Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Just a casual observation. Duties/tariffs or any other fees applied to commerce for purpose of raising monies to support the Constitutional functions of government is not redistribution of wealth of any sort.
Boedicca said:There's a fable about that:
Quantum Windbag said:"I keep wondering where people that think regulations exist to protect us from big business leave their brains. Regulations in their current form exist to protect big business from competition."
Wiseacre said:I think Sowell is talking about gov't programs and policies that are intended to redress inequalities, such as affirmative action, by focusing on outcomes rather than causes. He's saying (I think) that in so doing you are reducing somebody else's freedom, and that such ideas are essentially zero sum.
Publius1787 said:"If you place equality before liberty you will have neither. If you place liberty before equality you will have a great deal of both."
Foxfyre said:"...Wealth RE-distribution involves a third party which in this case is the government. It is confiscation of my property without due compensation and/or without providing any benefit to me for the express purpose of enriching or benefitting another."
Oddball said:Yet, somehow or another, "society" isn't too broad an abstraction, when you seek to destroy individual liberty and rationalize stealing from people.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/50799-is-freedom-real.htmlexpat_panama said:....Maybe someone else here can work it out for you better than me.
What you are offering are opinions, not truths. Truths can br proven, none of what you're saying here falls in that category.
Midcan wrote, "There is not a single recent statistic that does not point to growing inequality in America.
So what? Why isn't it a good thing that someone in this country can get rich ?
from above link.
"In 1974 the top 0.1 percent of American families earned 2.7 percent of all income in the country. By 2007, Hacker and Pierson write, the top 0.1 percent have seen their slice of the pie grow . . . to 12.3 percent of incomea more than fourfold increase (emphasis in original)." Winner-Take-All Politics
What you are offering are opinions, not truths. Truths can br proven, none of what you're saying here falls in that category.
Midcan wrote, "There is not a single recent statistic that does not point to growing inequality in America.
So what? Why isn't it a good thing that someone in this country can get rich ?
from above link.
"In 1974 the top 0.1 percent of American families earned 2.7 percent of all income in the country. By 2007, Hacker and Pierson write, the top 0.1 percent have seen their slice of the pie grow . . . to 12.3 percent of incomea more than fourfold increase (emphasis in original)." Winner-Take-All Politics
Darn, I expected better from you. You tell me they are only my opinions and then in the very next reply tell me so what? Which is it I ask?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/100438-which-is-which.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You guys are no fun, all I read are made up Midcans based on the writers stereotypes. Come on folks put on your thinking caps. http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/124603-thinking-caps-on-america.html
Back I go to see if I missed any profundity. But so far looks like I win.
Quantum Windbag said:"I keep wondering where people that think regulations exist to protect us from big business leave their brains. Regulations in their current form exist to protect big business from competition."
Darn, we agree but who changed that. No answer?
Back I go to see if I missed any profundity. But so far looks like I win.
What you are offering are opinions, not truths. Truths can br proven, none of what you're saying here falls in that category.
Midcan wrote, "There is not a single recent statistic that does not point to growing inequality in America.
So what? Why isn't it a good thing that someone in this country can get rich ?
from above link.
"In 1974 the top 0.1 percent of American families earned 2.7 percent of all income in the country. By 2007, Hacker and Pierson write, the top 0.1 percent have seen their slice of the pie grow . . . to 12.3 percent of incomea more than fourfold increase (emphasis in original)." Winner-Take-All Politics
Darn, I expected better from you. You tell me they are only my opinions and then in the very next reply tell me so what? Which is it I ask?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/100438-which-is-which.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You guys are no fun, all I read are made up Midcans based on the writers stereotypes. Come on folks put on your thinking caps. http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/124603-thinking-caps-on-america.html
Back I go to see if I missed any profundity. But so far looks like I win.
You win? This is a game with a winner and a loser? I thought it was an exchange of opinions, and so far you haven't done well in backing up your views.
You talk about growing inequality, presumeably income inequality. Like that is supposed to mean something important, why is that so vital to you? In 1980 the stock market was at 800, now it's up over 12,000. Who do you think was in the best position to take advantage of that? Housing prices shot up all over the country, people made big money in real estate. Who made the most? The people with the most money to invest.
Those people at the bottom of the economic pile in 1974, you think they all stayed there? What was Bill Gates making back then? Many of 'em went into business, or worked their way up the ladder, same as many of the rich guys moved down and were replaced by new rich guys. There's a turnover, it ain't the same bunch at the bottomor the top. And if somebody is still on the bottom, who's fault is that? Sometimes opportunity comes knocking, sometimes more than once. But sometimes it doesn't and you have to make your own opportunities. Some people were more fortunate than others, some didn't even try.
So it's not surprising that income inequality exists. I'll repeat, so what? Shouldn't we live in a country when getting rich is possible?
Midcan't is nothing without his profound hubris....You'll find it in great abundance in his every post, where he isn't hiding behind the words and opinions of others.What you are offering are opinions, not truths. Truths can br proven, none of what you're saying here falls in that category.
Midcan wrote, "There is not a single recent statistic that does not point to growing inequality in America.
So what? Why isn't it a good thing that someone in this country can get rich ?
from above link.
"In 1974 the top 0.1 percent of American families earned 2.7 percent of all income in the country. By 2007, Hacker and Pierson write, the top 0.1 percent have seen their slice of the pie grow . . . to 12.3 percent of incomea more than fourfold increase (emphasis in original)." Winner-Take-All Politics
Darn, I expected better from you. You tell me they are only my opinions and then in the very next reply tell me so what? Which is it I ask?
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/100438-which-is-which.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You guys are no fun, all I read are made up Midcans based on the writers stereotypes. Come on folks put on your thinking caps. http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/124603-thinking-caps-on-america.html
Back I go to see if I missed any profundity. But so far looks like I win.
You win? This is a game with a winner and a loser? I thought it was an exchange of opinions, and so far you haven't done well in backing up your views.
Quantum Windbag, yes, statistics can be fudged, you know what they say about lies. But the evidence is overwhelming, I included enough already, the point is past proven and like global warming only denied by those who still claim the earth is flat.
Your reply to, "A society that is more equal functions better than one in which only a few possess wealth." was in contention for the revisionist comment award. You wrote, "Highly debatable opinion, and only a truth except in small minds that think their opinions mean more than the real world that surrounds them." Why don't you try living in a third world nation and let us know how it goes. The majority of people living on this earth live on under two dollars a day. Would anyone chose to be among them? You?
QW wrote, "I can point to at least one historical example of a [edit] culture that grew rich without having any recognized government. Not being an anthropologist I can not site more than that, but I am sure many exist." And that would be?
It is obvious that you have difference concepts of wealth. Plutocracies, oligarchies or totalitarian societies may have wealth galore but it exists only as potential or for the privileged few. Sometimes it exists for self aggrandizement and often war aka power. I consider wealth to be a transferable valued commodity within a society where all have opportunity to share in the benefits of that material. But thanks I have to clarify that point in my notes.
Taxes provide the means for a well run and well regulated society. Consider all the infrastructure we all depend on, the product safety, community safety, laws and contract enforcement, regulatory structure, and the help and support of fellow citizens who are victims of the swings of capitalism and the profit greed of corporations and people. If one thing manages wealth in this nation it is law, and taxes pay for law. When taxes were highest, America had her best years. I have posted support for that often. Lowering taxes hasn't helped jobs, that much is clear even if you only view Bush Jr's failed economy. Bush one and two have the worst job records of any presidents. Bush I had help from Reagan, Bush II managed it on his own.
Comment:
There are several salient points that need review. Conservatives (C) and liberals see the world differently. Conservatives tend to see extremes of good and bad, they long for heroes, individuals like Reagan, who become mythical and unapproachable. Bad guys are easy to spot, they are government or anyone concerned with issues that conflict with their Ayn Rand type hero. Government is the largest of the bad guys but it also poses a paradox as conservatives need government as a place for their heroes to fight the good battle and enforce their laws, but they dislike government when other heroes, such as FDR or LBJ do battle against inequality and poverty. What then happens is the battle become cloaked in symbols and words, the good and the bad, the slippery slope and soon the battle becomes the reality even though the reality remains outside the battle.
Wealth only exists in a society of free people with opportunity to take part in the wealth. Some would say the Pyramids equate to wealth but that is the narrow wealth of individual hubris. America's greatest wealth came from the security of the infrastructure FDR and his administration created; Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy/LBJ, and Nixon maintained that growth and security.
The chief C argument with equality is the distribution argument or redistribution argument. The idea points to how we frame or create our world, if our head includes the concept that taxation is stealing then one outcome follows, if instead we consider taxation a part of good citizenship and support for the nation that provides for us and others, a different outcome follows.
Another argument against a more equal society is everyone already has equal opportunity, that is complete balderdash. Our public schools and our public projects have helped greatly, but today they are a target of conservatives. It is hard to say why but conservatives are still fighting FDR and the idea of social justice. It often seems to me conservatives are fighting against America's core values.
Americans select the type of country they want, we can have one similar to early twentieth century with its sweat shops and extreme poverty or we can do better. Exaggerated conclusions and or the assignment of negative values to an opponent do not win the debate. I will be accused of same but history is out there for those who read and think. Turn off that receiver and learn on your own.
Fabian socialist/progressive blowhard rule #1:By the way, I refer you back to your continued attack on conservatives and the way you belittle them throughout this post. Next time you want to call other people on assigning negative values to others you might look better if you did not engage in it yourself.
Midcan, you're still ignoring my questions/points. Can I take that as a concession and claim 'victory'? Do I get to do a special dance or something now?
You have never presented any evidence, all you present is links to other people's opinions. That might overwhelm you, but it just makes me wonder where you got your training in logic.....
Midcan, you're still ignoring my questions/points. Can I take that as a concession and claim 'victory'? Do I get to do a special dance or something now?
Please give me post number or numbers?
Quantum Windbag, I have provided lots of information but if statistics that support specific conclusions aren't good enough then nothing would be. Saying something is an opinion is not a counter argument, it is childish and lacking of thought. Then you tell me that many third world nations have an expanding middle class with no proof, is that your opinion or have you traveled and studied extensively in the third world nations? Barbary Pirates? I can see you are must be ten or twelve, no offense meant but pirates in the 16th and 17th century, OMFG is all I can say. Somalia's pirates do they count too? Or the mafia? Money and wealth! again OMG no comment is possible. So government is not society and society not made up of government. I already noted what wealth is about, no need to reply again. Sorry, but your comments make no sense. Please save them and read them ten or twenty years from now. I mean that seriously. I feel sorta sorry that this is the best argument I am getting from the conservatives who always bash liberals as you do in your public school comment. Public education made this nation great. Today it is controversial for all the wrong reasons.
The PDF from which quote below came is available on the web for those who still ponder the tough questions.
"Aristotle, in the Politics, supplemented his mentors views in some important ways. First, Aristotle emphasized that physical security both external and internal is also a fundamental function of the state, one of its principle raison d'être (a point Plato also made in a later work, the Laws). The collective survival enterprise is not, therefore, exclusively an economic association. Aristotle also stressed that human nature is not an autonomous agency. It entails a set of innate aptitudes that are uniquely fitted for society and that can only be developed in a network of social relationships. Thus, social life involves more than being simply a marketplace for economic transactions. It also involves a life in common; we are all enriched by it. Indeed, a hermit is not only economically deprived; he/she is not fully human and, equally important, has no evolutionary future. (We will also return to this important point.)" Peter A. Corning 'The Evolution Of Politics'
Somewhere out in the existential ether, both Orwell and Rand are having a big fat laugh.If, as you assert, government and society are interchangeable, why do you argue that they are not? You specifically object to society having a say in abortions because it interferes with what you perceive as being right.
