quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
This Washington Post article argues that liberals and conservatives actually think differently; in response to the same data, they will come to different conclusions. The article is written from a liberal perspective - but I think does make a valid point - to put it in an antagonistic way: liberals are blown about by the latest fashions, whereas conservatives stick to the conclusions that they reached over the years. (You can read the article yourself to see how it expresses its disdain for conservatives...) Now given that there is a strong Christian virtue of sticking with what you've heard from God even when the world demands you live otherwise, I guess it's no surprise that Christians tend to be 'conservatives' on this scale - though of course this virtue can go too far!

What I take away from this article is a reminder that other people aren't just curmudgeonly or obtuse - they really do think in different ways, and we need to adjust our arguments accordingly. But yes, ultimately we have to agree to disagree sometimes; the challenge is to work out exactly why the disagreement is occurring.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
progressive

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
AFAICS the word 'liberal' in US politics has been the subject of a 30 year campaign to discredit it, so that, when polled, people shy away and opt for conservative. I think it would better to find a poll that looks at opinions on specific policies rather than a binary choice between two very loaded words.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
progressive

---

That's the word I thought should have been explored in the article. If I was a politically active US citizen, I'd opt for 'progressive' as my chosen self-description - much less tainted by the mudslinging.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"

By holding on to ideas that are demonstrably wrong (and not just the latest fad), conservatives simply compound the error.

This is not to say that chasing after every new thing is good, either - both deny the evidence. We owe it to ourselves to at least evaluate the evidence and come to an honest conclusion.

---

The issue in many cases is 'what are the FACTS' in this situation. IMNSHO it's important to note that the 'facts' on the issues of abortion, homosexual practice, sex outside marriage and divorce and remarriage haven't changed, all that's changes is people's opinions about them.

An ideological position: 'it is not the role of the government to provide subsidies for healthcare' - is not subject to challenge by the 'facts'. The bible's claim that God does miracles - and raised Jesus from the dead - can be discussed on the basis of evidence, or on the basis of philosophical presuppositions, but not both.

I think it's fair ask the questions that the article does, and we need to look hard at our own positions: 'why do I conclude X?' The reality is that we may well be conforming to the stereotype - or maybe we aren't. The example of a liberal messup offered in the article - the MMR vaccine scandal - is a good demonstration of the way that 'facts' can mislead; add a dusting of anti-authoritarian prejudice, and you end up with many still believing there is something to fear. Sadly if this article merely encourages 'liberals' to be even more prejudiced against 'conservative' arguments, then it's a shame; if it encourages us all to think harder about why I conclude X, then it's helpful.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Well, conversely, couldn't also encourage some conservatives to entertain and maintain prejudices against liberals?



You're ever so binary, Ender's Shadow:

Conservative = good
Liberal = bad

Conservative = Biblical
Liberal = Unbiblical

I really don't think it's as clear-cut as that at all.
 

---

Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
Also interesting is this report (sorry it comes from the Fail) which seems to show right wing people are less intelligent than those on the left.
 

---

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Well, conversely, couldn't also encourage some conservatives to entertain and maintain prejudices against liberals?



You're ever so binary, Ender's Shadow:

Conservative = good
Liberal = bad

Conservative = Biblical
Liberal = Unbiblical

I really don't think it's as clear-cut as that at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Social Justice progressive Christians tend to believe in all aspects of society - government and private - assisting the less fortunate where conservatives tend to hold to only private charity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
This Washington Post article argues that liberals and conservatives actually think differently; in response to the same data, they will come to different conclusions. The article is written from a liberal perspective - but I think does make a valid point - to put it in an antagonistic way: liberals are blown about by the latest fashions, whereas conservatives stick to the conclusions that they reached over the years. (You can read the article yourself to see how it expresses its disdain for conservatives...) Now given that there is a strong Christian virtue of sticking with what you've heard from God even when the world demands you live otherwise, I guess it's no surprise that Christians tend to be 'conservatives' on this scale - though of course this virtue can go too far!

What I take away from this article is a reminder that other people aren't just curmudgeonly or obtuse - they really do think in different ways, and we need to adjust our arguments accordingly. But yes, ultimately we have to agree to disagree sometimes; the challenge is to work out exactly why the disagreement is occurring.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Social Justice progressive Christians tend to believe in all aspects of society - government and private - assisting the less fortunate where conservatives tend to hold to only private charity.

---

You miss out the main reason why conservatives favour only private charity - namely that they believe it's immoral to force people to assist if they don't want to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
PS When I say "the article is fine", that's simply because it's old news. This is certainly not the first time I've seen reports that there are innate differences between people in the speed at which they accept new ideas and change.

Where you go horribly wrong is reading some kind of value judgement into the differences. Like any trait, there are advantages and disadvantages in both directions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
PS When I say "the article is fine", that's simply because it's old news. This is certainly not the first time I've seen reports that there are innate differences between people in the speed at which they accept new ideas and change.

Where you go horribly wrong is reading some kind of value judgement into the differences. Like any trait, there are advantages and disadvantages in both directions.

---

Very true. But do these differences and different ways of coping with change affect our theology? If so then we need to be even more self-aware when we think we're 'right'. The reason a theology or worldview appears right to us could simply be due to our wiring.

---

Not sure I buy the "wiring", though I do think our theology affects our way of thinking. My siblings and I all differ in our political viewpoints - and in our theology. We can discuss theology, but politics gets a bit dicey.

 

---

Posted by Tom Paine's Bones (# 17027) on :
 
Two very quick points:

(1) I have seen some evidence to suggest that our political views shape our theological views, as much if not more than the other way around. Sorry, no link just now as in a rush. Will try to find it later if anyone requests.

(2) This is very US centric. It deals only with a conservative-liberal scale, mainly dealing with social/lifestyle issues. But there are other scales. In much of Europe, 'liberalism' is the individualist ideology of the political right, while certain forms of socialism can, in terms of their values, be more 'solidarist' and, in a sense, more socially 'conservative'.
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
[qb] AFAICS the word 'liberal' in US politics has been the subject of a 30 year campaign to discredit it, ...

To prove your point is the assertion by one of our congress critters that liberals in Congress are "communists".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jonathan Strange:
[qb] AFAICS the word 'liberal' in US politics has been the subject of a 30 year campaign to discredit it, ...

To prove your point is the assertion by one of our congress critters that liberals in Congress are "communists".

---

Worth pointing out maybe, it's not just that some scorn the label "liberal" (or "progressive"), they think the policies that tend to be associated with "liberals" are communistic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You miss out the main reason why conservatives favour only private charity - namely that they believe it's immoral to force people to assist if they don't want to.

---

Ah, but those who view in the gospel's (actually OT & NT) emphasis on aiding the sick and the poor - to the point God demanded businesses/farmer's give a percentage to them - don't view it as being forced.

---

quote:

---

Almost every charity is hurting and unable to meet the needs during this economic downturn. ... Do I believe people would give more if they weren't taxed? Nope, because those that give give as much as they otherwise would and many others resent anyone getting any money from them, period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Marx said government should take from those who have more and give it to those who have less,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Giving money to a beggar is good, but mugging someone else so that you can give their money to a beggar is not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Giving money to a beggar is good, but mugging someone else so that you can give their money to a beggar is not.

---

Unless the bloke you mug is the Sherriff of Nottingham.

Or perhaps the Marquess of Salisbury or the Duke of Bedford.

---

So you think it's perfectly morally OK to mug some people?

Are there any other legal protections you think should only apply to certain subsets of the population?
 

---

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
mousethief, shame! Logic and reason have no place in politics.
 

---

Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The question is whether a society should take care of its own. Conservatives say fuck 'em, progressives say we have a responsibility to take care of one another.

The whole "force" thing is weaselwording. Being in a society at all is being forced to do things you don't want to do. That's the very nature of a governed society. As such it cannot possibly be evil unless living in a governed society is evil, in which case it is most blatantly hypocritical for conservatives to remain in a governed society.

What they really mean is that being forced to pay for things that **I** don't want the government to pay for is theft; being forced to pay for things that **I** would like the government to pay for is not theft.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There will always be debate about which compromises are acceptable, yes. But the answer none, or only those I like, is unacceptable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So you think it's perfectly morally OK to mug some people?

Are there any other legal protections you think should only apply to certain subsets of the population?

---

quote:

---

Perhaps most important, liberals consistently score higher on a personality measure called “openness to experience,” one of the “Big Five” personality traits, which are easily assessed through standard questionnaires. That means liberals tend to be the kind of people who want to try new things, including new music, books, restaurants and vacation spots — and new ideas.

“Open people everywhere tend to have more liberal values,” said psychologist Robert McCrae, who conducted voluminous studies on personality while at the National Institute on Aging at the National Institutes of Health.

Conservatives, in contrast, tend to be less open — less exploratory, less in need of change — and more “conscientious,” a trait that indicates they appreciate order and structure in their lives. This gels nicely with the standard definition of conservatism as resistance to change — in the famous words of William F. Buckley Jr., a desire to stand “athwart history, yelling ‘Stop!’ ”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Social Justice progressive Christians tend to believe in all aspects of society - government and private - assisting the less fortunate where conservatives tend to hold to only private charity.

---

You miss out the main reason why conservatives favour only private charity - namely that they believe it's immoral to force people to assist if they don't want to.

---

quote:

---

The current American culture war, we have found, can be seen as arising from the fact that liberals try to create a morality relying primarily on the Care/harm foundation, with additional support from the Fairness/cheating and Liberty/oppression foundations. Conservatives, especially religious conservatives, use all six foundations, including Loyatly/betrayal, Authority/subversion, and Sanctity/degradation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You miss out the main reason why conservatives favour only private charity - namely that they believe it's immoral to force people to assist if they don't want to.

---

Ah, but those who view in the gospel's (actually OT & NT) emphasis on aiding the sick and the poor - to the point God demanded businesses/farmer's give a percentage to them - don't view it as being forced.

---

The point doesn't need everyone to see it as being forced in order to be valid.

quote:

---

Almost every charity is hurting and unable to meet the needs during this economic downturn. ... Do I believe people would give more if they weren't taxed? Nope, because those that give give as much as they otherwise would and many others resent anyone getting any money from them, period.

---

That's not the point though. It's the old "you shouldn't do evil in order to achieve good" thing. Giving money to a beggar is good, but mugging someone else so that you can give their money to a beggar is not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
There will always be debate about which compromises are acceptable, yes. But the answer none, or only those I like, is unacceptable.

---

Bull. Everybody wants only those compromises they happen to like. It's just that the ones who happen to like compromises that mean everybody else has to pay for the things they want to see happening dress their preferences up in language that suggests they will benefit the whole of society rather than just that segment of it they favour.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The issue in many cases is 'what are the FACTS' in this situation. IMNSHO it's important to note that the 'facts' on the issues of abortion, homosexual practice, sex outside marriage and divorce and remarriage haven't changed, all that's changes is people's opinions about them.

An ideological position: 'it is not the role of the government to provide subsidies for healthcare' - is not subject to challenge by the 'facts'. The bible's claim that God does miracles - and raised Jesus from the dead - can be discussed on the basis of evidence, or on the basis of philosophical presuppositions, but not both.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
IMNSHO it's important to note that the 'facts' on the issues of abortion, homosexual practice, sex outside marriage and divorce and remarriage haven't changed, all that's changes is people's opinions about them.

---

The facts re homosexual practice, as you call it, have recently changed in an important respect: nowadays we can easily see and get acquainted with known homosexuals. For hundreds of years prior to our generation, that was a rare opportunity, and the powers-that-be did everything they could to prevent it.

It may still be all too easy to stigmatize a group whose members are observable; but when they are not, it's a cakewalk. When contrary evidence is front of them, most people are good enough to recognize false witness against their neighbors for what it is.
 

---

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :
 
I would be very grateful to feel that many of the commentariat actually thought for themselves rather than repeated the perceived wisdom of their peer group/adulators.

If they just stopped, reflected and then spoke, I think we would have far less conflict and far less name calling.


 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The issue in many cases is 'what are the FACTS' in this situation. IMNSHO it's important to note that the 'facts' on the issues of abortion, homosexual practice, sex outside marriage and divorce and remarriage haven't changed, all that's changes is people's opinions about them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The issue in many cases is 'what are the FACTS' in this situation. IMNSHO it's important to note that the 'facts' on the issues of abortion, homosexual practice, sex outside marriage and divorce and remarriage haven't changed, all that's changes is people's opinions about them.

---

There are barely any 'facts' in those issues, though, other than the facts of definition. Abortion is the termination of foetus. Homosexual sex is sex between two people of the same gender. Sex outside marriage is sex between two people who haven't gone through a wedding ceremony. Divorce is the end of a marriage. Remarriage is getting married and it's not your first time.

That's about it, really. I can't think of any other immutable 'facts' about ANY of these things.

---

That's the point I was making. The fact that people look at gay relationships - in the same way as they look at the marriages of people who've divorced and remarried - and say 'That seems to be a good relationship therefore it's a good thing', is making many, many assumptions. Yet down that route the Protestant church has widely gone with the remarriage of divorcees, and the same logic is now being applied to gay relationships. But no - this isn't a 'fact' unless you want to assume that God will automatically curse all relationships that fall short of His commands.
 

---

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
This Washington Post article argues that liberals and conservatives actually think differently; in response to the same data, they will come to different conclusions. The article is written from a liberal perspective - but I think does make a valid point - to put it in an antagonistic way: liberals are blown about by the latest fashions, whereas conservatives stick to the conclusions that they reached over the years. (You can read the article yourself to see how it expresses its disdain for conservatives...) Now given that there is a strong Christian virtue of sticking with what you've heard from God even when the world demands you live otherwise, I guess it's no surprise that Christians tend to be 'conservatives' on this scale - though of course this virtue can go too far!

What I take away from this article is a reminder that other people aren't just curmudgeonly or obtuse - they really do think in different ways, and we need to adjust our arguments accordingly. But yes, ultimately we have to agree to disagree sometimes; the challenge is to work out exactly why the disagreement is occurring.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
But no - this isn't a 'fact' unless you want to assume that God will automatically curse all relationships that fall short of His commands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The issue in many cases is 'what are the FACTS' in this situation. IMNSHO it's important to note that the 'facts' on the issues of abortion, homosexual practice, sex outside marriage and divorce and remarriage haven't changed, all that's changes is people's opinions about them.

---

There are barely any 'facts' in those issues, though, other than the facts of definition. Abortion is the termination of foetus. Homosexual sex is sex between two people of the same gender. Sex outside marriage is sex between two people who haven't gone through a wedding ceremony. Divorce is the end of a marriage. Remarriage is getting married and it's not your first time.

That's about it, really. I can't think of any other immutable 'facts' about ANY of these things.

---

That's the point I was making. The fact that people look at gay relationships - in the same way as they look at the marriages of people who've divorced and remarried - and say 'That seems to be a good relationship therefore it's a good thing', is making many, many assumptions. Yet down that route the Protestant church has widely gone with the remarriage of divorcees, and the same logic is now being applied to gay relationships. But no - this isn't a 'fact' unless you want to assume that God will automatically curse all relationships that fall short of His commands.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
... No government since 1867 has ever been elected at the federal level by being bible-thumpers. It will never happen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
This Washington Post article argues that liberals and conservatives actually think differently; in response to the same data, they will come to different conclusions. The article is written from a liberal perspective - but I think does make a valid point - to put it in an antagonistic way: liberals are blown about by the latest fashions, whereas conservatives stick to the conclusions that they reached over the years. (You can read the article yourself to see how it expresses its disdain for conservatives...) Now given that there is a strong Christian virtue of sticking with what you've heard from God even when the world demands you live otherwise, I guess it's no surprise that Christians tend to be 'conservatives' on this scale - though of course this virtue can go too far!

What I take away from this article is a reminder that other people aren't just curmudgeonly or obtuse - they really do think in different ways, and we need to adjust our arguments accordingly. But yes, ultimately we have to agree to disagree sometimes; the challenge is to work out exactly why the disagreement is occurring.

---

There you go equating Christianity with conservative politics. That requires facts not in evidence in Canada.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:
Those same conservatives who claim that it's "immoral" to involve people in Christian norms of alms-giving without their consent will turn around and tell you that it's the place of the state to force conservative standards of chastity on those who want no part of Christianity. How do you square that in a way that makes sense?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
God didn't think so and from what we can tell Jesus wasn't negative on the issue of taxes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
God didn't think so and from what we can tell Jesus wasn't negative on the issue of taxes.

---

So? Not everyone believes in God or Jesus, why should they be made to act as if they do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I never thought of taxes as theft.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I never thought of taxes as theft.

---

I don't think of them as theft, I think of them as a transaction. I'm buying services, be they healthcare, transport infrastructure, garbage disposal or security. And as such, if there are things I don't want to buy I will campaign against my money being used to buy them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:
Those same conservatives who claim that it's "immoral" to involve people in Christian norms of alms-giving without their consent will turn around and tell you that it's the place of the state to force conservative standards of chastity on those who want no part of Christianity. How do you square that in a way that makes sense?

---

I don't. But then, I'm perfectly in favour of liberal standards of chastity. I'm essentially a libertarian, I favour as few laws and as little government as possible. In all areas of life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Paine's Bones:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I never thought of taxes as theft.

---

I don't think of them as theft, I think of them as a transaction. I'm buying services, be they healthcare, transport infrastructure, garbage disposal or security. And as such, if there are things I don't want to buy I will campaign against my money being used to buy them.

---

I don't think of them as theft, or as a transaction.
I see them as a contribution to the common pot.

My taxes don't buy the services I use.
Our taxes fund the services we use.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Okay then TPB, how about your taxes go to fund camps where, ooh let's see, small children are ritually whipped? Still so keen?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
And part of that is that there will always be "services" that some will want while others don't.

---

quote:

---

Frankly, I'd have skipped paying for the war in Iraq and a paying for a lot of the perks for our legislators enjoy if I had my way.

---

quote:

---

Sorry, but we all pay taxes that go for some things we don't want in addition to things we do.

---

quote:

---

It isn't a transaction by a long shot.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Sorry, but we all pay taxes that go for some things we don't want in addition to things we do.

---

That's certainly a fact, but that doesn't mean it's a desirable one.

quote:

---

It isn't a transaction by a long shot.

---

Not the way you see it. But you and I think differently. The way I see it, it is a transaction. I don't see that society, or the government, has any right to any of the money I earn, but I know that some services have to be provided at the national level in order for them to be as efficient as possible. It follows that the way of providing those services that works out the cheapest for me is through taxation. It also follows that if goverment provision is inefficient, or they are spending my money on shit I don't want, then I must use what political power I have (my vote) to strive to replace the government with one that will do the job properly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doc Tor:
"When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"

By holding on to ideas that are demonstrably wrong (and not just the latest fad), conservatives simply compound the error.

This is not to say that chasing after every new thing is good, either - both deny the evidence. We owe it to ourselves to at least evaluate the evidence and come to an honest conclusion.

---

The issue in many cases is 'what are the FACTS' in this situation. IMNSHO it's important to note that the 'facts' on the issues of abortion, homosexual practice, sex outside marriage and divorce and remarriage haven't changed, all that's changes is people's opinions about them.

---

quote:

---

An ideological position: 'it is not the role of the government to provide subsidies for healthcare' - is not subject to challenge by the 'facts'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
An ideological position: 'it is not the role of the government to provide subsidies for healthcare' - is not subject to challenge by the 'facts'.

---

That depends. If that is the only premise you have then that is possibly so. But if you also have the principle that "everyone should have healthcare" then your synthesis may be "Private charity should pick up the shortfall." At that point because you have more than one principle, a fact can show your bridge to be an illusion and your two principles to be in opposition. That fact is "Private charity does not even come close to covering this gap and in no society ever has". At which point you need to rank your priorities. Is a lack of taxation more important than people literally dying on the streets?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Okay then TPB, how about your taxes go to fund camps where, ooh let's see, small children are ritually whipped? Still so keen?

---

Fortunately, that's illegal in just about all civilized countries, so no taxes would go for them. Additionally, in democracies the people do have elections and courts to turn to if things that are illegal or unconstitutional are attempted to be implemented. We're not talking about dictatorships or extremist theocracies here. Not even close to being a sound argument. And here in the U.S. injunctions are granted quite easily against nutty laws that are sometimes passed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
If you can tell me how exactly we can each wind up paying only for the things we want I'm all ears.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Okay then TPB, how about your taxes go to fund camps where, ooh let's see, small children are ritually whipped? Still so keen?

---

Fortunately, that's illegal in just about all civilized countries, so no taxes would go for them. Additionally, in democracies the people do have elections and courts to turn to if things that are illegal or unconstitutional are attempted to be implemented. We're not talking about dictatorships or extremist theocracies here. Not even close to being a sound argument. And here in the U.S. injunctions are granted quite easily against nutty laws that are sometimes passed.

---

It's currently illegal, so what? Plenty of regimes have been and still are nasty, does that mean that their citizens should sit tight and pay their taxes like good folk? What the 'tax as moral good' argument misses is that governments are just (or at least) as subject to original sin as all the rest of us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:
According to this report from the think-tank Demos, religious people in the UK are more likely to be politically progressive than conservative. They define this as meaning:

1) Religious people are more likely to be "active citizens" (volunteering more, giving money to charity more etc);
2) Religious people are more likely to be concerned with equality than non-religious;
3) Religious people are more likely to place themselves on the left of the political spectrum.

So religious does not necessarily = conservative as the OP suggests.

---

It woudl be nice to call in that report as evidence that Christians are more left-wing than non-Christians in Britain, but I'm afraid its not really strong enopugh for that. Rather loose definitions on all sides and badly mangled stats I think (not in the study but in the way its reported - this is of course true about 97.93% of all journalistic or political comment supposedly based on statistics )

As far as I remember there is some good evidence that churchgoers in England are much more likely to be "liberal" on race and immigration and asylum seekers and more welcoming of ethnic diversity than the general population are. And there is perhaps some weaker evidence that they are on average more conservative on sexual behaviour, most notably male homosexuality.

But apart from those two issues, neither of which is exactly a surprise, I've never heard of any strong evidence that churchgoers politics differs very much from others of their age or class. Doesn't mean there isn't any, but I've never heard of it and that Demos report isn't it.

That's still nothing like the general perception in the USA that churchgoing Christians are more right-wing than average (which of course might not be true either, but its what most Americans seem to think)
 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't. But then, I'm perfectly in favour of liberal standards of chastity. I'm essentially a libertarian, I favour as few laws and as little government as possible. In all areas of life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Frankly, I'd have skipped paying for the war in Iraq and a paying for a lot of the perks for our legislators enjoy if I had my way.

---

Me too. The Iraq war is one of the reasons I voted to get rid of Labour.

---

quote:

---

Not the way you see it. But you and I think differently. The way I see it, it is a transaction. I don't see that society, or the government, has any right to any of the money I earn, but I know that some services have to be provided at the national level in order for them to be as efficient as possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Again, we don't always succeed but that is no excuse to give up or deny that taxes can be used for moral good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Again, we don't always succeed but that is no excuse to give up or deny that taxes can be used for moral good.

---

Well sure. And some burglaries are done purely in order to feed starving families.

The trouble is that we have differences of opinion over what constitutes "moral good". And even where we agree about it, we have differences of opinion about the most morally right way to achieve it. The ends don't always justify the means.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't. But then, I'm perfectly in favour of liberal standards of chastity. I'm essentially a libertarian, I favour as few laws and as little government as possible. In all areas of life.

---

And I believe in liberty. That's why I vote for a government stronger than corporations, a decent health service so freedoms aren't crippled by illness and injury, and any of a number of other issues. I believe that many laws preserve freedom.

---

quote:

---

Here I disagree. Because 95% of what is necessary for both my job and my lifestyle comes from the society. I am worth a hell of a lot of money to where I work. And few could do it better. But what do I need that's provided by society.

---

quote:

---

Computers. Not invented by me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I thought you didn't believe taxes were theft.

---

quote:

---

I don't and the government assisting in taking care of the shortfall in caring for the truly poor, sick and elderly benefits all of society in the long run.

---

All of society?

.

*= apart from the welfare office, of course.
 

---

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
And I believe in liberty. That's why I vote for a government stronger than corporations, a decent health service so freedoms aren't crippled by illness and injury, and any of a number of other issues. I believe that many laws preserve freedom.

---

So do I. That's why it's "as little government as possible" rather than "no government at all".

---

quote:

---

"Provided by society" and "provided by government" are not the same thing.

---

quote:

---

No, but you (or your workplace) bought your computer yourself, thus providing an income to the people who did invent them. You didn't pay tax so that the government could simply give one to everybody.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
You can have a government with no decent public healthcare system. It's just about twice as expensive to do things that way and still leads to more epidemics and people dead in the streets.

---

quote:

---

What I think you mean is "Enough government to do the jobs I think should be done".

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

"Provided by society" and "provided by government" are not the same thing.

---

In a representative democracy (as we have), the job of government is to reflect the wishes of society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
This Washington Post article argues that liberals and conservatives actually think differently; in response to the same data, they will come to different conclusions. The article is written from a liberal perspective - but I think does make a valid point - to put it in an antagonistic way: liberals are blown about by the latest fashions, whereas conservatives stick to the conclusions that they reached over the years. (You can read the article yourself to see how it expresses its disdain for conservatives...) Now given that there is a strong Christian virtue of sticking with what you've heard from God even when the world demands you live otherwise, I guess it's no surprise that Christians tend to be 'conservatives' on this scale - though of course this virtue can go too far!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
You can have a government with no decent public healthcare system. It's just about twice as expensive to do things that way and still leads to more epidemics and people dead in the streets.

---

Did you read my post about some things being far more efficient (and therefore cheaper for me) when done on a national basis, and thus requiring funding through taxation?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

What I think you mean is "Enough government to do the jobs I think should be done".

---

Yes, I thought that went without saying.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

"Provided by society" and "provided by government" are not the same thing.

---

In a representative democracy (as we have), the job of government is to reflect the wishes of society.

---

Which bit of society?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
I don't and the government assisting in taking care of the shortfall in caring for the truly poor, sick and elderly benefits all of society in the long run.

---

All of society?

.

*= apart from the welfare office, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Okay then TPB, how about your taxes go to fund camps where, ooh let's see, small children are ritually whipped? Still so keen?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:
Those same conservatives who claim that it's "immoral" to involve people in Christian norms of alms-giving without their consent will turn around and tell you that it's the place of the state to force conservative standards of chastity on those who want no part of Christianity. How do you square that in a way that makes sense?

---

I don't. But then, I'm perfectly in favour of liberal standards of chastity. I'm essentially a libertarian, I favour as few laws and as little government as possible. In all areas of life.

---

I think Mockingale hasn't clocked that you live in a different country, or that our political system isn't the same as his.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:
I think there's less difference than you think, and to the extent that you find us problematic, we learned it from you, dad.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mockingale:
We have libertarians in this country, as well. At the same time, we have plenty of pseudo-libertarians who hate paying taxes but would love for the government to crack down on sweaty perversions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
LOL. Methinks the archbishop has a fairly loose grasp on how laws are made.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
LOL. Methinks the archbishop has a fairly loose grasp on how laws are made.

---

Archbishop Sentamu is form Uganda. He's got more experience of dictators than most of us and the defining characteristic of a dictator is populism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I hesitate to describe Cameron a dictator, he is definitely a populist, as is the ConDem government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
LOL. Methinks the archbishop has a fairly loose grasp on how laws are made.

---

Archbishop Sentamu is form Uganda. He's got more experience of dictators than most of us and the defining characteristic of a dictator is populism.

I hesitate to describe Cameron a dictator, he is definitely a populist, as is the ConDem government. ++John may have a loose grasp on how laws are made in the UK, but he isn't so far out about the motive behind which laws get changed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
the defining characteristic of a dictator is populism

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
LOL. Methinks the archbishop has a fairly loose grasp on how laws are made.

---

Archbishop Sentamu is form Uganda. He's got more experience of dictators than most of us and the defining characteristic of a dictator is populism.

I hesitate to describe Cameron a dictator, he is definitely a populist, as is the ConDem government. ++John may have a loose grasp on how laws are made in the UK, but he isn't so far out about the motive behind which laws get changed.

---

+Sentamu also worked as a lawyer before switching to theology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
Sentamu also worked as a lawyer before switching to theology.

---

Aha. In other words, he probably has a very good grasp of how laws are made but hopes his listeners don't.

I think that's worse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
btw, I'm sticking to my guns about dictators. Keeping the proletariat onside is the basis of any dictator's power base, which isn't so different from populism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
btw, I'm sticking to my guns about dictators. Keeping the proletariat onside is the basis of any dictator's power base, which isn't so different from populism.

---

You can stick to your guns all you like, but it's arrant nonsense. The Stasi have already been mentioned to you. It's perfectly possible to be a dictator in power while most of the population isn't on side but doesn't have sufficient means to get rid of you. I mean, look at Syria! Look at Libya for years and years. In fact, look at any dictator who gets overthrown by popular revolution, and work backwards to figure out how they got overthrown if populism was the basis of their power.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
By the way, I find it quite scary that you're suggesting someone could rise to the status of Archbishop after having been a lawyer who didn't understand where laws came from. What kind of selection process are you running over there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
By the way, I find it quite scary that you're suggesting someone could rise to the status of Archbishop after having been a lawyer who didn't understand where laws came from. What kind of selection process are you running over there?

---

You're involved in the law-drafting process (IIRC) but could you, even if permitted, interpret law? To put it another way, do you drive a car? Can you fix it, let alone design one? Making something and using it are very different.

---

I'm not TALKING about understanding the intricacies of the law drafting process. I'm talking about the basic realisation that laws are passed in Parliament by a majority of votes, and that the Prime Minister is the head of the party with the most votes.

Which is truly basic legal stuff.

If Cameron is a dictator for wanting to change a law over opposition, then every single Prime Minister you've ever had, and every single one I've ever had, is a dictator. Because every government in living memory has changed laws despite the change being opposed by someone. Every time that a law doesn't pass with 100% of the votes on the floor of a house of Parliament.

To describe that as dictatorship is an utter mockery of the word.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
PS I drive a car. I can fix a couple of small things on it, not much.

What I don't do is think that my mechanic chants magical incantations over the engine when I leave it with him. I know that he's got certain kinds of tools in his workshop, and that eye of newt isn't one of them.

Also, the notion that a lawyer is just 'a person who uses laws' is absurd. What the hell are they charging people money for, then? Are you suggesting I can hold myself out to others as an expert car driver?

[ 18. April 2012, 12:33: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 

---

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If Cameron is a dictator for wanting to change a law over opposition, then every single Prime Minister you've ever had, and every single one I've ever had, is a dictator. Because every government in living memory has changed laws despite the change being opposed by someone. Every time that a law doesn't pass with 100% of the votes on the floor of a house of Parliament.

To describe that as dictatorship is an utter mockery of the word.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Obama is not, by our standards, a left-winger. He's somewhere on the right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
If Cameron is a dictator for wanting to change a law over opposition, then every single Prime Minister you've ever had, and every single one I've ever had, is a dictator. Because every government in living memory has changed laws despite the change being opposed by someone. Every time that a law doesn't pass with 100% of the votes on the floor of a house of Parliament.

To describe that as dictatorship is an utter mockery of the word.

---

I stated that dictators are populists. I stated that Cameron is a populist and the ConDem government is populist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
Social Justice progressive Christians tend to believe in all aspects of society - government and private - assisting the less fortunate where conservatives tend to hold to only private charity.

---

You miss out the main reason why conservatives favour only private charity - namely that they believe it's immoral to force people to assist if they don't want to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
Why is it not fully reasonable to make people pay taxes to fund things they do not support, like charitable help for those in want and privation? The rich won't pay unless they are forced to. So make them. By God, make them. It must be done via legislation or it will be eventually at the barrel of a gun. Break-up their power, have governments stop giving them money in the form of tax breaks while taking more from the middle and poor classes.

---

One of the most basic lessons of economics is that it is not a zero sum game; it is perfectly possible for ALL sections of society to get richer as a result of economic growth. The reality of the past 65 years in Europe and parts of Asia clearly demonstrate this; the standard of living of the vast majority in the UK even now is a lot higher than it was in 1950, 1930, 1900 or ever. The problem in recent years has been that the huddled masses of East Asia have finally been given the tools to join the party - which means that they have competed away a lot of the gains which had been made by some sectors of society. Add in the rapidly rising burden of pensions caused by increased life spans as a result of increased prosperity, and the surplus available for the workers starts to decline. This is painful. But the suggestion that the theft of the wealth of some of those who've done well as a result of this economic growth will make a significant difference is fatuous, whilst the damage to the future prospects for the economy will be substantial: will any foreign companies be rushing to invest in Argentina now that they've stolen YPF from its owners?

The fact that South Korea and Singapore, starting with the same level of GDP per person in 1955 as many African countries, but which have now arrived at 'rich country' status, could achieve this, makes clear that the barriers to development are mostly internal; the self serving claims of kleptocratic elites in poor countries that it is otherwise - encouraging the giving of more aid for them to steal - are hardly surprising. That many people in the West are blind enough to fall for this fantasy again and again is more surprising
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
Why is it not fully reasonable to make people pay taxes to fund things they do not support, like charitable help for those in want and privation?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
Why is it not fully reasonable to make people pay taxes to fund things they do not support, like charitable help for those in want and privation?

---

Why is it not fully reasonable for me to come to your house, break down the door, steal all your valuable posessions, and then sell them so that I can use the proceeds to help fund a soup kitchen and shelter for homeless people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
If you really don't know the difference between the political will of the society and the individual desires of an individual

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
If you really don't know the difference between the political will of the society and the individual desires of an individual

---

The only difference is how many people agree with it. The effect on the individual from whom the resources are taken is the same, as is the effect on the individuals who receive the benefit of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
The difference is that property, unlike the right not to be murdered, is something that is established by social agreement.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
Why is it not fully reasonable to make people pay taxes to fund things they do not support, like charitable help for those in want and privation?

---

Why is it not fully reasonable for me to come to your house, break down the door, steal all your valuable posessions, and then sell them so that I can use the proceeds to help fund a soup kitchen and shelter for homeless people?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
The difference is that property, unlike the right not to be murdered, is something that is established by social agreement.

---

False. The right not to be murdered is something that is granted by social agreement just as much as any other right (say, the right to own property). You can't separate the two in those terms.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no_prophet:
Why is it not fully reasonable to make people pay taxes to fund things they do not support, like charitable help for those in want and privation?

---

Why is it not fully reasonable for me to come to your house, break down the door, steal all your valuable posessions, and then sell them so that I can use the proceeds to help fund a soup kitchen and shelter for homeless people?

---

Because taxes aren't theft. Stupid comparison by the way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
So are you saying

a.) That if enough people wanted to kill Marvin the Martian, killing Marvin the Martian is morally correct (because the right not to be killed is merely social consensus),

or

b.) That if the market value of a house drops, and the buyer pays less for it than they would have done a year ago, the buyer has actually stolen from the seller (because the value of a house is a moral absolute)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The value of a house isn't a moral absolute in either way of looking at things - it's the right to own it in the first place that's up for grabs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
So are you saying

a.) That if enough people wanted to kill Marvin the Martian, killing Marvin the Martian is morally correct (because the right not to be killed is merely social consensus),

or

b.) That if the market value of a house drops, and the buyer pays less for it than they would have done a year ago, the buyer has actually stolen from the seller (because the value of a house is a moral absolute)?

---

False comparison. The value of a house isn't a moral absolute in either way of looking at things - it's the right to own it in the first place that's up for grabs.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The value of a house isn't a moral absolute in either way of looking at things - it's the right to own it in the first place that's up for grabs.

---

Or to put it another way, how much you can convince someone else to pay in exchange for an asset you own is not the same issue as whether they're allowed to simply take it from you without your consent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
The right to own a house is contingent on your ability to pay for it, which in turn is contingent on the market value of the house, and also the market value of your labour.

So yes, your right to own the house is contingent on social consensus as expressed through market forces.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
If you sell your house at a £10,000 loss, because the market falls, has society stolen £10,000 from you? You didn't exactly give away the £10,000 out of the goodness of your heart ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:

<snip>
If you sell your house at a £10,000 loss, because the market falls, has society stolen £10,000 from you? You didn't exactly give away the £10,000 out of the goodness of your heart ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So yes, my possession of any specific item is contingent on me being able to convince the previous owner to give it to me (which generally involves me giving them something in return, that something generally being money).

---

quote:

---

The value of any given asset (which equates to how much you can persuade someone to give you in return for that asset) is not the same as the asset itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
This is where the 'Law of boats'* applies. The sea ebbs and flows and with it boats move up and down. Except they don't. Unless there is something wrong with your boat, it doesn't actually sink. Similarly when economic confidence falls away you still have a house, only that another party would hand over less money for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Did you have an absolute right to that £4,000, or a contingent right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
That's not an answer to the question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
That's not an answer to the question.

---

Yes it is. Which answer you think it is depends on how attached you are to your own posessions. What I'm saying is there's no difference between the government seizing someone's cash assets and the government seizing someone's more tangible assets, so if you think it's wrong for the government to take the shirt off your back then you must also think it's wrong for them to take £4k out of my bank account.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
That's not an answer to the question.

---

Yes it is. Which answer you think it is depends on how attached you are to your own posessions. What I'm saying is there's no difference between the government seizing someone's cash assets and the government seizing someone's more tangible assets, so if you think it's wrong for the government to take the shirt off your back then you must also think it's wrong for them to take £4k out of my bank account.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
The first is that the difference betwen that £4k in your bank account and a random string of bytes is provided by the government and the legal system. The shirt on Ricardus' back is a shirt, not pieces of paper underwritten by the agency of the government. For that matter the only reason you in any meaningful way own land, or anything else you aren't physically wearing is society and government.

---

quote:

---

The second is that the £4k in your bank account isn't equivalent to the shirt on Ricardus' back.

---

quote:

---

The third is the outcomes. I believe that the right for every inhabitant of a country to eat trumps the right for individuals to be arbitrarily wealthy. Or more appropriately I believe the right of every inhabitant in the country to at least not go naked trumps the right of any one to own hundreds of thousands of shirts.

---

quote:

---

If your total life savings were £3.5k

---

quote:

---

Now taking every tenth shirt out of Ricardus' wardrobe and giving them to people without shirts might be monumentally inefficient and result in ill-fitting shirts, but it would be a much better analogy than taking away the shirt he is actually wearing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
isn't there a difference between a law to specifically deprive Marvin of £4,000 (or indeed his shirt) and another law that deprives Marvin of that sum, through a formula applied to the whole population?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
While money may be something we've invented to smoothe the transactional process, and thus not as "real" as a shirt, the principle remains the same. And in terms of that principle, it doesn't matter whether we conduct our transactions using money, solid gold or chickens.

---

quote:

---

As for "the only reason you in any meaningful way own land, or anything else you aren't physically wearing is society and government" - no, if this is true of anything it's true of everything. If our ability to own land is purely due to the mechanisms of law protecting our right to own it, then our ability to keep the shirt on our back is also due to those mechanisms. In both cases, government is protecting us against theft...

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The second is that the £4k in your bank account isn't equivalent to the shirt on Ricardus' back.

---

It is in principle. Posessions are posessions.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The third is the outcomes. I believe that the right for every inhabitant of a country to eat trumps the right for individuals to be arbitrarily wealthy. Or more appropriately I believe the right of every inhabitant in the country to at least not go naked trumps the right of any one to own hundreds of thousands of shirts.

---

This is where we simply disagree, and I'll leave it there. There's no point arguing about so fundamental a difference in outlook.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

If your total life savings were £3.5k

---

I wish!

---

quote:

---

I'd still call it wrong. And I'd still say there's no difference in principle between taking a posession he doesn't happen to have on his person at that exact moment and one that he does.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:
I rightly see that commodity as representative of my life, and no one has any right to it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
That's not an answer to the question.

---

Yes it is. Which answer you think it is depends on how attached you are to your own posessions. What I'm saying is there's no difference between the government seizing someone's cash assets and the government seizing someone's more tangible assets, so if you think it's wrong for the government to take the shirt off your back then you must also think it's wrong for them to take £4k out of my bank account.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:
When I work, I trade the seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, and years of my life for some other commodity.

I rightly see that commodity as representative of my life, and no one has any right to it.

You may not agree with me, but come for my shirt and my sincerity will be clear.

---

The commodity you trade for is money under the market scheme used in the country you are trading for. Tax is part of the bargain you made. And as for it being representative of your life? You can try having a life in a country with no police paid for centrally, no environmental protections, no FDA, etc.

The upkeep costs on the country you live in (a.k.a. taxes) are part of the trade you make. If you don't want to pay them then fuck off out of the country and go live somewhere like Somalia.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Justinian:
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
If you really don't know the difference between the political will of the society and the individual desires of an individual

---

The only difference is how many people agree with it. The effect on the individual from whom the resources are taken is the same, as is the effect on the individuals who receive the benefit of them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Did you have an absolute right to that £4,000, or a contingent right?

---

I have exactly the same right to it as you do to the shirt you are currently wearing.

If it's right in any circumstances for the government to take the £4k off me, then it is also right in those circumstances for the government to take the shirt off your back.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:
When I work, I trade the seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, and years of my life for some other commodity.

I rightly see that commodity as representative of my life, and no one has any right to it.

You may not agree with me, but come for my shirt and my sincerity will be clear.

---

The commodity you trade for is money under the market scheme used in the country you are trading for. Tax is part of the bargain you made. And as for it being representative of your life? You can try having a life in a country with no police paid for centrally, no environmental protections, no FDA, etc.

The upkeep costs on the country you live in (a.k.a. taxes) are part of the trade you make. If you don't want to pay them then fuck off out of the country and go live somewhere like Somalia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's perhaps worth separating out two forms of tax - those which hit income, including when it is spent, and those which hit directly at wealth. If the government says: if you earn this much, or if you charge this much for a service you provide, then we'll take this proportion, then this leaves the taxpayer with the option whether to do the deed that leads to the tax or not. Whereas a wealth tax - based on the value of your possessions - is a form of confiscation ultimately, and therefore less legitimate: it is a mob turning up on your doorstep demanding some of your shirts...

The intermediate case is property taxes based on the value of your property. Although at first sight this appears to be a wealth tax, in fact it still arises by your choosing to consume that benefit, as well, of course, as reflecting the cost of providing government services.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Indeed, and one of the justifications offered in political theory - by Hobbes and later Locke in 17th century - is that by being in a country you are agreeing to what the government orders. Of course this creates a right to leave the country - something which communist states have always denied.

---

quote:

---

It's perhaps worth separating out two forms of tax - those which hit income, including when it is spent, and those which hit directly at wealth. If the government says: if you earn this much, or if you charge this much for a service you provide, then we'll take this proportion, then this leaves the taxpayer with the option whether to do the deed that leads to the tax or not. Whereas a wealth tax - based on the value of your possessions - is a form of confiscation ultimately, and therefore less legitimate: it is a mob turning up on your doorstep demanding some of your shirts...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
problem with doing this, as I saw in a very interesting article a few months ago, is that the very rich rarely have 'income' in the normal sense of the average joe who gets money in return for their labour. Instead, the very rich are asset-rich and live off profits generated from their assets.

If you start saying that wealth taxes are less legitimate, you're basically saying that the very rich can get away with paying less tax.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Not only is that particular difference important, the following other differences also exist and are also important:

1. It's not one "individual" from whom resources are taken. Really, can you name a single tax that only applies to one individual?

---

quote:

---

2. The amount of resources is taken is assessed on the basis of the amount of resources available so as to minimise the impact. Which rather blows your "take all your possessions" comparison out of the water.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Not only is that particular difference important, the following other differences also exist and are also important:

1. It's not one "individual" from whom resources are taken. Really, can you name a single tax that only applies to one individual?

---

It applies to lots of individuals, but that doesn't change the principle. If something is bad then it's bad regardless of whether it applies to just one person or to everyone.

quote:

---

2. The amount of resources is taken is assessed on the basis of the amount of resources available so as to minimise the impact. Which rather blows your "take all your possessions" comparison out of the water.

---

Again, in principle there's no difference between taking all of someone's posessions and only taking a percentage of them. That's a difference of magnitude, not type.

But I have no doubt that the sort of people who talk about shit like property being theft and call for everything to be held in common would quite happily take away everything I posess if they had the chance. They don't want anyone to own anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But I have no doubt that the sort of people who talk about shit like property being theft and call for everything to be held in common would quite happily take away everything I posess if they had the chance. They don't want anyone to own anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:
When I work, I trade the seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, and years of my life for some other commodity.

I rightly see that commodity as representative of my life, and no one has any right to it.

You may not agree with me, but come for my shirt and my sincerity will be clear.

---

The commodity you trade for is money under the market scheme used in the country you are trading for. Tax is part of the bargain you made.

---

quote:

---

And as for it being representative of your life? You can try having a life in a country with no police paid for centrally, no environmental protections, no FDA, etc.

---

quote:

---

The upkeep costs on the country you live in (a.k.a. taxes) are part of the trade you make. If you don't want to pay them then fuck off out of the country and go live somewhere like Somalia.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd be interested to hear your articulation of the principles

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
That famous quoite from Proudhon again!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd be interested to hear your articulation of the principles

---

The underlying principle is that it's wrong to take something off someone else without their consent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
OK, but I think you're hearing the opposing principle as "it's permissible for the government to take stuff off someone without their consent", whereas I think most of us are arguing, at the most, "it's permissible for the government to take stuff off someone without their consent IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd be interested to hear your articulation of the principles

---

The underlying principle is that it's wrong to take something off someone else without their consent. Doesn't matter what the something is or who the someone is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Again, in principle there's no difference between taking all of someone's posessions and only taking a percentage of them. That's a difference of magnitude, not type.

---

quote:

---

But I have no doubt that the sort of people who talk about shit like property being theft and call for everything to be held in common would quite happily take away everything I posess if they had the chance. They don't want anyone to own anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The underlying principle is that it's wrong to take something off someone else without their consent. Doesn't matter what the something is or who the someone is.

That's why I regard taxation as evil. As I've said earlier in this thread, it's a necessary evil - but an evil nonetheless.

It follows that it should be incumbent upon any government to only take the bare minimum of taxation that's necessary to fund essential services that have to be provided at the national level (healthcare being the most obvious). And then only because it's cheaper for each individual to fund those services that way than by making their own arrangements.

---

• Society is composed of individuals coming together for mutual benefit and support.
• In a democracy, government carries out the functions the citizens deem necessary or desirable for society as a whole to provide or enable.
• Citizens are responsible for providing the resources necessary for government to carry out those functions.
• Citizens decide amongst themselves where those resources will come from, and individually and/or collectively transfer them to the government to carry out said functions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The underlying principle is that it's wrong to take something off someone else without their consent. Doesn't matter what the something is or who the someone is.

That's why I regard taxation as evil. As I've said earlier in this thread, it's a necessary evil - but an evil nonetheless.

It follows that it should be incumbent upon any government to only take the bare minimum of taxation that's necessary to fund essential services that have to be provided at the national level (healthcare being the most obvious). And then only because it's cheaper for each individual to fund those services that way than by making their own arrangements.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
We (the US) were formed as a constitutional republic and not a democracy.

A good quote describing the difference:

“A democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on dinner. A simple republic is three wolves and two sheep electing a committee to plan dinner. A contitutional republic is a system of limited government in which no one has authority to plan dinner for others and in which the sheep are armed.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:
it has nothing to do with the respective forms of government.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd be interested to hear your articulation of the principles

---

The underlying principle is that it's wrong to take something off someone else without their consent. Doesn't matter what the something is or who the someone is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
OK, but I think you're hearing the opposing principle as "it's permissible for the government to take stuff off someone without their consent", whereas I think most of us are arguing, at the most, "it's permissible for the government to take stuff off someone without their consent IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES".

---

That's the thing, though. When we're talking about principles, then "IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES" doesn't really come into it. Either something is always wrong in principle or it's not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
We (the US) were formed as a constitutional republic and not a democracy.

A good quote describing the difference:

“A democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on dinner. A simple republic is three wolves and two sheep electing a committee to plan dinner. A contitutional republic is a system of limited government in which no one has authority to plan dinner for others and in which the sheep are armed.”

---

It may be a good quote, but it has nothing to do with the respective forms of government.

--Tom Clune

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ianjmatt:

quote:

---

Originally posted by tclune:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
We (the US) were formed as a constitutional republic and not a democracy.

A good quote describing the difference:

“A democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on dinner. A simple republic is three wolves and two sheep electing a committee to plan dinner. A contitutional republic is a system of limited government in which no one has authority to plan dinner for others and in which the sheep are armed.”

---

It may be a good quote, but it has nothing to do with the respective forms of government.

--Tom Clune

---

I disagree. What this quote is saying is that a simple majority of opinion should not be able to impose its will upon the rest simply because of the majority opinion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
If you answer 'yes', then the government can also tax the rich who've made their profits through exploitation and oppression.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OliviaG:
I can't agree with the "taxation=theft" notion and here's why:

• Society is composed of individuals coming together for mutual benefit and support.
• In a democracy, government carries out the functions the citizens deem necessary or desirable for society as a whole to provide or enable.
• Citizens are responsible for providing the resources necessary for government to carry out those functions.
• Citizens decide amongst themselves where those resources will come from, and individually and/or collectively transfer them to the government to carry out said functions.

I don't see any "taking".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Out of curiosity, why do you think that the government has to fund healthcare. Yes, it's cheaper and more efficient.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
Um, you're the one who says your principle should be suspended in the case of the NHS.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Out of curiosity, why do you think that the government has to fund healthcare. Yes, it's cheaper and more efficient.

---

Yes, that's why. It's a pragmatic decision based on getting the best service for the lowest cost to the individual.

But if it makes you feel better, I'd absolutely agree that if it were possible for the private sector to provide healthcare to at least the same standard at a lower cost to each individual then that would be the preferable option.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Out of curiosity, why do you think that the government has to fund healthcare. Yes, it's cheaper and more efficient.

---

Yes, that's why. It's a pragmatic decision based on getting the best service for the lowest cost to the individual.

But if it makes you feel better, I'd absolutely agree that if it were possible for the private sector to provide healthcare to at least the same standard at a lower cost to each individual then that would be the preferable option.

---

So. Your idea is that it is right to break your principles because it is financially cheaper to do so. Pragmatism really does quite openly trump your so-called principles.

To quote someone on this thread "When we're talking about principles, then "IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES" doesn't really come into it. Either something is always wrong in principle or it's not."

And for a few pounds per person per day you are apparently quite happy to surrender your principles. And then claim that it is "necessary" that you do so merely because it is cheaper.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The citizens don't decide amongst themselves - if enough of a majority decides that the minority will have to pay for everything, that's what happens whether the minority agrees of not. It's the old "three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner" thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm with Justinian here, Marvin. If your answer is that "in certain circumstances" means "when it's cheaper" than that is a perfectly sensible rationale, but don't kid yourself (or anyone else for that matter) that this means you have a pure principle against taking and that you only accept the taking under protest. You accept the taking when it makes sense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm with Justinian here, Marvin. If your answer is that "in certain circumstances" means "when it's cheaper" than that is a perfectly sensible rationale, but don't kid yourself (or anyone else for that matter) that this means you have a pure principle against taking and that you only accept the taking under protest. You accept the taking when it makes sense.

---

Well, the key difference with things like healthcare, transport infrastructure and garbage collection is that we all have to pay for them one way or another. They're things that none of us, however rich or poor, can do without.

The decision is therefore not "do we pay for these things or choose to do without them?", but rather "given that we have to pay for them anyway, what is the most economical way for us to do so?"

I appreciate that that might sound like meaningless hairsplitting to you, but there it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
If you answer 'yes', then the government can also tax the rich who've made their profits through exploitation and oppression.

---

In your opinion. But they certainly haven't made their profits by going to people's houses and stealing their stuff. If the rest of us have decided that we absolutely must have the latest trainers, TVs, cars, etc. that's our problem, not the problem of those who get rich selling such things.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
The citizens don't decide amongst themselves - if enough of a majority decides that the minority will have to pay for everything, that's what happens whether the minority agrees of not. It's the old "three wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner" thing.

---

Pretty much as Marvin says, but I'm not sure life in the West, of which a form of democracy is a part, is about three wolves and two sheep deciding on dinner'. Rather it's the wolves, ie those with real power, deciding which sheep to eat first.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Well, the key difference with things like healthcare, transport infrastructure and garbage collection is that we all have to pay for them one way or another. They're things that none of us, however rich or poor, can do without.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm with Justinian here, Marvin. If your answer is that "in certain circumstances" means "when it's cheaper" than that is a perfectly sensible rationale, but don't kid yourself (or anyone else for that matter) that this means you have a pure principle against taking and that you only accept the taking under protest. You accept the taking when it makes sense.

---

Well, the key difference with things like healthcare, transport infrastructure and garbage collection is that we all have to pay for them one way or another. They're things that none of us, however rich or poor, can do without.

---

quote:

---

I appreciate that that might sound like meaningless hairsplitting to you, but there it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Not into houses, into whole countries - colonialism and empire, asset-stripping, without which England would be poor and the 3rd world would have been rich.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The rise of South Korea, China and India demonstrates that the economic system of the world is open to competent governments enabling economic development for the benefit of all their citizens.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The workers of China had a choice - and they have demonstrated that they wanted to work in the 'sweatshops' by coming back to them year after year.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alogon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
The workers of China had a choice - and they have demonstrated that they wanted to work in the 'sweatshops' by coming back to them year after year.

---

Since when has China been a bastion of individual liberty?

If you assume that everyone even in an American city freely chose to move there, Rainbow Pie, by Joe Bageant would raise your consciousness. If you're a conservative, you'd love it in many respects, because this late author was as well-- as he says, a "redneck." That means he, his family, and everyone he grew up with in rural Appalachia had a deep and well-founded suspicion of "city slickers": because they didn't just leave country folks alone, however fanatically self-reliant they tried to be, but had designs on them and their land. In short, many rural people moved to the cities because they were uprooted. Their rural values went with them to the point where they continue to vote against their own economic interest, in many cases, because of how they were taught one should live.

Neither conservatives nor liberals want to think about their situation much, because it cuts across the respective dogmas.

If this happened in America, one can hardly prelude its happening in a country where tyranny has prevailed for at least fifty years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's that process which to me shows that it is some sort of choice for them to go back to the cities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's that process which to me shows that it is some sort of choice for them to go back to the cities.

---

A choice made to earn a wage and escape the poverty trap of rural China.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Don't bother, it's Ender doing his "China is proof that capitalism works!" shtick again. His arguments have been refuted over and over again, after which he usually leaves the thread. He'll probably do the same thing on another unrelated thread a couple of weeks from now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Don't bother, it's Ender doing his "China is proof that capitalism works!" shtick again. His arguments have been refuted over and over again, after which he usually leaves the thread. He'll probably do the same thing on another unrelated thread a couple of weeks from now.

---

So how do you react to this claim that poverty has been falling massively since 1981, and half of this is in China? These are World Bank figures...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
It's that process which to me shows that it is some sort of choice for them to go back to the cities.

---

A choice made to earn a wage and escape the poverty trap of rural China.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Don't bother, it's Ender doing his "China is proof that capitalism works!" shtick again. His arguments have been refuted over and over again, after which he usually leaves the thread. He'll probably do the same thing on another unrelated thread a couple of weeks from now.

---

So how do you react to this claim that poverty has been falling massively since 1981, and half of this is in China? These are World Bank figures...

---

Doesn't some of this depend on relative currency values?

---

quote:

---

The situation has certainly turned round in the last 30 odd years and a part of that must be that for 15 years Hong Kong has given an impetus to the Chinese economy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Don't bother, it's Ender doing his "China is proof that capitalism works!" shtick again. His arguments have been refuted over and over again, after which he usually leaves the thread. He'll probably do the same thing on another unrelated thread a couple of weeks from now.

---

So how do you react to this claim that poverty has been falling massively since 1981, and half of this is in China? These are World Bank figures...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:
Don't bother, it's Ender doing his "China is proof that capitalism works!" shtick again. His arguments have been refuted over and over again, after which he usually leaves the thread. He'll probably do the same thing on another unrelated thread a couple of weeks from now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
So how do you react to this claim that poverty has been falling massively since 1981, and half of this is in China? These are World Bank figures...

---

quote:

---

Ender's Shadow: So how do you react to this claim that poverty has been falling massively since 1981, and half of this is in China? These are World Bank figures...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Yes it is possible poverty is falling there because we are dumping squillions of dollars every year into their economy by buying all the cheap shit they make.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
What I think you can't safely conclude is that all that is needed for any country to succeed is a modicum of good governance and a free market. You need the necessary capital for infrastructure to make it possible, the right population densities in the right places, access to markets, a critical mass of skills in the population etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
However it does prove that good governance is necessary if not sufficient.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
While entrepreneurs and shareholders do well out of it, thanks to the free movement of goods, money and jobs around the world, nobody else will, though it takes some people longer to notice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
However it does prove that good governance is necessary if not sufficient.

---

I'm not sure it does that either. I think one could site India as an example of not terribly great governance but with economic growth. And the irony is that there remains crushing poverty, with children dying of preventable diseases (and overseas aid being the intervention that prevents them dying in even greater numbers) despite the fact that India has a space programme and a nuclear programme.

Not the best example that good governance precludes the need for overseas aid, or that economic growth is sufficient to avoid the need for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

Furthermore there are examples of overseas aid saving lives in countries with substantial governance problems. For instance in Kenya and Rwanda massive gains have been made in controlling malaria and HIV, much of it achieved by bed net distributions funded by the global fund. Nevertheless both those governments have massive corruption and transparency problems. Should the aid have been withheld with the consequent loss of life?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Sorry - obviously not being clear enough: I'm meaning by 'good governance' a political system that is capable of enabling economic growth. Of course it may have lots of undesirable features as well. I probably should have said 'good economic governance'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
what I'm claiming mostly is that the polemics of aid groups that it's purely the West's fault that countries are poor is unjustified.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
And of course it's vital to recognise that economics is not a zero sum game; the poor have got richer despite the rich getting richer, as the World Bank figures CLEARLY demonstrate for the past 30 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I'm meaning by 'good governance' a political system that is capable of enabling economic growth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
And of course it's vital to recognise that economics is not a zero sum game; the poor have got richer despite the rich getting richer, as the World Bank figures CLEARLY demonstrate for the past 30 years.

---

For sure economics are not zero sum, but I'm not sure why it is vital to recognise that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
For sure economics are not zero sum, but I'm not sure why it is vital to recognise that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
For one thing, it proves that all those who think the only valid way of making the poor richer is to make the rich poorer are wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:
The US has been doing it for decades, and we as many "poor" now as we ever have.

Progressive taxes have nothing to do with making the poor richer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:
The US has been doing it for decades, and we as many "poor" now as we ever have.

Progressive taxes have nothing to do with making the poor richer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:
The US has been doing it for decades, and we as many "poor" now as we ever have.

Progressive taxes have nothing to do with making the poor richer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:
Progressive taxes have nothing to do with making the poor richer.

---

quote:

---

The US has been doing it for decades, and we as many "poor" now as we ever have..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:
The US has been doing it for decades, and we as many "poor" now as we ever have. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:
The US has been doing it for decades, and we as many "poor" now as we ever have.

Progressive taxes have nothing to do with making the poor richer.

---

quote:

---

From 1980 to 2011, annual spending on these programs grew from $126 billion to $626 billion (all figures in inflation-adjusted “2011 dollars”); dividing this by the number of people below the government poverty line, spending went from $4,300 per poor person in 1980 to $13,000 in 2011. In 1962, spending per person in poverty was $516.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
This article indicates how much poverty reduction programmes expanded in the US:

quote:

---

From 1980 to 2011, annual spending on these programs grew from $126 billion to $626 billion (all figures in inflation-adjusted “2011 dollars”); dividing this by the number of people below the government poverty line, spending went from $4,300 per poor person in 1980 to $13,000 in 2011. In 1962, spending per person in poverty was $516.

---

That's the data; draw your own conclusions...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
But we don't have to send our kids to work overtime in textile mills anymore.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
But we don't have to send our kids to work overtime in textile mills anymore.

---

Kids don't work at all anymore, ISTM.

I took my first job at 14. After school 3 days a week till dark. All day Saturday and Sunday.

None of the 14 year olds I know work, and I know a few.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
But we don't have to send our kids to work overtime in textile mills anymore.

---

Kids don't work at all anymore, ISTM.

I took my first job at 14. After school 3 days a week till dark. All day Saturday and Sunday.

None of the 14 year olds I know work, and I know a few.

---

Frankly, if I had to hold down a crappy job in HS, my studies would've suffered, and at this point in time the studies have proven more fruitful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by romanlion:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
But we don't have to send our kids to work overtime in textile mills anymore.

---

Kids don't work at all anymore, ISTM.

I took my first job at 14. After school 3 days a week till dark. All day Saturday and Sunday.

None of the 14 year olds I know work, and I know a few.

---

Frankly, if I had to hold down a crappy job in HS, my studies would've suffered, and at this point in time the studies have proven more fruitful.

---

I am sorry you had to study for what passes as education in this country. I didn't.

And I didn't have to work, I wanted to, and would gladly have fought you for the job had it come to that.

What I've learned working has long ago eclipsed anything I picked up in government schools in terms of overall value.

---

quote:

---

Some socialists seem to believe that people should be numbers in a state computer. We believe they should be individuals. We are all unequal. No one, thank heavens, is like anyone else, however much the socialists may pretend otherwise. We believe that everyone has the right to be unequal, but to us, every human being is equally important. A man's right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the state as servant, and not as master - these are the British inheritance. They are the essence of a free economy. And on that freedom, all our other freedoms depend.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
That's the data; draw your own conclusions...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
My oldest is holding down two jobs and working on a masters degree. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation unless you want it to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ianjmatt:
I think this quote from Thatcher is interesting. Bearing in mind she was more a Liberal (in the classic J S Mill sense) than she was Conservative (in the traditional Tory mould) I think this explains her thinking well - not that people would necessary agree with it:

quote:

---

Some socialists seem to believe that people should be numbers in a state computer. We believe they should be individuals. We are all unequal. No one, thank heavens, is like anyone else, however much the socialists may pretend otherwise. We believe that everyone has the right to be unequal, but to us, every human being is equally important. A man's right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the state as servant, and not as master - these are the British inheritance. They are the essence of a free economy. And on that freedom, all our other freedoms depend.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
My oldest is holding down two jobs and working on a masters degree. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation unless you want it to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
My oldest is holding down two jobs and working on a masters degree. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation unless you want it to.

---

Has it occurred to you that maybe not everyone is capable of that, nor should they be required to be?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
My oldest is holding down two jobs and working on a masters degree. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation unless you want it to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Has it occurred to you that maybe not everyone is capable of that, nor should they be required to be?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
one issue is that there are worse masters than the state

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
The only reason there are those limitations on the power of big business is because of the state.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
one issue is that there are worse masters than the state

---

I'm not so sure. Corporations screw people over, but they're only doing it for the money and if you haven't got anything they want they'll lose interest in you. The State, on the other hand, will screw people over for idealogical reasons and it will never stop chasing you. Ever.

The State has police (and an army) with which to force universal compliance to its will. Corporations have advertising with which to beg us to buy what they're selling. The State can lock us up for decades if we don't want to give it any money. Corporations can't even force us to enter their stores if we don't want to give them money. Corporations have to set their prices to a level at which people will still be able to buy from them, or else they'll go bust through lack of sales. The State can set the tax rate to whatever the fuck it wishes, and we just have to suck it up and pay whether or not we can afford to do so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
All this talk of "if you've got to have a master the State is a good one" is bunk, because the State would be a real evil bastard of a master, and one from which we would never be able to escape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
The only reason there are those limitations on the power of big business is because of the state.

---

Yes - the State acting as a servant of the people. But we need to be incredibly wary lest it ever becomes a far worse master than any corporation could ever dream of being. All this talk of "if you've got to have a master the State is a good one" is bunk, because the State would be a real evil bastard of a master, and one from which we would never be able to escape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Ah, corporations. The bigger of them have serious power, way beyond influence: why else would we have the Leveson enquiry?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Corporations can't even force us to enter their stores if we don't want to give them money.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Ah, corporations. The bigger of them have serious power, way beyond influence: why else would we have the Leveson enquiry?

---

Ah yes, the phone hacking scandal. Where an evil megacorporation used the unchecked ability to spy on people to further their nefarious aim of selling newspapers.

If the State had the unchecked ability to use phone hacking in such an indiscriminate manner, they'd use it to lock people the fuck up. Not to put juicy stories on newsstands in the hope that they might just persuade us to buy their paper. Sure, phone hacking is a bad thing - but which of those end results do you really fear the most?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Ah, corporations. The bigger of them have serious power, way beyond influence: why else would we have the Leveson enquiry?

---

Ah yes, the phone hacking scandal. Where an evil megacorporation used the unchecked ability to spy on people to further their nefarious aim of selling newspapers.

If the State had the unchecked ability to use phone hacking in such an indiscriminate manner, they'd use it to lock people the fuck up. Not to put juicy stories on newsstands in the hope that they might just persuade us to buy their paper. Sure, phone hacking is a bad thing - but which of those end results do you really fear the most?

---

Hmm. JUST to sell newspapers?

Also to ruin lives/careers while doing it. Possibly in some cases to simply not care whether or not lives/careers are ruined, but in some instances there's an air of agenda as to who the newspaper has decided to 'get'.

Owning a newspaper, or media, is not simply about the numbers, it's also about what you're going to tell those numbers when you have their loyalty and attention. Many media outlets have a clear political agenda.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
If the State had the unchecked ability to use phone hacking in such an indiscriminate manner, they'd use it to lock people the fuck up. Not to put juicy stories on newsstands in the hope that they might just persuade us to buy their paper. Sure, phone hacking is a bad thing - but which of those end results do you really fear the most?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
What's the choice that we need to make?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Many media outlets have a clear political agenda.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
He minimizes the act that was obscene for the violation of those whose phones were hacked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Yeah, see, I think banality makes it worse. If a criminal is doing something visionary, I can at least give them some kind of grudging admiration.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
He minimizes the act that was obscene for the violation of those whose phones were hacked.

---

I clearly said that it was bad. It's just that, given that those in power are going to do bad - even obscene - things whoever they are, which end result would you prefer them to be aiming for?

Corporations just want to make as much money as they can. The State wants to control every aspect of our lives. Both need to be reined in if possible, but if we can only stop one then I know which one I'd choose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Corporations just want to make as much money as they can. The State wants to control every aspect of our lives. Both need to be reined in if possible, but if we can only stop one then I know which one I'd choose.

---

Either state or corporation doing it is obscene, but the fact that one does it just for money strikes me as worse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
A non-elected totalitarian state no doubt would. But we're not talking about that. Surely regular elections provide the necessary checks and balances?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's in response to Bullfrog's post which essentially states "you've got to have a master, so the State is the best one to choose". To which I'm responding "bollocks, I fear being a vassal of the State far more than I fear being a vassal of corporations".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Many media outlets have a clear political agenda.

---

And the State doesn't?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Yeah, see, I think banality makes it worse. If a criminal is doing something visionary, I can at least give them some kind of grudging admiration.

---

This story provides a possible example of a justified crime in this area. We seem to have two cases: one where a conviction occurred as a result, the other where an innocent person had their privacy invaded to no effect. The first case seems to be justified by the result - by such a post facto justification is... problematic. The second appears to be justified by the witch hunting which the media indulges in with respect to convicted paedophiles; a 6 figure payout to the victim - perhaps payable to the paedophile's victim rather than the rehabilitated criminal - would appear to be appropriate. Let the media gamble - and if they lose, pay out big.

Of course at the heart of this issue is the reality that there is no 'due process' clause in British jurisprudence: illegally obtained evidence can often be presented in criminal cases. The result is some guilty people get convicted - but an ethos of private investigations is enabled which the American system rejects.

---

Ah, the public interest. One of my favourite phrases. Because it's almost never used by the media in the way it's supposed to be used, as a matter of law.

Since when is it a reporter's job to put holes in a defence case? Funny, I could have sworn there WERE people whose job it is. They're called the prosecution. They get given specific powers to, oh, I don't know, do things like intercept phone calls and e-mails - WITH LEGAL CONTROLS AS TO HOW AND WHEN.

Bugger that, thinks the reporter, I can cut through all that unnecessary red tape of legal authorisation and get the truth 'in the public interest'.



As someone who writes laws for a living, I've got no sympathy at all. I spend half my bloody working life asking questions about "who can do this, what circumstances, what conditions or restrictions", and a reporter jumps up, cries out "who the f*** cares" and does what he likes? Not on my watch.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:
A non-elected totalitarian state no doubt would. But we're not talking about that. Surely regular elections provide the necessary checks and balances?

---

Up to a point. Elected representatives look at things in that optimistic way but I've spent enough time on the inside to know that some senior unelected officials (in certain departments of state more than in others) crave that form of power that comes through control of citizen's lives. Do you really think the ID card scheme was dreamt up by ministers?

So I'm with Marvin, for once.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Corporations just want to make as much money as they can. The State wants to control every aspect of our lives. Both need to be reined in if possible, but if we can only stop one then I know which one I'd choose.

---

Either state or corporation doing it is obscene, but the fact that one does it just for money strikes me as worse.

---

Really?

the difference as I see it is the corporation, which is only after your cash, will leave you alone once it becomes damn clear that you're not going to (or can't) give them any. Whereas the State, which is after control, will never leave you alone. No corporation is going to persecute people if it ends up losing them money, but the State will spend millions just to keep us under its thumb, even if it never sees a penny of that money again.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And a reporter jumps up, cries out "who the f*** cares" and does what he likes? Not on my watch.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And a reporter jumps up, cries out "who the f*** cares" and does what he likes? Not on my watch.

---

Actually I think public interest is sometimes a legitimate defence, and amidst all the deserved kicking that News Int. is currently getting we should remember that journalists acting illegally have broken scandals like the MPs expenses fiasco in the UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
And a reporter jumps up, cries out "who the f*** cares" and does what he likes? Not on my watch.

---

Actually I think public interest is sometimes a legitimate defence, and amidst all the deserved kicking that News Int. is currently getting we should remember that journalists acting illegally have broken scandals like the MPs expenses fiasco in the UK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:
I think they obtained the accounts illegally.

There might sometimes be legitimate public interest in a journalist unearthing key information about someone charged with a crime, particularly if there is suspicion that the police are incompetent.

I think it is case by case. To say that journalists must always obey the law and never use illegal methods is going too far in my opinion.

---

quote:

---

Police were asked to investigate the leak but chose not to - having concluded that a public interest defence would be a "significant hurdle" to any successful prosecution.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
to suggest that going to illegal means to obtain information on private citizens on the chance they may uncover a crime goes a bit too far.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I think the point being that it isn't actually illegal if a public interest test can be legitimately raised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I think the point being that it isn't actually illegal if a public interest test can be legitimately raised.

---

I'm no expert*. But I wonder if that is a reference to precedent and shared understandings rather than something explicitly codified in law.

* meaning I have not the faintest idea.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
All I know for certain is that (1) there exists a concept of a public interest defence, and (2) it's a darn sight narrower than many journalists seem to claim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Niteowl2:
to suggest that going to illegal means to obtain information on private citizens on the chance they may uncover a crime goes a bit too far.

---

That's a very particular way of phrasing it. I would suggest that "obtaining information on citizens (i.e. not normally private ones) where there is good reason to believe that a matter of public interest is at stake" is not too far for journalists to go.

Watergate would be a good example, had illegal methods been necessary.

I think these instances should be very exceptional rather than the norm, should all be discussed with editors, and the journalists should be prepared to go to face the consequences of the law if their justification doesn't stack up afterwards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I've a suspicion that the courts have never ruled on the definition of 'public interest'. Certainly it's an element in prosecution decisions: the director can rule that a prosecution is not 'in the public interest'. Beyond that, I suspect it is going to be juries that dismiss cases despite overwhelming evidence that act to ensure it has a role in the system.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0