Nader to Ryan: Time to Debate

[georgephillip]

Corporations routinely privatize profit and socialize costs.

Tobacco is a good recent example where the profits that came from selling a legal narcotic went to shareholders and management while the victims of tobacco poisoning were often required to pay for their own cancer drugs.

While I agree it's always wrong for government to use tax policy to reward campaign donations, I also believe some of government's social engineering is exactly the right thing to do.

Exterminating chattel slavery cost over 600,000 US lives during the Civil War.
Government could have taxed slavery into extinction long before 1860 had it chosen to do so.
Would you have supported social engineering in that context?

Tobacco is not a narcotic.
narcotic - definition of narcotic by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

You are also wrong about slavery. If it were possible to shift the costs of maintaining a slave to the general public and paid for out of collected tax funds, we would have chattel slavery to this very day. After all, that's what supports illegal immigration.

Strictly speaking, tobacco is not a narcotic.

"In low doses (an average cigarette yields about 1 mg of absorbed nicotine), the substance acts as a stimulant in mammals, while high amounts (30–60 mg[6]) can be fatal.[7] This stimulant effect is the main factor responsible for the dependence-forming properties of tobacco smoking.

"According to the American Heart Association, nicotine addiction has historically been one of the hardest addictions to break, while the pharmacological and behavioral characteristics that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those determining addiction to heroin and cocaine."

Nicotine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wasn't referring to shifting the cost of maintaining slaves to the 18th and 19th Century taxpayer.
I was arguing for a 100% tax on all slave produced cotton between Yorktown and Fort Sumter.

What you think of as "illegal" immigration today is really forced migration due to NAFTA and other corporate funded aspects of 21st Century slavery, imho.

 

[antagon]

I believe that is the worst thing you can do though. As I pointed out, the idea becomes completely lost in political hackery in an effort to draw more money out of people through hidden means. Those taxes as they stand today have nothing to do with ‘socialized’ costs. Instead, politicians see fat pockets they can rob without paying the political price.

Our tax system is a complete mess.

You know that I believe in democratic taxation. The extent to which you feel the system is a mess is just that to which you probably feel left out of the democratic evolution of the code. I think that's common with totalitarian uprising everywhere, every time.

I prefer 'hidden' taxes like these to the overt and higher rates paid by everyone in their stead. Tax will trend toward more specific taxation and deduction in this century. To make these sorts of taxes possible, they have to go in the coffer, there is no legitimate reason to fund cigarette tax independently. I think medicare/social security should be in the coffer.

 

[georgephillip]

Illegal wages support illegal immigration. I don't think they'll be chattel slavery in the US in the 20th century under any circumstance. Some tax concession or public assistance to the south during antebellum could only happen in another dimension.

I was thinking a 100% tariff on all slave produced cotton would have bankrupted the antebellum South?

Tariffs were the reason for the Civil War, not slavery. The confiscatory tariffs didn't bankrupt the South. The war did. Confiscatory taxes normally result in civil war, and it will again.

A 100% tariff or tax on all slave produced cotton in the antebellum south would've forced the plantation capitalists of Dixie to "free" their slaves or face bankruptcy. The economic and social distinctions between the North and South, and states versus federal rights seem to supply more reasons for the Civil War than tariffs (or slavery?), imho.

This country hasn't been as divided as it is today since 1860.
Maybe it's coincidence that's when Republicans AND Democrats took control of US Government?
Civil War 2.0???

 

[FA_Q2]

I suspect that sugar tax you rightly object to will look pretty tame compared to the fees and tolls that are slated to replace taxpayer funded roads, schools, and bridges across this country. I understand why you object to government intervening in your personal decision making; however, I'm wondering if you understand the coming corporate/military axis presents an even more obvious threat to human rights?

What fees and tolls? What are you referring to? As far as I know, there are no such plans in place for roads and schools are already done this way through property taxes.

Also, what does the ‘corporate/military axis’ have anything to do, whatsoever, with what I am talking about? Government has no rights getting involved in my personal decision making no matter what else you want to point out as ‘bad.’ If you want to talk about the military and the direction we are taking with it, that’s fine but it also does not negate other problems we are having. 2 wrongs do not make a right and one infringement on our rights is not worse than any other. They are ALL bad and we need to be vigilant.

 

[georgephillip]

"Last week, Democratic Mayor Rahm Emanuel secured passage of an 'Infrastructure Trust' bill, which brings private finance fully into the rebuilding of Chicago’s infrastructure.

"City aldermen voted 41-7 to pass the bill, despite public concern that the proposal, lacking detail and transparency, will be an invitation to more corruption and result in higher costs for city residents.

"Critics of the bill have related similarities to the widely despised sale of Chicago’s parking meter system four years ago by then-Mayor Richard Daley, also a Democrat.

"In that case, the city received a one-time payment for the system—which quickly disappeared as partial payment for a crisis-level budget deficit—and handed revenues from the meters over to a private company for the next 75 years. Parking meter prices soon skyrocketed, without a penny of the increase returning as public funding for city needs."

Chicago mayor’s infrastructure privatization scheme marked by secrecy

The corporate/military/congressional complex that Eisenhower warned about is taking dead aim at your personal decision making rights with legislation ranging from the Espionage Act to the Patriot Act. While I don't approve of governmental infringement on my free speech rights, I don't have any problem with government telling me how fast I can drive on public roads or limiting my right to send my ten year-old child off to work at Walmart.

Eternal vigilance is required; however, not all government restrictions on private decision making are bad, imho.

 

[FA_Q2]

"Last week, Democratic Mayor Rahm Emanuel secured passage of an 'Infrastructure Trust' bill, which brings private finance fully into the rebuilding of Chicago’s infrastructure.

"City aldermen voted 41-7 to pass the bill, despite public concern that the proposal, lacking detail and transparency, will be an invitation to more corruption and result in higher costs for city residents.

"Critics of the bill have related similarities to the widely despised sale of Chicago’s parking meter system four years ago by then-Mayor Richard Daley, also a Democrat.

"In that case, the city received a one-time payment for the system—which quickly disappeared as partial payment for a crisis-level budget deficit—and handed revenues from the meters over to a private company for the next 75 years. Parking meter prices soon skyrocketed, without a penny of the increase returning as public funding for city needs."

Chicago mayor’s infrastructure privatization scheme marked by secrecy

The corporate/military/congressional complex that Eisenhower warned about is taking dead aim at your personal decision making rights with legislation ranging from the Espionage Act to the Patriot Act. While I don't approve of governmental infringement on my free speech rights, I don't have any problem with government telling me how fast I can drive on public roads or limiting my right to send my ten year-old child off to work at Walmart.

Eternal vigilance is required; however, not all government restrictions on private decision making are bad, imho.

Never said all government is bad. Speed limits and child labor laws have nothing to do with PERSONAL decision making though. That is a case of protecting the rights of others. You do not have a right to careen down the road at 200 mph in a metal casket without regard to how that is going to impact the freedoms of others.

As far as the example of the parking meters, that is the exact same thing that I am arguing against – the unholy alliance of government and business that we need to get rid of. Government should do what government needs to do and business should take care of the rest. There are very few areas where the 2 should overlap.

 

[georgephillip]

What happens when business has completely captured government?

"The secrecy and stunning lack of detail that marks the passage of the Chicago Infrastructure Trust is a response to the public hostility to the privatization of public services. Emanuel has presented the proposal as a positive change from Daley’s privatizations, as nothing will actually be sold outright. Yet the demands for profits from private financiers mean that the public, in one way or another, will pay for the renovations, plus interest."

Chicago mayor’s infrastructure privatization scheme marked by secrecy

The unholy alliance you criticize serves the same 1% of Americans, the richest 1% of Americans.
They probably do not even notice any overlap.
Hopefully, at some point, millions of US voters will recognize their class interests and stop "choosing" between Democrat OR Republican in the voting booth.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Was Adam Smith spouting "foolish nonsense" when he pointed out how the "principle architects of policy" in his day, the 'merchants and manufacturers", used the most democratic government of its time to ensure their interests were "most peculiarly attended to" in spite of the devastating consequences those interests imposed on India and the vast majority of British citizens?

No, he was espousing precisely what I just said, that monopoly exists because government creates it. The East India Company had a monopoly ONLY because the Crown created and enforced said monopoly.

When Smith describes the "vile maxim of the masters of mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for other people," do you believe he meant Government or the rich individuals who controlled his government?

He meant "looters," those who use the power of the state to ensure their own prosperity. Rand and Marx wrote of them as well. These are the "money brokers" of Marx and the "looters" of Rand, those who have power and influence, who buy politicians for their own purpose.

Marx proposed a total state as recompense, Rand proposed that the state be muzzled, as the root of the problem.

Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)

Chomsky remains an idiot.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Absolutely not. The government needs taxes to run. Taxes are just that, the source of government funding. What I was saying is that taxes are no longer filling that purpose. Instead, they are used as a social engineering tool and a way to pay back supporters. I think the government should be able to tax but I also believe that those taxes should be even across ALL people or across ALL business. Not one tax for green, another for oil, another for whatever company they decide is good/bad. Nor should we be using our money to bail out specific entities. As long as the government is butting billions into companies, companies will invest the millions it takes to get that money.

Taxes are a double edged sword. To be sure, the spending of public funds is often done to benefit special interests. The other edge is that the collection of taxes is just as often conducted in such a way as to promote the interests of some at the expense of others.

The founding fathers recognized this and provided a partial solution; the prohibition of direct taxation. While this does nothing to curtail spending on behalf of some at the expense of others, it does stop unequal collection of taxes.

With direct taxes, government taxes based on who you are and how much influence you have. Income taxes are a common example. Those with a lot of influence are granted exemptions and credits.

Sales tax is a common indirect tax. It is nearly impossible to manipulate a sales tax to benefit some, since the tax collector has no way of knowing who the tax is collected from.

Abolish direct taxation of all kinds, and we will do a great deal to clean up the influence peddling in this nation.

 

[Synthaholic]

Who in their right mind would want to waste their time debating Ralph Nader!

You don't even realize how true that statement is!

Someone in their right mind would definitely not want to waste their time getting pwned throughout an entire debate.

Nader is one of the top 10 greatest Americans of the 20th century.

 

[georgephillip]

Was Adam Smith spouting "foolish nonsense" when he pointed out how the "principle architects of policy" in his day, the 'merchants and manufacturers", used the most democratic government of its time to ensure their interests were "most peculiarly attended to" in spite of the devastating consequences those interests imposed on India and the vast majority of British citizens?

No, he was espousing precisely what I just said, that monopoly exists because government creates it. The East India Company had a monopoly ONLY because the Crown created and enforced said monopoly.

When Smith describes the "vile maxim of the masters of mankind: all for ourselves and nothing for other people," do you believe he meant Government or the rich individuals who controlled his government?

He meant "looters," those who use the power of the state to ensure their own prosperity. Rand and Marx wrote of them as well. These are the "money brokers" of Marx and the "looters" of Rand, those who have power and influence, who buy politicians for their own purpose.

Marx proposed a total state as recompense, Rand proposed that the state be muzzled, as the root of the problem.

Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)

Chomsky remains an idiot.

What's your take on Wilhelm von Humboldt?

"The founders of classical liberalism, people like Adam Smith and Wilhelm von Humboldt, who is one of the great exponents of classical liberalism, and who inspired John Stuart Mill -- they were what we would call libertarian socialists, at least that ïs the way I read them.

"For example, Humboldt, like Smith, says, Consider a craftsman who builds some beautiful thing. Humboldt says if he does it under external coercion, like pay, for wages, we may admire what he does but we despise what he is.

"On the other hand, if he does it out of his own free, creative expression of himself, under free will, not under external coercion of wage labor, then we also admire what he is because he's a human being.

"He said any decent socioeconomic system will be based on the assumption that people have the freedom to inquire and create -- since that's the fundamental nature of humans -- in free association with others, but certainly not under the kinds of external constraints that came to be called capitalism."

Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)

 

[Uncensored2008]

What's your take on Wilhelm von Humboldt?

"The founders of classical liberalism, people like Adam Smith and Wilhelm von Humboldt, who is one of the great exponents of classical liberalism, and who inspired John Stuart Mill -- they were what we would call libertarian socialists, at least that ïs the way I read them.

This is why I point out that Chomsky is an idiot. Chomsky claims Adam Smith a socialist, which is laughably stupid, but Chomsky relies on the ignorance of his followers to sustain such outrageously stupid statements.

Adam Smith was an extreme example of a free market proponent. Smith was a highly religious man and also expounded the responsibility of people to care for those less fortunate.

Chomsky would argue that the following passage from "Wealth of Nations" advocates socialism;

{What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves well fed, clothed, and lodged.}

But Chomsky is being disingenuous. If one actually reads Smith, rather than Chomsky, then it is clear that Smith argues to the owners of capital that it is in their own interest that workers be well fed and well cared for, as production will be higher. In no way does Smith advocate the state assume the role of nanny for all.

"For example, Humboldt, like Smith, says, Consider a craftsman who builds some beautiful thing. Humboldt says if he does it under external coercion, like pay, for wages, we may admire what he does but we despise what he is.

Who is "we?"

Further, the actual quote is;
{Coercion may prevent many transgressions; but it robs even actions which are legal of a part of their beauty. Freedom may lead to many transgressions, but it lends even to vices a less ignoble form. }

Which is a far cry from what Chomsky claims.

"On the other hand, if he does it out of his own free, creative expression of himself, under free will, not under external coercion of wage labor, then we also admire what he is because he's a human being.

"He said any decent socioeconomic system will be based on the assumption that people have the freedom to inquire and create -- since that's the fundamental nature of humans -- in free association with others, but certainly not under the kinds of external constraints that came to be called capitalism."

Education is Ignorance, by Noam Chomsky (Excerpted from Class Warfare)

Chomsky is the master of the altered quote, not content with simply taking out of context snippets, the old Marxist will simply change words to suit his desires.

Also remember that it was Humboldt who designed the Prussian public education system as a means of ensuring that people remained chained to a respective caste - the system that America uses today.