Text 14192, 363 rader
Skriven 2007-05-07 23:15:27 av Carl (562.babylon5)
Kommentar till en text av rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated
Ärende: Re: unions
==================
"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8fkv331aqj41tpksakrkgkat2fu3e74h78@4ax.com...
On Sun, 6 May 2007 23:20:58 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Josh Hill wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 May 2007 18:18:33 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Josh Hill wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 6 May 2007 17:03:04 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>> Third, you don't have a *personal* choice to murder, steal, smoke,
>>> or fight in a war? (Refraining from start-ass comment). My
>>> comments have been almost exclusively geared towards personal rights
>>> and choices, no?
>>
>> No more than I have a personal choice not to pay taxes. Which is to
>> say that should I do or not do these things when the government tells
>> me otherwise, I'm in trouble -- same as I would be if I decided not to
>> pay my taxes.
>
>No, the government can't force you to murder. Even in war...
>even when we had the draft there was always the status of
>moral objector. That's as it should be... no one should be forced
>to do something they find immoral (as long as it does not
>violate the rights of others).
That's not quite true: not everyone can receive CO status. For
example, you're ineligible for CO status if you oppose a specific war,
but aren't a complete pacifist.
>Laws *should* be centered around preventing one person from
>violating the rights and safety of others, not compelling you to
That can't be, though. Someone has to pay for bridges.
---
I said "centered around", not exclusively for. I *very* seldom define
absolutes.
---
>> My point is that we /have/ to do this: it's one of the primary
>> functions of government. Or do we want to live in a world in which
>> people are free to murder at will? It just can't be.
>
>See previous section as to where the primary line should be drawn.
>
>Of course there are exceptions, but they should be few and
>very far between.
There are lots of exceptions, I think. There have to be.
"Few" is a relative term. In the context of a set of books that has over
18,000 gun laws and a tax code no one understands completely, the term "few"
has some room.
The more exceptions you create, the more precedents there are to create a
situation in which there are no limits...a government that has no limit or
idea of what it's supposed to do any more other than anything and
everything. A government that has the power to pass the Patriot act but not
defend its own borders. We pay people not to grow things. We tax people at
the federal level so we can give money back to the states in a grant to
build a Sports Hall of Fame (Suffolk County Sports Hall of Fame, Long
Island).
My view of the function of a federal government does not include taxing for,
or being involved in the building of a sports hall of fame building.... but
these days who cares? Pork is fine as long as it goes to my district,
right?
The only limit is the Supreme Court, which is supposed to be a last
resort, and even that is limited in what it can (and should) get involved
in. I'm not comfortable with the no definition of limits to our government
other than nine politically appointed indivduals.
Government will adapt...it has to, and that's fine...but you seem to be much
more comfortable with the idea that government is "anything we want it to
be" than I am. That doesn't make you wrong and me right. I'm just
expressing my view.
You don't trust Bush and what he' has/will/might do. Fair enough. I don't
trust ANYONE that much...even if I think they have the best of intentions.
Once you have a government program, it's permanent.
>>> 1) Taxes should be collected to pay for the services that government
>>> needs to provide.
>>
>> What is "needs"? Highways? Cancer research? Missiles? Education? The
>> space program? It's entirely subjective.
>
>Military? Absolutely. IT makes no sense to have a state-by-state military,
>plus trying to do so would create a situation where the federal government
>doesn't control the military...and that would mean we would be essentially
>a collection of 50 mini-countries.
>
>Highways? In the absence of anything else to coordinate the construction
>so that they meet up. Certainly they need to conform to a common
>set of standards.
>
>In that area though... why does Hawaii have an interstate highway?
Possibility A: It would unfair to give all the other states Federal
money for highways without giving Hawaii its cut
--
Great! Let's waste lots of money all over the place just so everyone
feels like they've gorged themselves on pork in a fair way. The
same mentality as "Spend it or you'll lose it budgeting."
You're idea of "fair" government, not mine.
--
Possibility B: Amphicars
LOL
>Education? It would be an interesting debate. I doubt most would
>claim that the current system is an unqualified success. Is there any
>reason states couldn't do it?
Couldn't do what?
>Space program? There are military considerations that create an absolute
>need.
Only for part of it.
>I'm personally a huge fan of NASA and all of the technological
>advances (most of which aren't touted very well) that has come from it.
>
>As an investment, both in technology and as inspiration it has been money
>very well spent.
Ah, but now you're making my point for me, because /money well spent/
isn't the same as need.
---
When NASA started, there was no option. No one else could have done
it.
I agree that money well spent isn't the same as need. I did say that there
are
things that the federal government may do best.
Unfortunately, the situation may be changing for NASA though. Funding is
insuffient and too inconsistent to fulfill the initial potential that it
had.
There are few missions that inspire, and in order to be cost effective NASA
relies on tried-and-true technology. I understand why, but it's rather
disappointing.
It will be interesting to see if inspiration continues to come from the
private sector
in the future. The private space race has caught the attention of the
public.
---
The fact is, there are lots of things the Federal government does
because it /should,/ not because it has to.
---
"Should", "Fair",... wiggle words.
Maybe it should...but what's the test to see if it's something government
should (or shouldn't) do above and beyond "We should because I think so!"
---
And people don't want to give up those things. They don't even want
to give up the things that we shouldn't be paying for -- useless
bring-home-the-bacon projects that politicians use to buy votes.
---
Exactly! And there's nothing to point to any more to say
"It's not the function of the federal government to build you a sports hall
of fame!"
The politician that brought home the bacon was proud he did it.
---
>
>Where it makes sense and it can't be done by states or private
>industry, okay. I usually have no problem.
Then we agree, except that I would say "and it can't be done /better/
by states or private industry." For example, the Republicans have
privatized a portion of Medicare. But the insurance companies are
charging /more/ for the services than it used to cost the government
to provide them. That's an example of a case in which private industry
shouldn't do the job, because government can do it better.
---
I'm not convinced that the government should be involved in
the insurance industry or medicine.
1) Cheaper is not the only consideration. Depending on how
far one extends the conversation into socialized medicine we
could go off on a tangent, but let's not.
2) There is nothing inherent in the structure of government that would
require it to be more efficient or else you could argue that all
businesses are
more efficently done by the government.
Where costs are too high that would certainly indicate the potential for
some changes.
3) Legal reform would help bring down costs. All too often
jury awards are based on emotion and the accused's insurance
company's ability to pay and emotion
4) Overall, the entire legal system would benefit from massive
Torte reform. Never happen with the Dems in charge.
The GOP has it's base that it caters too, so does do the Dems.
5) Over time, Insurance companies and private business is much
less tolerant of fraud. The govt doesn't seem to care about
its losses to fraud, it can always just tax more money.
>> There can be no criterion for fairness here. Unfairness, perhaps.
>
>Unfair is subjective.
>
>Fair is treating everyone the same.
Not really. Because you can't treat everyone the same; it's just not
possible. Forex, if you charge a rich man $50 for a parking ticket and
a poor man $50 for a parking ticket, you aren't treating them the
same, because the $50 means nothing to the rich man, while for the
poor man it may mean that he can't afford his medication or can't pay
and has to go to jail.
You're talking fair from two different perspectives:
It IS fair to charge them the same. The offense is the same, and not
charging them
thre same is favoring one over the other.
What may or may not be fair is the person's state in life... and it is (in
my mind)
inappropriate to compare the two. The one did not get wealthy at the
expense
of the other (assuming no artificially contrived circumstance).
>>> 5) I prefer "rich" be specifically defined, rather than meaning
>>> different things when being discussed before the election (Bill
>>> Gates) and after the election (67K). If you want to define it as a
>>> percentage of income in comparison to mean, that's fine, but then
>>> *always* reference that one definition, both in conversation and in
>>> tax law.
>>
>> That's like saying "big" should be specifically defined. It can't be:
>> it's a relative term.
>
>Bull. If you're going to define laws...tax laws or any other kind of laws,
>you should be able to do so unambiguosly.
>
>Tell me the absolute dollar figure that is the *defintion* of rich
>or you have no right to say that the rich don't pay their fair share.
Bullshit. There is no absolute dollar figure attached to any
definition of rich of which I'm aware: check the dictionary. It is not
my job to redefine the word any more than it's my job to say that
"high" is over 43.9 feet. Nor have I proposed some kind of sudden,
either/or cutoff in taxation. I've merely proposed that it be
progressive. Nor am I aware of any reasonable criterion of fairness
that might undergird an entire tax system.
----------
If you can't define "Fair" then you can't define "Unfair."
If you can't define "Rich", you have no right taxing someone as rich.
-----------
>>> 6) I'd prefer a tax system that isn't so complex that it takes GE an
>>> army of accountants to produce a 24,000 page tax return.
>>
>> Sure. But good luck. And even if the tax system were vastly
>> simplified, GE would still produce a vast tax return, because it's a
>> vast company.
>
>Any sysytem that has the IRS tryng several times to rewrite the
>code to process it several times, over decades... and had them
>give up each time is a system that is out of control.
>
>Any tax system that can't be completely understood by the individual that
>has to pay those taxes is an abomination.
The government has a lousy record with large computer projects. And
there's no reason to think that an individual should understand our
entire tax code. We live in a complex, specialized society, and we
have specialized professionals -- accountants and economists -- to
deal with these issues.
------------
Bullshit. Every taxpayer should be able to fully understand exactly WHY
they owe the exact amount that they owe to the government.
Even accountants don't underrstand all of the tax code. There is no
justification for a system that complex.
-------------
Which isn't to say that I don't support tax simplification -- I do.
But there's a pig's chance in hell we'll get it, given that Congress,
corporations, and the public don't seem to want it. Everyone has his
finger in the pot.
-----
I think a lot of the public does want it.
----
>>> 7) I would prefer that the rich not pay significantly
>>> disproportionate taxes... because that encourages those that pay
>>> less to "load up" on new government spending because it seems
>>> relatively free to them.
>>
>> That last is most unfair, Carl. The poor and lower middle class groan
>> about the tax burden all the time, because they feel it in a way that
>> the rich do not.
>
>It's not unfair. How often do you hear a politician say "I want to
>increase
>taxes on everyone so that we can have a new program?" Doesn't happen much.
>The reason that politicians don't define what rich is is that it allows
>them to imply "No, it's not you we want to tax... we're only talking about
>taxing Bill Gates."
Well, yes. But that's precisely what they want, the Democrats anyway.
---
Yup, somewhat disengenuoous.
---
And there are numbers attached to their proposals.
----
Numbers to be paid by "someone else", so what do they care?
My original point holds.
----
Carl
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
* Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)
|