Did you feel that?
There's something on my mind that I really need to flush out. Is it something? Is it nothing? Not sure. I've been reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and it's one of those books that makes everyone think they're a frickin' prophet for a few weeks. Apologies in advance.
So... I was talking politics with friends over dinner recently. I think I mentioned Capital Gains Tax and suddenly, like one of those mega-worms from Tremors, one of the ancient, conservative axioms came rumbling towards us, tearing up the floor boards. My composure was shot. A fiscal conservative at the table started espousing the virtues of low-taxation and unregulated markets over big, bad, wasteful government. Truth is, I couldn't help but gulp...
The private sector is exponentially more efficient and less wasteful. Well, yeah...
It's not fair that those who are the most successful should have an increased burden. I can see that.
Redistribution of wealth slows economic growth and rewards bad behavior. Maybe but...
Productivity, innovation and acronyms (PPP, GNP etc.) are only stifled by regulation. Sure, well...
The pie... Zero-sum... Don't forget the Invisible Hand! Hey! I studied that, I think.
Then, like a child tugging on my pant leg, this completely innocent question came to me...
What exactly are we trying to maximize again?
Before we can decide whether Obama or McCain's tax plan is best suited to maximize it, we need to settle on what it it is. Seem like a stupid point? Maybe. But the more I think about it, the more I think that our disagreement was in the philosophical roots, and not the political branches. My friend presumably had his eye on the quantifiable. The bottom line. Per-capita income. The diameter of the pie. Purchasing power. Coin in the bucket.
Humor me, for a second... Let's take a monster hit from our water-bong and swap out that it (monetary wealth and disposable income) for an it called GDH: Gross Domestic Happiness. This is not so crazy; while at the national level, surveys show a strong correlation between abject poverty and unhappiness, surprisingly one between opulent wealth and happiness is harder to see.
So when gauging the positive impact of policy (tax, trade or otherwise) let's attempt to capture not just the effects on the vital signs of the nation, but on its larger mental health. There are a couple of variables that I'll propose tossing in with disposable income in the formula for GDH. They are:
HSI - Exposure to Human Suffering Index
SPI - Sense of Possibility Index
SLI - Satisfaction from Labor Index
PCR - Per Capita Recognition
Even if we have no clue how to measure/weight these things, can we agree that (while tough to quantify) they are real factors in the "positive" impact of any fiscal policy?
That thought brought me to this question: What if SLI is the biggest factor in GDH?
Now of course everyone needs to eat. A roof over the head is pretty key to happiness. But what if (beyond a certain point of sustenance, shelter and basic amenities) the biggest factor in GDH is not the consumption of the fruits of our labor or the purchasing power and leisure they afford, but the work itself. Don't roll your eyes. This might be hard to swallow for those of us who get little satisfaction from the 9-5, but anyone who has a trade they take pride in will know what I'm talking about (from the skilled hydraulics mechanic to the venture capital whiz).
Before you throw that verbal tomato! I am not proposing throwing free trade under the bus and smashing the storefront at the nearest Starbucks. Like I said, my fiscal conservative friend is right in all his assertions, right about maximizing wealth, productivity and efficiency. (I would even concede to him that this same wealth provides the security that protects a nation from outside manipulation, one of the biggest sources of HSI. And that its promise of upward mobility is the second biggest source of SPI... after the lottery.)
However, I will propose this: whenever we debate the impact of policy (tax, trade or otherwise) that after we hold it up to the Econ 101 litmus-test, that we step back and reflect on its total GDH impact. Imagine the implications with regards to globalization or Walmartification. Or the ROI of tax-funded social programs in lowered HSI. Or the negative effect something like mass production might have on PCR. etc. etc.
About the book that got me thinking about all this...
For me, the book's big takeaway is the simple notion that you can't underestimate the impact that the quality of your work, no matter how undervalued, has on your happiness. If you're doing it right, the work is the compensation. If you're "working to live" then you need to find new work. No amount of purchasing power or leisure can replace the satisfaction that one gets from having a trade and doing it well. Doing it meticulously.
Now back to that Capital Gains Tax...
So... I was talking politics with friends over dinner recently. I think I mentioned Capital Gains Tax and suddenly, like one of those mega-worms from Tremors, one of the ancient, conservative axioms came rumbling towards us, tearing up the floor boards. My composure was shot. A fiscal conservative at the table started espousing the virtues of low-taxation and unregulated markets over big, bad, wasteful government. Truth is, I couldn't help but gulp...
The private sector is exponentially more efficient and less wasteful. Well, yeah...
It's not fair that those who are the most successful should have an increased burden. I can see that.
Redistribution of wealth slows economic growth and rewards bad behavior. Maybe but...
Productivity, innovation and acronyms (PPP, GNP etc.) are only stifled by regulation. Sure, well...
The pie... Zero-sum... Don't forget the Invisible Hand! Hey! I studied that, I think.
Then, like a child tugging on my pant leg, this completely innocent question came to me...
What exactly are we trying to maximize again?
Before we can decide whether Obama or McCain's tax plan is best suited to maximize it, we need to settle on what it it is. Seem like a stupid point? Maybe. But the more I think about it, the more I think that our disagreement was in the philosophical roots, and not the political branches. My friend presumably had his eye on the quantifiable. The bottom line. Per-capita income. The diameter of the pie. Purchasing power. Coin in the bucket.
Humor me, for a second... Let's take a monster hit from our water-bong and swap out that it (monetary wealth and disposable income) for an it called GDH: Gross Domestic Happiness. This is not so crazy; while at the national level, surveys show a strong correlation between abject poverty and unhappiness, surprisingly one between opulent wealth and happiness is harder to see.
So when gauging the positive impact of policy (tax, trade or otherwise) let's attempt to capture not just the effects on the vital signs of the nation, but on its larger mental health. There are a couple of variables that I'll propose tossing in with disposable income in the formula for GDH. They are:
HSI - Exposure to Human Suffering Index
SPI - Sense of Possibility Index
SLI - Satisfaction from Labor Index
PCR - Per Capita Recognition
Even if we have no clue how to measure/weight these things, can we agree that (while tough to quantify) they are real factors in the "positive" impact of any fiscal policy?
That thought brought me to this question: What if SLI is the biggest factor in GDH?
Now of course everyone needs to eat. A roof over the head is pretty key to happiness. But what if (beyond a certain point of sustenance, shelter and basic amenities) the biggest factor in GDH is not the consumption of the fruits of our labor or the purchasing power and leisure they afford, but the work itself. Don't roll your eyes. This might be hard to swallow for those of us who get little satisfaction from the 9-5, but anyone who has a trade they take pride in will know what I'm talking about (from the skilled hydraulics mechanic to the venture capital whiz).
Before you throw that verbal tomato! I am not proposing throwing free trade under the bus and smashing the storefront at the nearest Starbucks. Like I said, my fiscal conservative friend is right in all his assertions, right about maximizing wealth, productivity and efficiency. (I would even concede to him that this same wealth provides the security that protects a nation from outside manipulation, one of the biggest sources of HSI. And that its promise of upward mobility is the second biggest source of SPI... after the lottery.)
However, I will propose this: whenever we debate the impact of policy (tax, trade or otherwise) that after we hold it up to the Econ 101 litmus-test, that we step back and reflect on its total GDH impact. Imagine the implications with regards to globalization or Walmartification. Or the ROI of tax-funded social programs in lowered HSI. Or the negative effect something like mass production might have on PCR. etc. etc.
About the book that got me thinking about all this...
For me, the book's big takeaway is the simple notion that you can't underestimate the impact that the quality of your work, no matter how undervalued, has on your happiness. If you're doing it right, the work is the compensation. If you're "working to live" then you need to find new work. No amount of purchasing power or leisure can replace the satisfaction that one gets from having a trade and doing it well. Doing it meticulously.
Now back to that Capital Gains Tax...
By Robert - 7/22/2008
42 Comments:
This is the first post in a series I call "Brain-dumps." Instead of trying to flush everything out in my head. When something strikes me I'm just going to vomit it into a blog template, half baked. Sometimes it'll be something. Sometimes it'll be nothing.
BTW, for an acid flashback and some background on what I meant by PCR (Per Capita Recognition) check out this old post from one year ago called Dont' Worry. Be Distinguished.
It's funny for me to read stuff I wrote a year ago, cause I swear to God, I can't remember where it's going. I still like the direction of this one, but I would like to add one caveat, one more way that people win social distinction: skill. Skilled labor. A sense of tradesman-ship. The shoe-maker who tends to everyone's shoes in the village knows what I'm talking about.
This ties these two threads together, I think.
If you're really bored. Here is the sequel to Don't Worry. Be Distinguised - Moralympics
It's funny cause this one kinda comes back full circle and touches on my new SPI (Sense of Possibility Index).
Not sure if this is good reading, but it's great therapy.
Off topic but: Chris Matthews just rocked Jay Leno's little stage. Man, did he plug the hell out of Obama. Surprisingly great stuff.
The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is killing that little libertarian elf that sits over your right shoulder. The liberal elf over the left shoulder just got a lot more comfortable. Great book. You're point is well taken. I've been having a spirited back and forth with one of my good friends over the last year about just this topic. He's a big supply side conservative/libertarian and I respect his opinions. I'm not going to get into where our back and forth has wandered, but the trip has been fun. Anyway, I can concede some ground and come to the middle on some points, but ultimately, drawn out to its furthest extent, their argument fails. I'm not going to recite a year's worth of debate here, but it is a fun endeavor.
Anyway, Bobby Kennedy spoke about GDP and how we measure success in a speech he have 40 years ago. This speech gives me goosebumps, and sorta ties into your point.
Good to see these kinds of posts come back, and to somehow but not really tie it into one of my all-time favorite B-movies deserves an attaboy.
OK, my son - YOU are NOW ready for this:
The Red Road of the U.E.L.N. (United Eastern Lenape Nation)
May the Great Spirit copiously shed grace upon your bank account
I'm not sure I understand your point. How does raising the capital gains tax increase GDH?? In reality it will decrease it b/c the tax will force people to work longer b/c they can't afford the taxes they will incur on their 401(k). Maybe I just didn't get your post or the concept went over my head, but howexactly will raising taxes on every american raise GDH??
Anonymous,
Good question. I'll try to find some time this afternoon to address it in depth.
In short though, my point wasn't aimed so much at the Capital Gains Tax specifically but at the larger debate over redistribution of wealth via tax-funded social programs.
More soon...
BTW the latest Ohio poll has been added to our running sidebar. It's from Public Policy Polling and the result is:
Obama 48 / McCain 40
Bob, as you know, I am an avid supporter of supply side economics. On many occasions I have made arguments for it that are based on its astounding potential to increase GDP, give us disposable income, and most important (to me at least!) allow us to live a lifestyle where we can persue leisure.
But that is not the main reason why economic freedom is morally superior to collectivism, and it will never be my chief argument for capitalism.
By arguing for GDH you are clearly making a case for collectivist government, and simply ignoring the details of such a government, instead focussing on some sort of happiness measurement (can't wait to see how you would measure that, why not make it the subject of your next brain dump)
The problem with collectivist ideology is that it requires a mechanism to establish the "common good." If you are going to create a capital gains tax, somehow, somebody(s) needs to figure out how best to spend it. This can be done with a representative government (our system), a direct democracy, an aristocracy, a dictatorship, etc.
There are two major problems with establishing the "common good." The first is that there is no reason to beleive that any individual, or group of individuals has the slightest idea of how to create a government that brings about the most happiness. Currently you live in a country where the electorate TWICE elected president bush. I was raised in a State where gay marriage was banned by the voters of Ohio. We live in a country that has decided to ban the possesion and sale of pot for the "common good," resulting in overcrowded jails and a blackmarket where people kill each other over a plant that grows readily almost anywhere.
There are so many historical examples of failed collectivism in the world, that I wonder why the notion is still so popular. The ultimate Irony is that collectivist governments so often become the manifestation of an individual's vision, while individualist governments are so often defined by the spontaneous interactions of individuals working together (this is where capitalism's growth potential comes from in the first place!)
And this leads me to my second point. The idea that an individual or a group of individuals, even 60% of the population, can determine where human rights begin and end, runs contrary to one of the most important founding philosophies of our country. Our government was based on the idea that humans have rights and freedoms BECAUSE WE ARE HUMAN (these rights do not change with the ever changing will of the masses), and that our governments are here to protect those rights and serve us. But Collectivism lays out our rights and freedoms based upon a government interpretation of what is in our best interests. Now our rights and freedoms are given by the government. Instead of having a government for the people, now you have people working for the good of the masses, which is in effect the government.
You also need to consider that economic freedom is just as important as every other kind of freedom. I believe that it is freedom itself that brings us the most happiness. "Zen" is a great book, I really enjoyed it, but "The Giver" is a better one. "1984" is a better one. "Fairenheit 451" is a better one. And yes, even "Atlas Shrugged" is a better one. The book you just read may have made you feel like a prophet, but when American's were asked which book was the most infuencial in their lives (by the Survey of Lifetime Reading Habits conducted in 1991) Atlas Shrugged came in second... to the bible.
I think another interesting question to ask yourself is who is better at redistributing wealth? A government run social program or a company. Does a handout truly make you happier? Or as you say does earning a paycheck bring more happiness? I would argue most companies would put the dollars they are taxed to much better work than the govn't either by creating more jobs, paying larger diviends, and/or paying higher bonuses. Once again I know taxes are necesarry for police, military, infrastructure, etc. I just think social program for the most part fail the citizens they serve.
I believe that we do need some social programs to help the truly needy. However, we certainly do not need to expand them. This only increases the hostility between the the guy earning a paycheck and the people sitting on their butts collecting welfare. Like i said I think the welfare syste has a small place, but we need to start making the able bodied citizens earn this check instead of it being a govn't handout.
i was walking to work the other day and saw an ant war taking place. or at least i thought it was an ant war. hard to tell...they're ants!
anyway, the situation was this:
on a stair step, ants were coming out of a hole on each side, where the step met the wall. the ants were going in and out of their respective holes.
in the middle, the ants met and a great many of them were locked jaw to jaw, moving as you might imagine locked jawed ants would.
i couldn't see any obvious killing, which got me thinking that maybe the ants were swarming or something and this was how they established new colonies.
or maybe it was something else. hard to say. i am not an ant.
my point? my gdh increased tremendously for the 5 minutes or so that i watched. my coworkers, who i invited out to watch and who declined, didn't experience any gdh. or maybe they did because they declined.
i love watching insects. i love watching them swarm over a flowering tree or a rose bush or some other flowering plant. i have a macro lens camera and i love taking close up pictures of them (or trying to. that close up the field of focus is tiny and the wind isn't helping get that good shot off).
again, an increase in my gdh.
i have happiness from things in life. i love the tastes of exotic foods; watching bugs; listening to the toads at night; looking at my car after i have cleaned and waxed it. etc. these are personal enjoyments that work for me.
my best friend's gdh goes up riding his motorcycle; driving his bmw z4; and scuba diving around the world.
and this plays into jeff's collective good comments. how do you establish that? is it even possible?
that's just me. how far off topic was i?
Money CANNOT Buy Happiness - But it sure as hell will rent you some!
ada, I never fail to get a big charge out of watching my Yorkie rolling around with the cat.
Happiness is where you find it...and I think they were right about - The Best things in life are Free
Great, great comments. I'm looking forward to cracking a PBR after work and responding in depth.
I will pick the low hanging fruit though. Jeff, while I agree with your questioning of who establishes the "common good." (And will respond tonight). I have to take issue with one minor point: Atlas Shrugged being the second most influential book cited by Americans after the Bible.
Out of 100,000 Americans how many would you guess have read Catcher in the Rye? Or Animal Farm? Maybe 25,000.
How many have read Atlas Shrugged? Maybe 500. Maybe. Shit it's 1088 pages. I've never gotten more than 50 pages deep. And I know and like Rand.
I'm not knocking it. Not doubting that for those who read it, it might be the most influential thing they've read. But there's no way that it's in the top 10 most influential books (as rated by average Americans).
You know, I've been working on that site FeedYourShelf.com for a few years [shameless plug] and one thing I've noticed is that Rand fans are like Scientologists. They swamp every online survey, and hit it till Rand's on top. But the results are skewed by a handful of fanatics. I imagine that's what happened in the survey you cited.
Happiness is a winters night, warm fire and a Vonnegut book
Schlactoff Fimf
So it goes
Not at all Ada.
I love what you wrote, and not just 'cause I, too, love watching bugs (one of the coolest things I ever witnessed was a hunting wasp and spider face off, the wasp fighting to kill the spider to lay eggs, and the spider fighting for it's life)
One of my greatest joys in life is kiteboarding. But it is pretty dangerous, dangerous enough that most people would avoid it. And if we ever had a universal HC plan, I can imagine that many people would wish I didn't do it. Not only am I endangering myself for something most people wouldn't care for, but when I get hurt, (and surely I will someday) everyone is going to have to pay for it. The same argument could be made for smoking cigars, or eating French food.
One of the most appealling aspects of life is our freedom to choose. Life and Liberty are what allow us to take on the persuit of happiness, and this persuit is an individual journey to an individual happiness.
Of the books I mentioned above, "The Giver" seems to apply best to this discussion. Lowry creates a world where GDH has been maximized completely, not just economically, but socially as well. Robb, have you read it? You'll feel like a profit again, I promise.
Pretty naive, Bob. Rand fans are often labeled as cultists, but actually her books are very well read.
A zogby poll which asked random american respondents if they have read atlas shrugged found that 8.1% of respondents had. That pretty much blows your estimate away by %1600 Here is a link:
http://www.freestarmedia.com/randpoll2007.html
Or, just google it. It is also interesting to check out the demographics. Her book is so well read precisely because it builds such a strong moral defense for economic liberty.
OK Jeff,
Been thinking. I agree with your point about the major underlying challenge: Who decides what the hell the common good is in the first place? Isn't that completely subjective? Is there any collective "common good" that doesn't crap on the freedoms of the individual?
Here are my initial thoughts...
Instead of throwing our hands up in the air and saying there is no way of defining a "common good." I wonder if some universal truths might be out there that at very least would be reliable guidelines for forming policy. Like it or not, we will always need some mechanism. Some government. If we could give em some guidelines what would they be?
What I'm throwing against the wall to see if it sticks is this:
The four made-up indexes I posted (while not exhaustive) are four universal and timeless measures of a nation's happiness (which is to say, the sum of the happiness of its members). And that this holds true despite all the varying, nuanced, professed definitions of what the "common good" is to any one individual, or where he/she finds personal enjoyment.
I don't know if that's true. But that's the hat I'm wearing today.
If you look at the indexes, I think you'll see that this is not about conformity or loss of liberty but with vital signs that any government should keep an eye on as policy is written.
Maybe my mistake was leaving out index #5: PFI - Personal Freedom Index. Consider it added.
Rand is overrated and simplistic in her presentation. She is a self aggrandizing loon, who while making a few salient points refrains from dealing head on with any flaws in her own reasoning. I don't understand those that adhere to writings as some form of moral or spiritual awakening. adam Smith and wealth of Nations would be a far better reference to defend not only your free market beliefs but also to have some level of rational application. I think Vonnegut sucks too.
did anybody ever read War and Peace, I have been eyeing it but don't know if I am going to invest the time, I feel like I should?
Jeff,
I am not dogging Rand. I'm not dogging her books. I love "The Virtue of Selfishness." I'm a fan of Rand.
But poll or no poll there is no way that 8 out of every 100 Americans has read Atlas Shrugged. It's not possible. Not even close. I'd wager my left nut.
I don't mean to be rude, but I think believing that 1 out of every 12 Americans has read that 1100 page behemoth is naive. Again, don't take that as a jab.
I'd be surprised if 8% of our readership has. Or 8% of college grads. Or 8% of registered voters.
And Rand's book "Anthem" honestly sucked. That one's hard to defend.
BTW that poll suggests that 1 out of 10 YouTube users has read it and 4 out of 10 passport holders. That's just no possible.
It's "a Freestar Media/Zogby poll"
And according to Zogby...
"Freestar Media, LLC was created by Logan Darrow Clements to produce media applying Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, individual rights and laissez-faire capitalism to current events."
Yeah, I didn't like Anthem either. My favorite was the fountainhead. As to your dismissal of the Zogby poll, fine. It was a very minor point to the discussion, and the best evedence I could have hoped to have found was a random poll like Zogby. Turns out there is such a poll, I linked to it.
T-Dawg. Thanks for the opinion, but rand's name is cemented in our culture now, and for a good reason. Her arguments for capitalism were moral, and not based on economics. That is why I brought her up on this thread. You are correct that she was a loon, but her arguments are strong. It may not matter to you that her words can affect us emotionally, and that she stirs the spirit by pointing out the incredible importance of the individual, but it does matter to me. I enjoy the resonance; to me the natural state of humans is a free state, and she put it in words that I could not.
I am not an economic conservative so much as I'm a libertarian, and I'm not a libertarian on utilitarian grounds. I'm a libertarian on moral grounds.
No bob, the question was created by freestar, but the poll was conducted by zogby
Jeff,
Are you a Barr man?
I'm enjoying the comments. I hope everyone clicked on Bob's graphic (expand this post).
I'm only a Barr man in that I think he could steal a few votes from McCain. Otherwise he is an ass and it kinda feels like the party has been hijacked by a republican
Yeah he was a big proponent of the Patriot Act, right?
yeah, he's pretty anti-gay as well.
"Her arguments for capitalism were moral, " oh come now Jeff, to completely ignore the starting point in the game of life, to be completely oblivious to access to education or exposure to higher thinking?!?! Rand denies these, in fact ignores the possibility that they exist or contribute. It is this willful denial that makes me detest her. She was a fascist for Christs sake, she argued that the undeveloped countries were animals, she equates homosexuality to a disease. This is your MORAL champion, this is your vanguard for the virtuosity of capitalism?
Your welcome for my opinion, a bit of advice, broaden yours regarding the underpinnings of what you espouse.
i saw soemthing about this on 60 minutes a while back.
the world values survey, from the national science foundation, ranks the world's happiest countries.
here is a pdf with the complete rankings.
and jeff, one of the coolest things i've seen was simmilar to your spider/wasp fight. when i was in college, i watched a flying bug of some sort scrapping with a dady long leg. as they rolled around on the pavement, the flying bug clipped off the spider's legs at the base. eventually, all were clipped off, at which point the flying bug flew off with the legless round body of the spider tucked away underneath.
this is a very very interesting discussion. it has increased my dh :)
ada,
There is not much cooler than social insects. When I lived in Brazil we saw ants the size of wasps, with all the weight in their jaws. More engrossing than any alien flick.
No, T-dawg, in fact I only ever alluded to her arguments in Atlas Shrugged. I know she was a kook, and a lot of her ideas were idiotic, but the woman could write, and write very well. And she does make a great moral argument for capitalism. And it happens to be a very influential book. Bob admitted that he is on a "Zen" high horse, and I was trying to knock him off of it by mentioning another fictional philosophical masterpiece that attacks the viewpoints he's proposing.
She is a fascinating human, and she was a very brave woman. Her work has touched millions. Many influencial people have said that their thinking was influenced by her.
She made some kooky statements, especially when she became aged, but these will not dminish the strength of her best arguments for individualism and the selfishness of human nature.
Oh, and BTW, although she did make one definitive public statement regarding her view of homosexuality, she preceded it by declaring that the state had no right in interfering with the private lives of homosexuals. And when you say "to completely ignore the starting point in human life," what on earth are you refering to? Her atheism? As an atheist, it is refreshing to read a fellow athiest's work who believes in liberty.
Now to call her a Fascist??!! HA! These days that word has little or no meaning; it's definition is whatever a particular speaker dislikes.
you have a shockingly small knowledge of the person you champion.
for your edification fascist-noun-in general usage refers to someone with intolerant views. So it fits her
NO especially in Atlas Shrugged she never makes allocations for varying starting points in exposure to education. It has nothing to do with her religion or anyone elses
At the risk of contradicting everything I've just said: I have always been interested in the Libertarian outlook. I wore that hat for a while, too. There's a lot that I liked about it. Still do. There's only one little problem that I've always had with Rand and that brand of Libertarianism, though. And it's a big one:
When she talks about the justice inherit in everyone 'earning what they get' and 'getting what they earn,' it's always just assumed that we're talking about able-bodies adults. And if you join her in that assumption then it's easy to nod your head in agreement. From what I've seen, all the theory carefully sidesteps the bastard child. The kid who never gets the tools to earn.
I could actually get behind a dog-eat-dog Libertarianism that applied to those over the age of say... 20 and, like the NYC marathon, started with everyone lined up, fully hydrated. A fair start.
Of course for this to happen society would need a mechanism in place that ensured that kids, during those first 20 years weren't doomed by the failures and inadequacies of their parents. Social programs. Public education. Universal healthcare. All requiring taxes, redistribution of wealth. And for it to resemble anything like a fair start, it'd need to be consistent nationwide, not just pockets of voluntary charity. Equal opportunity across the board.
This is something the devout don't seem willing to consider though. Can't consider. Because it undercuts the fundamental argument that government is bad in all forms and that any redistribution of wealth imposed on the individual (even if agreed to democratically by a bunch of individuals) is evil.
That's where Rand and I part ways.
DJ,
Thanks for the clip. Great stuff. I have to confess it gets me thinking about Hillary's assassination comment.
I can't even imagine the national response if anything happened to Obama.
Robert, in all things, you can have fairness, or you can have choice. You can't have both. The idea of a government that decides what a fair start is, and how to get there... frankly, that scares the shit out of me, especially since this conversation has me currently rereading "The Giver." Sometimes, I too, wish for a government that provides for children, they have no power, and often are in no position to better themselves. But I have never wished for fairness. That implies equality, and there is no such thing in our natural world. Do you believe that the world should be fair, Bob? And if the answer is yes, I would like to know under what conditions you would be satisfied.
T-dawg, sorry Rand's imperfections have made her works so ugly for you.
her works imperfections made them ugly to me, her personal imperfections make me leery of her worshipers.
Jeff,
In your last comment (fairness v. choice) I think we hit on something. Something that needs to be flushed out: the meaning of the term "equality."
We use the word pretty loosely, probably since it's almost always mentioned passingly in a list of other vague, yet undeniably-good things like justice and freedom.
But there's a difference between "fairness" and "sameness." Equal opportunity and equal protection under the law are not conformity.
I don't think that fairness and choice are diametrically opposed at all in fact. I'm going to expand on this in a post this week.
Thanks for the comments.
From the Keeler Report:
WSJ: Their Fair Share
Washington is teeing up "the rich" for a big tax hike next year, as a way to make them "pay their fair share." Well, the latest IRS data have arrived on who paid what share of income taxes in 2006, and it's going to be hard for the rich to pay any more than they already do. The data show that the 2003 Bush tax cuts caused what may be the biggest increase in tax payments by the rich in American history.
Americans with an income below the median paid a record low 2.9% of all income taxes, while the top 50% paid 97.1%.
In 2003 millionaires paid $136 billion in taxes. In 2006 they paid $274 billion. The Bush tax cuts did what they were supposed to do. People made more money and thus pay more taxes. The top 1% of Americans pay 40% of all income taxes, their highest share in 40 years.
shanghai hotel guangzhou hotel shenzhen hotel beijing hotelchina hotel 回转支承 转盘轴承 slewing ring slewing bearing slewing bearings
Post a Comment
<< Home