US politics circa 2011

Then lean in a little closer....could be you're just not paying attention...could be you're willfully refusing to see...

ANY method of funding a government is, by definition, a redistribution of wealth amongst the citizens subject to that government. Somebody is going to feel put upon. Somebody is going to think/feel/believe that they are not getting back their $1 worth of benefits & services for every $1 of funding they have to pony up. That's life. Originally Posted by Sisyphus

Funding a government is different than redistributing wealth. Would a tax system that took all of someone's income/wealth above some arbitrary point, and made negative tax payments to everyone below another point be Constitutional?

Context! Remember, when the Constitution was written, only men with property could vote or hold office. They had no idea suffrage rights would be extended to those who owned no property - those who do not have a vested interest in preserving wealth. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

hehe, Chloe Bancroft and /me are miles apart (physically and mentally) but given such a statement we'd feel quite close.

(side remark: the Tea Party demands "constitutional authority", only i'm very skeptical if this a good thing. )

The Founding Fathers extrapolated and plagiarized ideas from Locke, Rousseau, Smith, et al, and created both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Those ideas, some of which I listed above, state very clearly that the purpose of government is to preserve property rights and not to redistribute wealth. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It must be so! Hey, after all it was Adam Smith who wrote "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all." (An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations)

(side remark: Neither Rousseau nor Smith thought that such a government is good for human development. And Jefferson, Franklin et al really had very good reasons to favor happiness over property.)

ANY method of funding a government is, by definition, a redistribution of wealth amongst the citizens subject to that government. Originally Posted by Sisyphus

Word! The problem is just because it's like this doesn't mean it's also fair.

A company, a government or any other organisation has strong incentives to profit from any (re)distribution of wealth.

A company, a government or any other organisation has strong incentives to profit from any (re)distribution of wealth. Originally Posted by ..

Exactly. Rousseau, Locke, Adam Smith and the Founding Fathers all believed some liberties and property must be surrendered to government in order to secure the remaining liberties and property. For instance, all would have agreed that it was necessary to fund a standing army and navy in order to preserve and protect property and trade for all; after all, “a rising tide lifts all boats” (JFK, 1963).

(side remark: Neither Rousseau nor Smith thought that such a government is good for human development. And Jefferson, Franklin et al really had very good reasons to favor happiness over property.) Originally Posted by ..

“Drawing from Locke, men had usually spoken of ‘life, liberty and property.’ But Jefferson recognized the way property reduced the power of men who didn’t have it. If property was in fact power, couldn’t it threaten liberty? Jefferson offered as his third unalienable right a substitute that provided a rhetorical flourish. By endorsing the pursuit of happiness, he wasn’t lapsing into metaphysics or turning from political concerns to personal ones. His colleagues in the Congress would understand that Jefferson was speaking of the practice of happiness, not questing after it. He used the phrase in the way that men spoke of pursuing law or pursuing medicine. Twelve years earlier [1764], James Otis had argued in his Rights of the British Colonies that the duty of government was ‘to provide for the security, the quiet and happy enjoyment of life, liberty and property.’ At the time of the Stamp Act, New Yorkers had petitioned the king to protect the liberty that lay at the base of all their enjoyments. His subjects could be neither happy nor rich, they said, as long as there were restraints on their property. The patriots believed that men needn’t seek happiness. If their government stopped abusing them, they would practice it” (355, Patriots: The Men Who Started The American Revolution).

That's a quite bold claim. . . .And while the frequently says that nations are in economic competition and that nations have an interest in having a proper defence, I highly doubt he ever claimed "it was necessary to fund a standing army and navy in order to preserve and protect property and trade for all." Originally Posted by ..

Wealth of Nations—Book V; I. Of the Expences of the Sovereign or Commonwealth; PART I. Of the Expence of Defence; [page 1]:

THE FIRST duty of the sovereign, that of protecting the society from the from the violence and invasion of other independent societies, can be performed only by means of a military force. . . .

When a civilized nation depends for its defence upon a militia, it is at all times exposed to be conquered by any barbarous nation which happens to be in its neighbourhood. The frequent conquests of all the civilized countries in Asia by the Tartars, sufficiently demonstrates the natural superiority, which the militia of a barbarous, has over that of a civilized nation. A well-regulated standing army is superior to every militia. Such an army, as it can best be maintained by an opulent and civilized nation, so it can alone defend such a nation against the invasion of a poor and barbarous neighbour. It is only by means of a standing army, therefore, that the civilization of any country can be perpetuated, or even preserved for any considerable time.

As it is only by means of a well-regulated standing army that a civilized country can be defended; so it is only by means of it, that a barbarous country can be suddenly and tolerably civilized. A standing army establishes, with an irresistible force, the law of the sovereign through the remotest provinces of the empire, and maintains some degree of regular government in countries which could not otherwise admit of any. Whoever examines, with attention, the improvements which Peter the Great introduced into the Russian empire, will find that they almost all resolve themselves into the establishment of a well-regulated standing army. It is the instrument which executes and maintains all his other regulations. That degree of order and internal peace, which that empire has ever since enjoyed, is altogether owing to the influence of that army.

Jefferson was well known to be a rhetorical loser, hence claimed he "provided a rhetorical flourish" is freaky Originally Posted by ..

These are author A.J. Langguth’s words. My point in using Langguth’s words is to support my argument that the Founding Fathers conceived a government that was meant to safeguard property and to be reflectively ponderous and purposely slow to change. The government, as conceived by the Founding Fathers, was supposed to remain limited in scope and never serve as tool by which to redistribute wealth.

And quite tricky, esp. Adam Smith is an extremely misunderstood under- and over-interpreted character. Unlike the others he only observed what the saw empirically, and gave a great effort to generalize without making logical errors. He himself almost never gives a personal comment on what should be or not. He frequently however gives a "rational" comment on what should be or not in accordance with his observations.

Reading him is actually quite a burden. Quite often Adam Smith's texts are dull and boring but not incorrect. BUT one should really read him, because within his texts there are parts were he's deeply cynic about humanity, and "free" trade. He does not even claim that "free" trade exists or should exist -- he only states humanity is doomed to trade, since as long as there's a move there's a trade, hence some kind of market. Originally Posted by ..

You and I agree on this point. Smith argued against “mercantilism” and its underlying principle that trade was a “zero sum game.” He argued that government supported monopolies were too expensive to maintain and defend. His argument was that government should insure that all played on a level playing field and that no one gained an unfair advantage. (Hence, there is no true "Laissez-faire" market system - the government is always involved.) Competition in the market place will set the lowest price.

An unbiased observer looking at the healthcare system in the U.S. can see that Congress has created our current healthcare mess by supporting and giving preference to certain commercial enterprises while simultaneously obstructing others. U.S. pharmaceutical companies are protected—by Congress—against competition from less expensive foreign competitors. Similarly, insurance companies have been allowed—by Congress—to monopolize and dominate certain geographic regions of this country. Smith argued that this is not the role governments should play.

I imagine, Smith would also argue against government sponsored healthcare (a government monopoly) just as adamantly as he argued against the British government’s propping up the East India Company against foreign competition. He argued it was much too expensive to preferentially support one commercial activity in lieu of another. Our present healthcare system reflects the truth of this argument. Obamacare is the same horse with a different color of paint.

(France at that time was highly creative and implemented censorship with a unique strategy mixing intellectual property law with real property law.) Originally Posted by ..

LOL - “Highly creative” is an appropriate description of John Law’s “Mississippi Bubble” fiasco. Ultimately, Louis XVI and his wife were held accountable for France’s fiscal ingenuity.

Somebody ( .. ) edited his post and left me hanging. lol

The headlines today are of a gunman (perhaps 2) firing at a meeting that a congresswoman was having with her constituents. Lone disgruntled act or might it be a sign of things to come in an increasingly polarized political world?

Funding a government is different than redistributing wealth. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Unless it's going to be funded through external sources of income...read, through seizing some other country's money*...no, it's not. Some sources of revenue are progressive, others are regressive. About all you can hope for it it all comes out in the wash. That's rarely the case.

Would a tax system that took all of someone's income/wealth above some arbitrary point, and made negative tax payments to everyone below another point be Constitutional? Originally Posted by pjorourke

Dunno...but the second half of the scenario...aka, the Earned Income Credit....has been in place for quite a while now. I know of no court that has found it to be unconstitutional.

* Time will tell if defrauding some other country out of their money will work. Sorry, China, the check IS in the mail....honest!

The headlines today are of a gunman (perhaps 2) firing at a meeting that a congresswoman was having with her constituents. Lone disgruntled act or might it be a sign of things to come in an increasingly polarized political world? Originally Posted by discreetgent

Ugh...saw it. Nasty scene. A judge who was attending the meeting was shot as well, no?

Probably too early to speculate on the "motives" of the gunman but if politically motivated...it's a damn shame!

The headlines today are of a gunman (perhaps 2) firing at a meeting that a congresswoman was having with her constituents. Lone disgruntled act or might it be a sign of things to come in an increasingly polarized political world? Originally Posted by discreetgent

So Sarah Palin puts out a map with “Targets” and one of her targets, Congresswoman Gifford, gets shot in the head! There is a very long history of reactionary violence in this country and no politician should ever use military metaphors like Palin and others did. That is unless they don’t care about the potential consequences. Let us all pray for the full recovery of Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford, the others who were injured, and the families of those who were killed.

So Sarah Palin puts out a map with “Targets” and one of her targets, Congresswoman Gifford, gets shot in the head! There is a very long history of reactionary violence in this country and no politician should ever use military metaphors like Palin and others did. That is unless they don’t care about the potential consequences. Let us all pray for the full recovery of Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford, the others who were injured, and the families of those who were killed. Originally Posted by Browneagle

Not only did Sarah Palin's map include specific "Targets" (including Congresswoman Gifford's Congressional seat) but the illustration used by Palin specifically depicted the lawmakers as being in the crosshairs of a scoped gun! During the Fall of 2010 campaign season, Congresswoman Gifford responded to being on Palin's targeted list by
making the following comment, "when people do that, they've got to
realize there are consequences to that action."

The following quote came from another member of the Arizona Congressional delegation: "Anger and hate fuel reactions," said Democratic Rep. Raul Grijalva, whose Arizona district also includes parts of Tucson. He said he was not assessing blame, and Saturday's shootings might be the work of "a single nut." But he said the nation must assess the fallout of "an atmosphere where the political discourse
is about hate, anger and bitterness ."

Wow! An assassination attempt on a member of the U.S. Congress has the potential to dominate the news for quite a while! Most especially when the attempt was made against an individual targeted by a Presidential candidate. Hopefully, in the future Ms. Palin will strongly consider that there are potential consequences to her own actions. You would think a Presidential candidate would be intelligent enough to figure that out on her own.

Not only did Sarah Palin's map include specific "Targets" (including Congresswoman Gifford's Congressional seat) but the illustration used by Palin specifically depicted the lawmakers as being in the crosshairs of a scoped gun! Originally Posted by bigtex

To be fair this is an interpretation of a graphic factoid. The depiction is this:
http://twitpic.com/3o89l0

For a murder in such an urban environment and esp. from such a short distance, a simple gun is more than enough.

scopes make sense for a sniper who "operates" from a distance (and of course also with a weapon that unlike a gun provides guidance for the bullet), and has a line of sight without obstructions.

So Sarah Palin puts out a map with “Targets” and one of her targets, Congresswoman Gifford, gets shot in the head! Originally Posted by Browneagle

Arizona is quite complex. And what is also a fact is that the Arizona Tea Party is even more extreme and weired than Sarah Palin. Rethoric is one thing (e.g. calling Gaby Gifford an "opponent" that needs to be "eliminated" was often expressed as demand from the Arizona Tea Party).

BUT if you know Arizona (or better some locals there), the Arizona Tea Party inofficially operates almost like a mafia. Gifford was even before she was shot, "squeezed" and "initimtated", but not just her also quite a few normal, common-sense republicans and quite many libertarians are constantly harrassed by Arizona Tea Party fanatics.

That politics in Arizona can soon lead to some physical dispute is not new, but this extreme organized ultra-right-wing slant is quite new and indeed worrisome.

quite a few normal, common-sense republicans and quite many libertarians are constantly harrassed by Arizona Tea Party fanatics. Originally Posted by ..

Let me begin by stating that I consider this incident in Arizona a tragedy, and I in no manner condone this type of behavior.

Yet, as innocuous as this might seem, this statement, which I quoted above, is an example of inflammatory rhetoric. I hear this type of rhetoric all of the time, and I find it irritating. To claim that one group is “normal,” you have, by inference, called the other group “abnormal.” To suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is “abnormal” is to suggest, by extension, that that person needs psychiatric treatment or incarceration; that is condescending and disrespectful. It should not be surprising then, that those who are marginalized as “abnormal” respond with equally negative and vitriolic rhetoric.

BTW, I believe government has to be managed like a sailing vessel tacking into the wind. To move forward, such a vessel must follow a bearing to either the left or right of its intended destination for a certain distance, and then change its sails and tack in the opposite direction for the same distance. Presently, I feel the U.S. government has tacked too far to the left (port); therefore, it must soon start tacking to the right (starboard) to avoid wrecking on the rocks of Socialism.

So Sarah Palin puts out a map with “Targets” and one of her targets, Congresswoman Gifford, gets shot in the head! There is a very long history of reactionary violence in this country and no politician should ever use military metaphors like Palin and others did. That is unless they don’t care about the potential consequences. Let us all pray for the full recovery of Congresswoman Gabrielle Gifford, the others who were injured, and the families of those who were killed. Originally Posted by Browneagle

So Browneagle, if this guy is found to be a left wing nut case, I assume you will be back here apologizing to Mrs. Palin.

BTW, for what its worth, Rep. Giffords did vote against Pelosi for Minority Leader. Not saying Nancy had anything to do with this....