americans retroactively.

And many of them can understand simple English sentences.

That conclusion requires the acceptance of two premises - that 1) the questions were asked at the same time (they don't appear to have been), and, 2) a majority of Americans think Congress should have the power to raise taxes retroactively on certain groups of people.

If that's the case, a majority of Americans are unfamiliar with that part of the Constitution which forbids bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.

As a side note, Congress has no rights at all. Congress has only powers; the people have rights.

 

[FlamingMoe]

If you hire a man for a day, you owe him the value of a day's provisdions

Which brings up questions previously posed that you didn't even attempt to answer.

f it is not worth it to you to pay someone a day's provisons to do a particular job, then it must be so insignificant that you could add it to someone else's job description or do it yourself.

Let's assume for the moment that this is a factual statement. In this economy, people are cutting back on payrolls to make ends meet for their businesses. In your system, if someone's pay drops below "provisions" then you have no business employing them because someone else, or you, should be able to do the work instead of "forcing" someone to "subsidize" your business for, say half a "day's provisions". So, we now have a heavier workload for people who remain employed and a starved-to-death former employee who couldn't find work because his labor's not worth "provisions." I suppose it's for the best though. He may be dead, but hey at least he's not being exploited by the capitalist pigs.

 

[FlamingMoe]

If that's the case, a majority of Americans are unfamiliar with that part of the Constitution which forbids bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.

Or they have a working knowledge of Supreme Court precedent (I know, it's unlikely, but they'd be right...):

First, I'll just say this about the bonuses themselves: the argument that no one high-up at AIG-FP deserves a salary is ridiculous. Surely there were some executives that did a good job and brought money into the institution. If there weren't, that would be the second-best reason to let AIG drown in the sea of its own creation. (The first being that we shouldn't be rewarding a failed company.)

Anyway, on to the stupid tax. Yes, it's stupid. But I see no reason it would be declared unconsitutional. A 1987 tax increase retroactive to 1986 was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1994 (United States v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26) in a case that cost the plaintiff $600,000. A 1981 case (United States v. Darusmont, 449 U.S. 292) upheld Ford's Tax Reform Act of 1976, which retroactively increased minimum taxation amounts. Most absurdly, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit upheld a rule in 1996 (Tate & Lyle, Inc. and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, 87 F.3d 99) that was finalized in 1993 and altered the interpretation of a regulation that became effective in 1984, requiring retroactive taxes to be paid for the previous ten years. If'n that ain't retroactive enough to violate the conscience, I don't know what is. There are many other examples.

Furthermore, for anyone touting ex post facto prohibitions in the Constitution, the Supreme Court decided over two hundred years ago (Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386) that provision applies solely to criminal cases -- civil cases are exempt from the clause. This would not be a criminal case unless someone refused to pay the tax, but then they would be breaking the law after it was made and it wouldn't be an ex post facto issue.

The Contracts Clause may be referenced, but that clause has been upended since at least the New Deal Era, and it only applies to the states anyway. The Takings Clause of the fifth amendment could be sensibly applied, but I think we all know how impotent that restriction has become -- as long as the tax would satisfy a "public purpose" (satisfying the bloodlust of the mob would likely qualify) it'll do just fine under that attack. Considered further, the fact that any case attacking the law would involve economic rights would almost certainly doom it from the outset, as these rights are held more breachable than others, for reasons my rational mind cannot comprehend.

The Attainders Clause is the only method which, in my view, has even a remote chance of success. However, since the law isn't meant to replace a trial and find anyone guilty of any crime, even this option's probability of success looks grim. Even the premise that the law is intended to inflict punishment on a specific group of people is flimsy. The Supreme Court, in upholding (yet) another retroactive tax scheme, stated in Welch v. Henry (305 U.S. 134), "[t]axation is [not] a penalty imposed on the taxpayer... It is but a way of apportioning the cost of government among those who in some measure are privileged to enjoy its benefits and must bear its burdens." Taking this view, that taxes are not punitive measures, the Attainders Clause attack fails.

In conclusion: the law is stupid and ridiculous, and is an illustration of partly why I think the market is in turmoil (there is no solid ground upon which investors can stand), but will not be ruled unconstitutional in any court challenge, barring massive reconsideration of precedent.

 

[Horatius]

2) a majority of Americans think Congress should have the power to raise taxes retroactively on certain groups of people.

If that's the case, a majority of Americans are unfamiliar with that part of the Constitution which forbids bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.

Or, they think that that part of the Constitution should be changed.

Do you reject as illogical every position that calls for changes to the law, just because "That's the way the law is now!"?

 

[shuize]

If you hire a man for a day, you owe him the value of a day's provisdions, unless he does something so obviously wrong that you can take him to small claims court. If you think that it is right for you to retain people who have not utterly screwed up the job at less than a living wage, you are demanding a subsidy from them, and they have no reason to give it to you. If a man's work is not worth a day's provisions, why would you keep him on for more than a day unless you are utterly retarded and not qualified to run a business?

Suppose, for the sake of argument, I were to agree with your "day's provisions" idea. Who decides what the value of "a day's provisions" should be? Since I'm paying, I think it's possible to get by on bread and water. Funny thing, though, all the workers say they want steak and caviar. Should they be allowed to bargain for more? They don't really need steak and caviar. That's bourgeois food. What if most say bread and water is not sufficient but, lucky for me, one guy is willing to work for a handful of rice like a true class conscious peasant. Can I hire him?

Similarly, suppose someone who knows nothing about building a wall today (and would totally ruin it if left alone) wants to help someone else who knows what he's doing for less than a day's provisions in order to learn about building and be able to come back and earn more later. Can I hire him for less than a full day's provisions or would that be utterly retarded of me to try and help him gain experience that way?

 

[Dr Adequate]

That conclusion requires the acceptance of two premises - that 1) the questions were asked at the same time (they don't appear to have been) and, 2) a majority of Americans think Congress should have the power to raise taxes retroactively on certain groups of people.

My conclusion, so far as I can see, requires neither of those premises. And it was my conclusion, so I should know.

The first of these "premises" seems to be completely unrelated to anything under discussion; and the second "premise", unrelated to my conclusion, would seem to be borne out by the answer that respondents gave to the first of the two questions you mentioned.

If that's the case, a majority of Americans are unfamiliar with that part of the Constitution which forbids bills of attainder and ex post facto laws.

If the actions of Congress were unconstitutional under Article I.9 , then I guess it's not just the majority of the people who are unaware of it. It seems to have slipped the mind of most Congressmen too.

I don't see it myself, either. I think you'd have to weasel the phrases "ex post facto law" and "bill of attainder" pretty badly to get them to mean what you'd want them to mean.

As a side note, Congress has no rights at all. Congress has only powers; the people have rights.

In which case the 81% would have been perfectly correct. But perhaps they were not being quite so pedantic.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Obviously, you cannot hire someone with no interest in making money. Maybe at that point they should go looking for someone who designs bridges for a living.

But I fail to see the relevance of your question.

I am not an expert on communism: but I believe that the government pays him to do it.

This question also seems somewhat irrelevant to my post.

Allow me to elaborate further, since lefty has gone off an anti-capitalist possibly Marxist fueled rant most of us have assumed people coming into the conversation at not at least understand that most of our comments are general criticisms of communist philosophy. A few basic teachings of Marxist philosophy, at least as taught by Mark, include: the abolishment of the wage system, the elimination of taxes, and the liquidation of the government and the communal management of resources.

Mhaze seemed to me as if he was asking how another group gets bridge-builders to build bridges for them if they don't have any money to offer them (since lefty seems to be under the impression that exectives or people in power shouldn't be compensated for their work), and I went further with this by stating that if another community has absolutely nothing to offer them how do they get the skills of this man? I was levelling a general criticism at communism and I must apologize because I honestly thought you were stepping up to defend lefty.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Fifty-seven percent of Americans favor raising taxes on AIG employees retroactively, while 81% say Congress does not have the power to raise taxes on Americans retroactively.

And they can vote, and they can breed...

That is truly funny sad.

 

[aerosolben]

and I went further with this by stating that if another community has absolutely nothing to offer them how do they get the skills of this man?

I couldn't follow this when you first posted it either.

How do they hire him if they were capitalists, if they have nothing to offer? I don't see any criticism particular to communism here.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Allow me to elaborate further, since lefty has gone off an anti-capitalist possibly Marxist fueled rant most of us have assumed people coming into the conversation at not at least understand that most of our comments are general criticisms of communist philosophy. A few basic teachings of Marxist philosophy, at least as taught by Mark, include: the abolishment of the wage system, the elimination of taxes, and the liquidation of the government and the communal management of resources.

Mhaze seemed to me as if he was asking how another group gets bridge-builders to build bridges for them if they don't have any money to offer them (since lefty seems to be under the impression that exectives or people in power shouldn't be compensated for their work), and I went further with this by stating that if another community has absolutely nothing to offer them how do they get the skills of this man? I was levelling a general criticism at communism and I must apologize because I honestly thought you were stepping up to defend lefty.

No, my point has a more general application. Under any political system, the bridge designer designs bridges because he needs what society gives him in return for designing bridges. As far as Communism goes, it does not seem to me that this is particularly a difficulty for a Communist society, since presumably in such a state bridge designers still have needs that only non-bridge-designers can supply.

(Though I am not sure that leftysargeant qualifies as a Communist, but that is by-the-by.)

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

I couldn't follow this when you first posted it either.

How do they hire him if they were capitalists, if they have nothing to offer? I don't see any criticism particular to communism here.

They aren't capitalists, that's the thing. It was an argument against communism. Specifically if there is no government, no incentive to work, how does group X over here get man Y to build a bridge for them? Basic communist ideology says that he'll get some cut of his work, but how does a person benefit from their own labor for something they won't use and how is he given incentive to work if money is useless and they have nothing else of "real" value to offer him?

Basically I'm trying to get Lefty, and any other communists out there who may agree with him, to admit that the only incentive is to pay him a previously agreed upon amount with a valuable good or form of currency. Marxist ideology holds that money is useless and labor has an inherent value, which is what my criticism addresses.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

No, my point has a more general application. Under any political system, the bridge designer designs bridges because he needs what society gives him in return for designing bridges. As far as Communism goes, it does not seem to me that this is particularly a difficulty for a Communist society, since presumably in such a state bridge designers still have needs that only non-bridge-designers can supply.

Partially correct. Under a capitalist system he is paid in currency. Communism states that he will be paid by the inherent value of his work. My question is how does communism pay him for the inherent value of his work if he won't use the bridge he built? That goes back into my criticism of communism, how do you get a person to design a bridge for another community if that community has nothing to offer him or his own community. Bare in mind that after the Glorious Worker's Revolution, Marx stated that the state will be slowly outlawed and replaced by groups of anarchic communities who will practice communal ownership of the means of production and a true dictatorship of the proletariat. Meaning there will be no government to hire him to build that bridge for the other community that is not his own community.

 

[Dr Adequate]

They aren't capitalists, that's the thing. It was an argument against communism. Specifically if there is no government, no incentive to work, how does group X over here get man Y to build a bridge for them? Basic communist ideology says that he'll get some cut of his work ...

Are you sure?

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

Are you sure?

Yes

 

[Dr Adequate]

Yes

On what do you base your suriosity?

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

On what do you base your suriosity?

Marxist theory of exploitation and surplus labour for one. "To each according to his contribution" (for a more Leninist statement) is another one, I'll look for the quote from the communist thinker who stated that those who would "not work" (namely the bourgeoisie) would be allowed to starve to death.

ETA: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat"

In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."

1936 Soviet Constitution, Article Twelve.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Marxist theory of exploitation and surplus labour for one. "To each according to his contribution" (for a more Leninist statement) is another one, I'll look for the quote from the communist thinker who stated that those who would "not work" (namely the bourgeoisie) would be allowed to starve to death.

ETA: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat"

Ah, I know this one. That would be St Paul, in 2 Thessalonians 3:10.

In the U.S.S.R. work is a duty and a matter of honor for every able-bodied citizen, in accordance with the principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat."

1936 Soviet Constitution, Article Twelve.

But this does nothing to support your contention --- it doesn't go on to say "... and he who works as a bridge designer shall get nothing to eat but his own bridge designs", does it?

Furthermore, we may note that the Soviets did build bridges, and presumably didn't achieve this by providing the bridge designers with nothing to eat but their own blueprints.

As I say, I am no expert on Communism, but I think you must have misunderstood their position somewhat.

 

[Kthulhut Fhtagn]

But this does nothing to support your contention --- it doesn't go on to say "... and he who works as a bridge designer shall get nothing to eat but his own bridge designs", does it?

Furthermore, we may note that the Soviets did build bridges, and presumably didn't achieve this by providing the bridge designers with nothing to eat but their own blueprints.

As I say, I am no expert on Communism, but I think you must have misunderstood their position somewhat.

I never said otherwise now did I? It'd be a rather silly idea to pay a brick layer in more bricks and nothing but. I stated that his community will pay him in what he needs in accordance for his work. My question was why would he work for a community with nothing to offer him? Especially when his own community has a surplus of goods they are willing to pay him so long as the bridges remain built and he makes himself product.

 

[Skeptic]

And Socrates had it coming. He was a proto-fascist.

You know what the sad thing is? "Lefty Sergeant" is actually SERIOUS.

Edited for Rule 12 violation.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky