Rich Germans demand higher taxes
1Z
Germany could raise 100bn euros with the wealth tax, say the
petitioners
A group of rich Germans has launched a petition calling for the
government to make wealthy people pay higher taxes.
The group say they have more money than they need, and the extra
revenue could fund economic and social programmes to aid Germany's
economic recovery.
Germany could raise 100bn euros (�45bn) if the richest people paid a
5% wealth tax for two years, they say.
Fred Weiss
> Germany could raise 100bn euros (�45bn) if the richest people paid a
> 5% wealth tax for two years, they say.
Izzy, you really need to try and understand some economics (as
apparently do these self-appointed spokesmen for "rich people"). A
mere transfer of wealth adds *nothing* to an economy. It's simply
moving it from one pocket to another.
Apart from the profound immorality of such looting, this particular
transfer will clearly do far more damage than good.
What a weak economy needs is *capital investment* and specifically
investment in what people actually want - not what a bunch of gov't
bureaucrats think they should want (let alone just pouring it into the
welfare sewer).
Unless these rich people are keeping this money "under their
mattresses", they are investing it. It's in banks or bonds or stocks
or real estate where it is working for the economy. If they are
spending it on pleasure, than it is directly flowing into the economy,
just as much as if it were spent for welfare (but without the gov't
middleman).
You ever heard the expression "limousine liberal"? Warren Buffett and
George Soros are good examples. There has never been a shortage of
rich people eager to assuage their guilt by supporting left wing
causes.
Fred Weiss
1Z
> On Oct 23, 8:27 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Germany could raise 100bn euros (�45bn) if the richest people paid a
> > 5% wealth tax for two years, they say.
>
> What a weak economy needs is *capital investment*
So let it be invested.
> You ever heard the expression "limousine liberal"? Warren Buffett and
> George Soros are good examples. There has never been a shortage of
> rich people eager to assuage their guilt by supporting left wing
> causes.
Yeah. Or they are richer than you because
they understand how things
work better than you.
Potroast
> On Oct 23, 8:27 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Germany could raise 100bn euros (�45bn) if the richest people paid a
> > 5% wealth tax for two years, they say.
>
> Izzy, you really need to try and understand some economics (as
> apparently do these self-appointed spokesmen for "rich people"). A
> mere transfer of wealth adds *nothing* to an economy. It's simply
> moving it from one pocket to another.
You analogy isn't completely true. There certainly is more to it.
If you have children you INVEST in your children. You send them to
schools, you take care of their heath. Wealth is typically created by
you taking care of your children..(although not usually for your
benefit... it benefits your children). Having said that, if you spoil
your children and they don't later work... there can also be financial
incentive to become freeloaders and not produce anything.
Jim Klein
> > What a weak economy needs is *capital investment*
>
> So let it be invested.
What part didn't you get of the sentence he wrote...
"Unless these rich people are keeping this money 'under their
mattresses', they are investing it."
What, did that fly right by you? If it's kept
in a bank or a brokerage account or life
insurance, or wherethehellever, it IS being
invested.
You're not saying, "So invest it," even though you
wrote those words. You're saying, "Let someone
else control the investment."
I say, "Invest yours however the hell you want. Just
show me the same courtesy."
jk
1Z
> "Unless these rich people are keeping this money 'under their
> mattresses', they are investing it."
Or spending it.
> You're not saying, "So invest it," even though you
> wrote those words. You're saying, "Let someone
> else control the investment."
More to the point, they are saying it.
Fred Weiss
> On Oct 23, 9:27�am, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 23, 8:27 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Germany could raise 100bn euros (�45bn) if the richest people paid a
> > > 5% wealth tax for two years, they say.
>
> > Izzy, you really need to try and understand some economics (as
> > apparently do these self-appointed spokesmen for "rich people"). A
> > mere transfer of wealth adds *nothing* to an economy. It's simply
> > moving it from one pocket to another.
>
> You analogy isn't completely true. There certainly is more to it.
Yes, there is...which I mentioned.
It's better that the rich keep their wealth because they are far more
inclined (since they have a large excess) to invest it in productive
(wealth producing activities). They've got their children's educations
covered, so that's a non-issue.
By its very nature and the whole point of the ridiculous "soak-the-
rich" schemes is that the "poor" will spend anything they get
immediately. Which will supposedly bolster the economy. Yes, it
does...for the week or day or hour they have it and then have spent
it.
Then what?
In fact one encouraging statistic is that average people have
increased their *savings* and have been reducing debt. This and this
alone is what will provide the foundation for a regenerated economy.
The gov't squandering our money and increasing the *national* debt
certainly doesn't help, except at best in the very, very short range
and I doubt even that.
Fred Weiss
1Z
> By its very nature and the whole point of the ridiculous "soak-the-
> rich" schemes is that the "poor" will spend anything they get
> immediately. Which will supposedly bolster the economy. Yes, it
> does...for the week or day or hour they have it and then have spent
> it.
>
> Then what?
Then the businesses they have spent it with
will benefit. Another argument, BTW, is that
the poor are more likely to spend their money withn their
own economy than the rich, sicne they cannot afford
imported luxury goods.
Potroast
> It's better that the rich keep their wealth because they are far more
> inclined (since they have a large excess) to invest it in productive
> (wealth producing activities).
I generally agree actually. There is a reason why the rich are rich.
They tend to be better at things.
Where my interest lays is in any exceptions and how those exceptions
are funded. I also don't like inherited wealth because then you get
back into the business of rebuilding kingdoms where people didn't earn
their wealth.
> They've got their children's educations
> covered, so that's a non-issue.
>
> By its very nature and the whole point of the ridiculous "soak-the-
> rich" schemes is that the "poor" will spend anything they get
> immediately. Which will supposedly bolster the economy. Yes, it
> does...for the week or day or hour they have it and then have spent
> it.
>
> Then what?
>
> In fact one encouraging statistic is that average people have
> increased their *savings* and have been reducing debt. This and this
> alone is what will provide the foundation for a regenerated economy.
>
> The gov't squandering our money and increasing the *national* debt
> certainly doesn't help, except at best in the very, very short range
> and I doubt even that.
I agree money can be squandered by governments. So can private
industry of course but the difference is when private industry does
it... usually the damage is limited to the business itself (and it
doesn't go on for too long because it usually ends up with them out
of business) There is the exception of monopolies and price fixing
though. I don't support that sort of thing because it seems to stifle
innovation (or at least it seems that way to me)
Matt Barrow
"Fred Weiss" <fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message ...
>
>
> You ever heard the expression "limousine liberal"? Warren Buffett and
> George Soros are good examples. There has never been a shortage of
> rich people eager to assuage their guilt by supporting left wing
> causes.
Not to mention the fact that Buffett and Soros both enjoyed capital gains as
their overwhelming source of income and both are silent on raising the Cap
Gains Tax.
IOW, they are hypocrites of the worst source.
Matt Barrow (who also makes his living on capital gains).
Piet de Arcilla
In the U.S., you can pay as much extra on your tax return as you like,
and it will go towards the national debt. Surely you can do that in
Germany too?
Tomm Carr
> On Oct 23, 12:54 pm, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>> It's better that the rich keep their wealth because they are far more
>> inclined (since they have a large excess) to invest it in productive
>> (wealth producing activities).
>
> I generally agree actually. There is a reason why the rich are rich.
> They tend to be better at things.
>
> Where my interest lays is in any exceptions and how those exceptions
> are funded. I also don't like inherited wealth because then you get
> back into the business of rebuilding kingdoms where people didn't earn
> their wealth.
Such as...? Who are currently rebuilding kingdoms with unearned,
inherited wealth? Give us a name.
Whether a person has wealth because he earned it or it was given to him
by a rich parent, uncle, or complete stranger who liked the way he
looked, it is still not your money. Either way, you don't get to say how
it is used.
*Any* reason you may come up with to take away any part of it is a
rationalization of theft.
> I agree money can be squandered by governments. So can private
> industry of course but the difference is when private industry does
> it... usually the damage is limited to the business itself (and it
> doesn't go on for too long because it usually ends up with them out
> of business) There is the exception of monopolies and price fixing
> though. I don't support that sort of thing because it seems to stifle
> innovation (or at least it seems that way to me)
You would appear to be speaking of experience, so you should be able to
point out instances where that has happened. Perhaps you could share
some of those examples.
I minored in Econ 'way back when. In one class, we were learning of the
undesirable characteristics of a monopoly. I asked a simple question.
"Other than government-mandated monopolies like AT&T, the railroads and
most utilities, what companies have managed to obtain and hold a
monopolistic position?" He couldn't think of any "at the moment." He
promised to get back to me. After a few weeks, I raised the question
again. He admitted he had not managed to find one. I asked the question
of several Econ profs--to no avail.
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is simple: find a single
company that, without the mandate of law:
1) established a monopoly position in its industry,
2) displayed any of the characteristics of a monopoly (raised prices at
will, failed to innovate, reduced the quality of its product, etc.).
3) and remained in its monopoly position for any significant length of
time (say, a year or more) after exhibiting said behavior.
Good luck in finding one that just meets the first qualification. It
turns out that free-market monopolies are like 100-MPG carburetors. We
keep hearing about them and much has been written about them but no one
seems to be able to find one.
The closest I can come to it is Microsoft. If you consider only the
small (desktop and laptop) computer market, they did at one time reach
about a 92% or so penetration. Close enough...let's say they became a
monopoly.
Have they been able to raise their prices to a great extent? While some
people have complained about the price of Windows, it has not been
significantly raised more than can be accounted for by inflation. In
fact, I just today passed a display of Windows 7 in a store. I noted
that the Ultimate upgrade was just a bit over $200 -- a good $50 less
than Vista Ultimate. And this is on day 2 of its release. We all know it
will be a lot cheaper a year from now.
Have they stopped innovating? While a lot of people dearly *love*
complaining about Microsoft (I've done it a time or two myself), they
certainly haven't stopped coming out with new products and improvements
on old ones. A very good reason for this is that Microsoft has one
extremely powerful competitor: Microsoft. Windows Vista failed utterly
to make a significant dent in the market share of Windows XP and NT. The
newly released Windows 7 has an uphill battle to win over the current
customers of XP, NT *and* Vista. Industry followers still can't say
definitively one way or the other if it will be a success.
And, of course, there is always MacOS, Linux and OpenSolaris just
waiting for Microsoft to relax and start coasting.
The point of all this is to assure you that, in a free market, a
monopoly, should it even be possible at all, cannot afford to exhibit
any of detrimental characteristics of a monopoly. Monopolies are to
Economics what the frictionless surface is to Engineering. A useful
concept, but not one we expect to see in the real world.
--
Tomm Catt
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice, there is.
1Z
> I minored in Econ 'way back when. In one class, we were learning of the
> undesirable characteristics of a monopoly. I asked a simple question.
> "Other than government-mandated monopolies like AT&T, the railroads and
> most utilities, what companies have managed to obtain and hold a
> monopolistic position?" He couldn't think of any "at the moment." He
> promised to get back to me. After a few weeks, I raised the question
> again. He admitted he had not managed to find one. I asked the question
> of several Econ profs--to no avail.
>
# Standard Oil; broken up in 1911, two of its surviving "baby
companies" are ExxonMobil and the Chevron Corporation.
# Major League Baseball; survived U.S. anti-trust litigation in 1922,
though its special status is still in dispute as of 2009.
# Microsoft; settled anti-trust litigation in the U.S. in 2001; fined
by the European Commission in 2004 for 497 million Eur
Fred Weiss
> Whether a person has wealth because he earned it or it was given to him
> by a rich parent, uncle, or complete stranger who liked the way he
> looked, it is still not your money. Either way, you don't get to say how
> it is used.
>
> *Any* reason you may come up with to take away any part of it is a
> rationalization of theft.
Exactly.
There may be some confusion on this point if someone is under the
misconception that there is only a fixed amount of wealth and
therefore if someone (undeservedly?) inherits some that they are
"taking it" somehow from someone else who would have "deserved" it
more.
Inherited wealth is taken from nobody - and assuming it is spent and/
or invested it just goes right back into the economy where it can
benefit all of us, directly or indirectly.
As for the morality, it is really very simple. He who did earn it is
entitled to decide how it is disposed of. That's his right and, as
Tomm says, certainly not yours.
Fred Weiss
Potroast
> > On Oct 23, 12:54 pm, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
> >> It's better that the rich keep their wealth because they are far more
> >> inclined (since they have a large excess) to invest it in productive
> >> (wealth producing activities).
>
> > I generally agree actually. There is a reason why the rich are rich.
> > They tend to be better at things.
>
> > Where my interest lays is in any exceptions and how those exceptions
> > are funded. I also don't like inherited wealth because then you get
> > back into the business of rebuilding kingdoms where people didn't earn
> > their wealth.
>
> Such as...? Who are currently rebuilding kingdoms with unearned,
> inherited wealth? Give us a name.
That's just it . I'm suggesting that's NOT the case now but most
western countries have been living in a mixed economies for a couple
of hundred years now haven't they? You seem to be the one that wants
to change things here.
> Whether a person has wealth because he earned it or it was given to him
> by a rich parent, uncle, or complete stranger who liked the way he
> looked, it is still not your money. Either way, you don't get to say how
> it is used.
Since nearly the dawn of civilization there have been taxes and laws
that govern men. Even today we still live in a world of moderate
taxation. (as opposed to say communism) While I generally agree with
your statement, you speak in utopian theories whereas the observable
reality is different. I do indeed speak about what will happen to
"your" money....as do you "mine"... each time we elect someone. If you
don't like elections (something Jim seems adverse too)... get to work
creating a military dictatorship to force us all to do your bidding.
> *Any* reason you may come up with to take away any part of it is a
> rationalization of theft.
Biblical rubbish. It's just an analogy your brain has chosen to accept
carte blanche (and your political outlook hinges on its acceptance).
However, one can also utter "taxation is murder" too... or "taxation
is freedom from the evil corporations"... or "taxation is" <any
analogy that pleases someone>.
Taxation is NOT theft. Theft is theft. Taxation is taxation. They are
two noticeably different concepts.-exactly why we have two different
words to describe them. The real question is how much taxation is
necessary (and towards what purpose). For me, I consider economic
output high on the list.. thus I agree too much taxation appears
inefficient to an economy. On the other hard... no taxation whatsoever
might be less economically efficient as well.
You answered your own question. AT&T. When its monopoly in the US
was broken up by the government in the 80s there was an explosion of
telecommunications products soon after. That "government mandated"
monopoly came about specifically due to AT&T management using its
enormous influence to avoid the anti-trust laws you decry (which is
something that can be repeated if US anti-trust laws are ever ignored
again) Nearly a hundred years ago AT&T execs were arguing against anti-
trust laws in the name of "free enterprise".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Telephone_%26_Telegraph#A_national_monopoly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment
> The closest I can come to it is Microsoft. If you consider only the
> small (desktop and laptop) computer market, they did at one time reach
> about a 92% or so penetration. Close enough...let's say they became a
> monopoly.
While it came close at no point was Microsoft a monopoly. Usage of MS
OS was a matter of users being comfortable with the OS... not because
they had no other choices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_operating_systems
I applaud both Apple and Microsoft for competing with each others
products the whole way through (as opposed to colluding with each
other something energy and cable companies seem to do).
> Have they been able to raise their prices to a great extent? While some
> people have complained about the price of Windows, it has not been
> significantly raised more than can be accounted for by inflation. In
> fact, I just today passed a display of Windows 7 in a store. I noted
> that the Ultimate upgrade was just a bit over $200 -- a good $50 less
> than Vista Ultimate. And this is on day 2 of its release. We all know it
> will be a lot cheaper a year from now.
>
> Have they stopped innovating? While a lot of people dearly *love*
> complaining about Microsoft (I've done it a time or two myself), they
> certainly haven't stopped coming out with new products and improvements
> on old ones. A very good reason for this is that Microsoft has one
> extremely powerful competitor: Microsoft. Windows Vista failed utterly
> to make a significant dent in the market share of Windows XP and NT. The
> newly released Windows 7 has an uphill battle to win over the current
> customers of XP, NT *and* Vista. Industry followers still can't say
> definitively one way or the other if it will be a success.
> And, of course, there is always MacOS, Linux and OpenSolaris just
> waiting for Microsoft to relax and start coasting.
At no point has MS had a monopoly. I am a professional programmer that
has been using Microsoft products since Dos.I have no problem with
Microsoft dominance as long as it continues to produce good products.
However, I would have a problem with any company that relied on
government enforced copyright monopolies to put R&D and better
products on cruise control.
> The point o>f all this is to assure you that, in a free market, a
> monopoly, should it even be possible at all, cannot afford to exhibit
> any of detrimental characteristics of a monopoly. Monopolies are to
> Economics what the frictionless surface is to Engineering. A useful
> concept, but not one we expect to see in the real world.
We don't see as much price fixing because we grew up in an era of
antitrust laws. Before the 20th century it was more common.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Commerce_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Trade_Commission_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celler-Kefauver_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#History_of_anti-trust
As for the "free market". ...
You are mixing up subjects Tomm. What you fail to grasp is you are not
arguing for the status quo and proven... you are arguing on behalf of
the unproven. (but pawning off a proven system's successes as that of
the proposed system) For a market to be "free" still requires a
government to describe a set of principles that decides what is
allowable and what isn't. (else don't complain if someone takes your
things or doesn't fulfill a contract)
Being an absolutist against taxation is not the same thing as being a
defender of 20th century capitalism. If one defines the 20th century
American system as "capitalism" and one is an Oist (I don't know if
you are) then you are effectively arguing AGAINST 20th century
capitalism in favour of essentially a radically new system.
Oism is certainly related but its still a substantially different
system to the economics of 20th century America (which included
regulations, taxation, and all sorts of anti-trust laws to encourage
competition... all of which you seem to stand against)
Fred Weiss
Don't be dizzy, Izzy.
None of these companies were monopolies, nor are they now.
So, how does it respond to his point?
(The anti-trust laws are an immoral outrage. But that's another
subject.)
Fred Weiss
Potroast
> On Oct 24, 6:07�am, Tomm Carr <TommC...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Whether a person has wealth because he earned it or it was given to him
> > by a rich parent, uncle, or complete stranger who liked the way he
> > looked, it is still not your money. Either way, you don't get to say how
> > it is used.
>
> > *Any* reason you may come up with to take away any part of it is a
> > rationalization of theft.
>
> Exactly.
>
> There may be some confusion on this point if someone is under the
> misconception that there is only a fixed amount of wealth and
> therefore if someone (undeservedly?) inherits some that they are
> "taking it" somehow from someone else who would have "deserved" it
> more.
On the one side you argue against altruism, and for individualism and
personal responsibility. On the other you argue on behalf of
incompetent freeloading children that didn't earth vast amounts of
wealth? (relatively speaking to their parents).
My position has little to do with fairness. I believe (perhaps
mistakenly because its difficult to prove with a formal test) ... that
it is less efficiency for an economy. The parent earned their wealth
through their efforts and talent. On the other hand, while we
certainly still do things this way.... does it really make economic
sense to hand over large parts of one's economy to clueless children?
Who is more qualified to handle that wealth? The incompetent? Or the
talented? Let me quote you for an answer".
"It's better that the rich keep their wealth because they are far
more inclined"
If they are truly talented the children of the wealthy could earn it
back, (e.g. consider sports stars like Barry Bonds). They'd even
respect themselves more for having done so. (since only a small
minority of people truly respect a person that hasn't earned their
wealth through their own efforts).
> Inherited wealth is taken from nobody -
Some types of wealth are created (e.g. technology oriented) but even
that requires government involvement enforce property rights (e.g.
intellectual property rights).
Other types of wealth are indeed taken from someone (e.g. property,
natural resources... which are finite on the planet earth). There was
no one to buy property and resources from in the beginning. No one
owned it or earned it in the beginning. It was taken by force (or by
just declaring as one's own).
Take America for a more recent example. Someone was in America prior
to the arrival of Europeans. Native Indians certainly didn't wish to
give away two continents. It was largely taken from them by force via
a string of broken treaties and wars. Then there is the issue of
slaves who were not in a position to own the property they worked for
(given they were property themselves). If you support eternal property
rights... then shouldn't you return the property stolen from these
people?
http://nativeamericanfirstnationshistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/long_chain_of_abuses
(and I'm not picking on America here. The same is true of every nation
at some point)
Potroast
Correction.
"because its difficult to prove with a formal test"
should read.
"because its difficult to prove WITHOUT a formal test"
Arnold Broese
news:287b6995-180f-4821...@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> My position has little to do with fairness. I believe (perhaps
> mistakenly because its difficult to prove with a formal test) ... that
> it is less efficiency for an economy.
This is a terrible thing to say. These words could have been spoken by the
worst of tyrants. This is what happens when principles take a back seat.
.
--
Arnold
Potroast
wrote:
> "Potroast" <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
By fairness I mean to say my motivation isn't "equality" ... not that
I'm trying to consciously be a "tyrant". (besides you are the guy that
would declare a fatwa on those that disagreed with your principles
right? I can throw around the word tyrant too no? :)
It seems more economically efficient to me to have individuals with
actual talent and work ethic manage the bulk of society's wealth. Not
in the communist sense of dictators (or even elected leaders whom I
see more as a counterbalance towards useless aristocracies from
forming). In the sense that those that produce wealth via their own
ingenuity via trade (capitalism is a close word but not in the 20th
century sense)
Perhaps others feel incompetent freeloading children should control
the lives of tens of thousands of people and manage billions of
dollars of assets. But does someone like Paris Hilton really have a
clue as to how to run corporate operations? Many of those of the born
rich kids would have therapists up the ying-yang and would have a hard
time keeping a job at McDonalds much less run a multinational. That
incompetence is probably one reason why some previously healthy
companies die a slow death after originally rocketing upwards
(although the kids can stave it off for generations if they hire good
managers and don't interfere with operations themselves)
Talented individuals are more effective at managing that wealth over
family inherited aristocracies (ala old school royalty... which we got
rid of because it was so lame).
I am not a fringe voice here. Both Buffet and Gates seem to feel
similar about inheritance (why they are giving their wealth away
rather than leave it all to their children) I think its fair to
suggest they know far more about creating wealth and practical
capitalism than anyone on this forum.
"I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they
could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing
nothing" Warren Buffet
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1170874.stm
(not to mention... in practice in the real world... you pay more taxes
so they have lower inheritance taxes)
Potroast
either by increasing taxes for those less able to pay or by cutting
programes such as social security or environmental protection, it
says." (record US deficit this year)
"Mr Buffett, who himself did not sign the petition because he thought
it did not go far enough, said that repealing the estate tax would be
a "terrible mistake". It was like "choosing the 2020 Olympic team by
picking the eldest sons of the gold-medal winners in the 2000
Olympics".
"Removing the tax would lead to the creation of an "aristocracy of
wealth" instead of a meritocracy, he added"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1170874.stm (Buffet)
.....................
(Bill) GATES: Well, actually there was. I was on an elevator in an
office building in Seattle and I had a friend who was...I was not
aware of, but a friend who had been working on this for some years in
the Congress who made the statement to me, he said, Bill, I'm about to
bring to fruit of many years of effort. I think the Congress is about
to repeal the Federal estate tax.
And I felt as if I had been hit in the chest with a baseball bat. I
just thought, oh, no! That is just ridiculous. So...
MOYERS: Why did you think it was ridiculous?
GATES: It's just such a fair tax. I mean, it's just such an opportune,
appropriate time to have repaid from the people who have benefitted
more than anyone else from the circumstances that this country makes
available, from the conditions that make it possible to become....
There's nowhere else in the world, nowhere else in the world, that
people can accrue the kind of fortunes that happen here. And that's
because of the kind of country we have.
And the kind of country we have is a function of the taxes that we pay
to provide security, we have a stable market, you can predict next
week will be pretty much like the week before.
We have the most immense investment being made by our government in
advancing businesses by supporting the enormous research industry
that's going on in this country. And it's that piece of government
expenditure that which has everything to do with the health and
robustness of our economy.
COLLINS: We believe that people who accumulate great wealth also have
been lucky, have had the benefit of growing up and living in the
United States, and have benefitted from this enormous public
investment.
One of our leaders in Responsible Wealth was standing next to
President Clinton when he vetoed the repeal of the estate tax and he
said, look, I grew up in New York City, I went to public schools and
public libraries and museums. Someone else paid for those.
I went to a college; someone else paid for that. I went into the
technology field, a whole infrastructure that had been built with
public investment that someone else had paid for. I started a company
and I hired professional people who had been trained through a
subsidized education system. And I made $40 million. And you're
telling me society doesn't have a claim on my wealth? You know...
MOYERS: You gave away much of your fortune, didn't you, when you were
a young man?
COLLINS: I did when I was 26, and I...it partly was just out of this
sense that I needed to make my own way, and that too much inherited
wealth was actually maybe an impediment to my own...making my own way
in life.
And I think we're a country that's better off when there's less great
concentrations of inherited wealth and more real equality of
opportunity where everybody can have a shot at the starting gate of
life to make a difference.
MOYERS: Why shouldn't you be able to direct your money to where you
want it to go in your will or however you want to do it? I mean, you
earned it.
GATES: "You earned it" is really a matter of "you earned it with the
indispensable help of your government." You earned it in this
wonderful place. If you'd been born in West Africa, you would not have
earned it. It would not have occurred. Your wealth is a function of
being an American.
GATES: The huge disparity in wealth that's happening, is something
that is, I think, really dangerous.
MOYERS: Why?
GATES: Wealth is power, Bill. And it just is not a good situation. And
the examples of the aristocracies of Europe are so clear. We don't
want to have a country like that. Who was it that said, it was Louis
Brandeis who said...
MOYERS: Justice of the Supreme Court...
GATES: Yes, indeed. And he said, you know, we can either have a
situation where we have a small number of people with a huge amount of
wealth or we can have a democracy. But we can't have both. That's
clear wisdom.
MOYERS: Are we living in a new gilded age...do you fear that we're
living in that kind of time again?
GATES: I do. I do. You know, the data is very clear. We have this
enormous accretion of wealth in the top levels, and it's hugely out of
balance. The disparity is very disturbing.
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_inheritance.html (Gates)
David Friedman
<80233982-477c-4462...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Potroast <ilo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> (besides you are the guy that
> would declare a fatwa on those that disagreed with your principles
> right?
At a tangent ... .
What do you think a "fatwa" is?
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
David Friedman
<80233982-477c-4462...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Potroast <ilo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I am not a fringe voice here. Both Buffet and Gates seem to feel
> similar about inheritance (why they are giving their wealth away
> rather than leave it all to their children) I think its fair to
> suggest they know far more about creating wealth and practical
> capitalism than anyone on this forum.
That was Carnegie's view as well.
But if people who make lots of money can be trusted to make good
decisions about what to do with it, you don't need inheritance taxes to
get what you want--just testimentary freedom. As the cases you cite
suggest.
Arnold Broese
>>
> It seems more economically efficient to me to have individuals with
> actual talent and work ethic manage the bulk of society's wealth. Not
> in the communist sense of dictators (or even elected leaders whom I
> see more as a counterbalance towards useless aristocracies from
> forming). In the sense that those that produce wealth via their own
> ingenuity via trade (capitalism is a close word but not in the 20th
> century sense)
In a Capitalist system wealth is managed perfectly fairly. Each gets what he
earns and deserves. If not, sue for fraud.
> Perhaps others feel incompetent freeloading children should control
> the lives of tens of thousands of people and manage billions of
> dollars of assets. But does someone like Paris Hilton really have a
> clue as to how to run corporate operations?
That's where you have it wrong, it doesn't matter. They contol THEIR
property, and not the lives of others - as long as others have a choice not
to be involved.
Many of those of the born
> rich kids would have therapists up the ying-yang and would have a hard
> time keeping a job at McDonalds much less run a multinational. That
> incompetence is probably one reason why some previously healthy
> companies die a slow death after originally rocketing upwards
> (although the kids can stave it off for generations if they hire good
> managers and don't interfere with operations themselves)
Freedom includes the right to destroy all one's values. You cannot claim
ownership over anothers property.
> Talented individuals are more effective at managing that wealth over
> family inherited aristocracies (ala old school royalty... which we got
> rid of because it was so lame).
It's not your property or concern.
> I am not a fringe voice here. Both Buffet and Gates seem to feel
> similar about inheritance (why they are giving their wealth away
> rather than leave it all to their children) I think its fair to
> suggest they know far more about creating wealth and practical
> capitalism than anyone on this forum.
What they do with their wealth is their concern. They should shut up about
what others own.
> "I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they
> could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing
> nothing" Warren Buffet
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1170874.stm
>
> (not to mention... in practice in the real world... you pay more taxes
> so they have lower inheritance taxes)
How about lower taxes regardless.
--
Arnold
Arnold Broese
>
> By fairness I mean to say my motivation isn't "equality" ... not that
> I'm trying to consciously be a "tyrant". (besides you are the guy that
> would declare a fatwa on those that disagreed with your principles
> right? I can throw around the word tyrant too no? :)
All I ask, is for a system that respects an individual's right to live his
life free from others imposing their will on him. If you regard opposing a
tyrant as being tyrannical, you simply don't grasp the principle involved.
Either you take the moral position that some have a right to impose their
will on others, or you don't. Which moral principle do you abide by? Oh, I
forgot....... principles are too inflexible
--
Arnold
Potroast
wrote:
> In article
> <80233982-477c-4462-bac0-7e2382c10...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>
> �Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > �(besides you are the guy that
> > would declare a fatwa on those that disagreed with your principles
> > right?
>
> At a tangent ... �.
>
> What do you think a "fatwa" is?
>
Religious edict. Just playing a little with analogies (since I know
Oist's hate Islamists :)
Potroast
> > I am not a fringe voice here. Both Buffet and Gates seem to feel
> > similar about inheritance (why they are giving their wealth away
> > rather than leave it all to their children) I think its fair to
> > suggest they know far more about creating wealth and practical
> > capitalism than anyone on this forum.
>
> That was Carnegie's view as well.
An estate tax was created after
> But if people who make lots of money can be trusted to make good
> decisions about what to do with it, you don't need inheritance taxes to
> get what you want--just testamentary freedom. As the cases you cite
> suggest.
You call if "freedom". Someone born to such a situation (through no
fault of their own) might call vast wealth accrued over generations of
inherited wealth "tyranny". The aristocracy in Europe would have
been better off with their money in the hands of the competent.
I really don't care the narrative. What matters more is both people
are wealthier for it.
Potroast
wrote:
> "Potroast" <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:80233982-477c-4462...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > It seems more economically efficient to me to have individuals with
> > actual talent and work ethic manage the bulk of society's wealth. Not
> > in the communist sense of dictators (or even elected leaders whom I
> > see more as a counterbalance towards useless aristocracies from
> > forming). In the sense that those that produce wealth via their own
> > ingenuity via trade (capitalism is a close word but not in the 20th
> > century sense)
>
> In a Capitalist system wealth is managed perfectly fairly. Each gets what he
> earns and �deserves. If not, sue for fraud.
Again capitalism in it's present form is not Oism. 20th century
captalism included regulations and all sorts of taxes (including
moderate estate taxes). Oism describes a related but significantly
different system.
> > Perhaps others feel incompetent freeloading children should control
> > the lives of tens of thousands of people and manage billions of
> > dollars of assets. But does someone like Paris Hilton really have a
> > clue as to how to run corporate operations?
>
> That's where you have it wrong, it doesn't matter. They contol THEIR
> property, and not the lives of others - as long as others have a choice not
> to be involved.
When someone owns billions.... they typically control the lives of
many people. (i.e. few keep all their wealth in bullion. They run
enterprises that employee all sorts of people)
> Many of those of the born
>
> > rich kids would have therapists up the ying-yang and would have a hard
> > time keeping a job at McDonalds much less run a multinational. That
> > incompetence is probably one reason why some previously healthy
> > companies die a slow death after originally rocketing upwards
> > (although the kids can stave it off for generations if they hire good
> > managers and don't interfere with operations themselves)
>
> Freedom includes the right to destroy all one's values. You cannot claim
> ownership over anothers property.
Its not me that does it. The government does it....and has been doing
it as long as you've been alive.
> > Talented individuals are more effective at managing that wealth over
> > family inherited aristocracies (ala old school royalty... which we got
> > rid of because it was so lame).
>
> It's not your property or concern.
>
> > I am not a fringe voice here. Both Buffet and Gates seem to feel
> > similar about inheritance (why they are giving their wealth away
> > rather than leave it all to their children) I think its fair to
> > suggest they know far more about creating wealth and practical
> > capitalism than anyone on this forum.
>
> What they do with their wealth is their concern. They should shut up about
> what others own.
>
> > "I want to give my kids just enough so that they would feel that they
> > could do anything, but not so much that they would feel like doing
> > nothing" Warren Buffet
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1170874.stm
>
> > (not to mention... in practice in the real world... you pay more taxes
> > so they have lower inheritance taxes)
>
> How about lower taxes regardless.
Even in a lower scenario someone is still paying taxes. It is unlikely
we are ever going to see a world without taxes. We do live in a world
of choices though. We can chose between paying higher taxes or someone
with more far more money paying.
David Friedman
<21162474-0c07-4add...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Potroast <ilo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 25, 10:17�pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> wrote:
> > In article
> > <80233982-477c-4462-bac0-7e2382c10...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > �Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I am not a fringe voice here. Both Buffet and Gates seem to feel
> > > similar about inheritance (why they are giving their wealth away
> > > rather than leave it all to their children) I think its fair to
> > > suggest they know far more about creating wealth and practical
> > > capitalism than anyone on this forum.
> >
> > That was Carnegie's view as well.
>
> An estate tax was created after
What does that have to do with Carnegie's view that one ought to give
most of one's wealth away rather than leaving it to one's children?
> > But if people who make lots of money can be trusted to make good
> > decisions about what to do with it, you don't need inheritance taxes to
> > get what you want--just testamentary freedom. As the cases you cite
> > suggest.
>
> You call if "freedom".
"Testamentary freedom" means that someone gets to decide who inherits
his money. In many legal systems, including current Louisiana law, you
don't have testimentary freedom--the legal system determines, to some
degree, who your heirs are.
....
David Friedman
<33e34ceb-307e-4aeb...@m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
Potroast <ilo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Edict?" Does that mean you think it's a binding command given by
someone with authority to someone he has authority over?
Potroast
wrote:
> In article
> <21162474-0c07-4add-b323-01d831559...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> �Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 10:17�pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <80233982-477c-4462-bac0-7e2382c10...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > �Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > I am not a fringe voice here. Both Buffet and Gates seem to feel
> > > > similar about inheritance (why they are giving their wealth away
> > > > rather than leave it all to their children) I think its fair to
> > > > suggest they know far more about creating wealth and practical
> > > > capitalism than anyone on this forum.
>
> > > That was Carnegie's view as well.
>
> > An estate tax was created after
>
> What does that have to do with Carnegie's view that one ought to give
> most of one's wealth away rather than leaving it to one's children?
Sorry. I though when you were said Carnegie had the same view you were
saying he had some belief in estate taxes.
Generally speaking people are trustworthy. However, if you leave an
opening for an aristocracy to form I think it eventually will. I don't
see nations like that as economically efficient. That's one of the
things I've always found charming about America actually. Meritocracy
seems to make economic sense even if a large section of the wealth is
controlled by very few. If history is any judge, an aristocracy
forming from inherited wealth does not.
Potroast
wrote:
> In article
> <33e34ceb-307e-4aeb-ad67-1d71b5d9b...@m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> �Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 10:16�pm, David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com>
> > wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <80233982-477c-4462-bac0-7e2382c10...@p9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > �Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > �(besides you are the guy that
> > > > would declare a fatwa on those that disagreed with your principles
> > > > right?
>
> > > At a tangent ... �.
>
> > > What do you think a "fatwa" is?
>
> > Religious edict. Just playing a little with analogies (since I know
> > Oist's hate Islamists :)
>
> "Edict?" Does that mean you think it's a binding command given by
> someone with authority to someone he has authority over?
>
> --
> Author of
> _Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
> Cambridge University Press.
Again. Just an analogy to poke a little friendly fun (I like Arnold
even if we disagree on some issues). I was thinking about this fatwa
when I uttered it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Rushdie#The_Satanic_Verses_and_the_fatw.C4.81
As far as I know fatwa's aren't technically binding (they are
supposed to clarify laws) but depending the jurisdiction (and cleric)
they effectively can be like laws.
1Z
wrote:
> In a Capitalist system wealth is managed perfectly fairly. Each gets what he
> earns and deserves. If not, sue for fraud.
False: the underserving can inherit wealth. The talented can be
exploited.
The ability to sue depends on the ability to pay.
> Freedom includes the right to destroy all one's values. You cannot claim
> ownership over anothers property.
"Property" is legally defined. If the state says that 25% of an
inheritance is the
state's that is legal because the state makes it so. If you think the
state
has no moral right, you need to show that wealth was created ex nihilo
without the exploitaiton of any kindof common good or public property.
Otherwise the state has a moral right to payment for the public
services it provides.
> What they do with their wealth is their concern. They should shut up about
> what others own.
There is no wealth creation ex nihilo. wealth creation
always involves public goods, so others do have a say.
> > (not to mention... in practice in the real world... you pay more taxes
> > so they have lower inheritance taxes)
>
> How about lower taxes regardless.
How are you going to magic away national debt?
1Z
wrote:
> All I ask, is for a system that respects an individual's right to live his
> life free from others imposing their will on him.
You don't reallty want that because you don wan't
to be left to starve if you are starving, to die if you are dieing...
you want to be left alone when things are going well,
and helped when they are not.
>If you regard opposing a
> tyrant as being tyrannical, you simply don't grasp the principle involved.
> Either you take the moral position that some have a right to impose their
> will on others, or you don't. Which moral principle do you abide by?
Freedom is no good to the dea.
Fred Weiss
> Freedom is no good to the dea.
Tell that to a slave.
1Z
A living slave can be freed. A dead one cannot.
Arnold Broese
news:5e7ce913-d97e-4cb5...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
> On 26 Oct, 05:01, Arnold Broese <arnold_broeseREM...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In a Capitalist system wealth is managed perfectly fairly. Each gets what
>> he
>> earns and deserves. If not, sue for fraud.
>
> False: the underserving can inherit wealth. The talented can be
> exploited. The ability to sue depends on the ability to pay.
People have a right to give away their property, even to the unworthy. It
takes a dictator to decide who is worthy, if not the individual involved. Is
that what you are? If you sue, and win, the other party pays. If you have a
good case, some lawyers will take your case free of charge, for a stake in
the award.
>> Freedom includes the right to destroy all one's values. You cannot claim
>> ownership over anothers property.
>
> "Property" is legally defined. If the state says that 25% of an
> inheritance is the
> state's that is legal because the state makes it so. If you think the
> state has no moral right, you need to show that wealth was created ex
> nihilo
> without the exploitaiton of any kindof common good or public property.
> Otherwise the state has a moral right to payment for the public
> services it provides.
If you substitute the legal for the moral, then nothing that happened in
Germany in WW2 was immoral, right? Property was seized in the name of the
state.
In a free market, people meet their obligations, or no one will deal with
them. They also end up in jail if they have been dishonest.
>> What they do with their wealth is their concern. They should shut up
>> about
>> what others own.
>
> There is no wealth creation ex nihilo. wealth creation
> always involves public goods, so others do have a say.
I am against public goods for that reason. They give people like you the
excuse to control every one.
>> > (not to mention... in practice in the real world... you pay more taxes
>> > so they have lower inheritance taxes)
>>
>> How about lower taxes regardless.
>
> How are you going to magic away national debt?
By not implementing the policies you are so fond of.
--
Arnold
Arnold Broese
> On 26 Oct, 05:11, Arnold Broese <arnold_broeseREM...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> All I ask, is for a system that respects an individual's right to live
>> his
>> life free from others imposing their will on him.
>
>
> You don't reallty want that because you don wan't
> to be left to starve if you are starving, to die if you are dieing...
> you want to be left alone when things are going well,
> and helped when they are not.
What you are saying, is that if no one in the world wants to help, they must
be forced to. I would not expect that of them. I wouldn't much want to live
in that kind of world anyway. Ever heard of "Give me freedom, or give me
death"?
There has never been a shortage of willing helpers for genuine victims of
fortune. I'm afraid that no matter how you justify it, you share some of the
qualities of a tyrant; they too always justify the initiation of force. You
have nothing to fear from me, but I would have to fear you imposing yourself
into my life.
>
>>If you regard opposing a
>> tyrant as being tyrannical, you simply don't grasp the principle
>> involved.
>> Either you take the moral position that some have a right to impose their
>> will on others, or you don't. Which moral principle do you abide by?
>
> Freedom is no good to the dead.
We are speaking of the living, whom you wish to force to your will. That is
the road to death.
--
Arnold
Fred Weiss
A slave can also free himself but he might have to risk death to
achieve it.
Better Red than dead, Izzy?
Tomm Carr
>
> "Removing the tax would lead to the creation of an "aristocracy of
> wealth" instead of a meritocracy, he added"
And what evidence of this did he present or has anyone ever presented?
How come the only names of American families who might just fit into
that description (Kennedys, Rockafellers, etc.) all support the estate
tax and managed to establish their "aristocracy" while it was in full force.
> GATES: It's just such a fair tax. I mean, it's just such an opportune,
> appropriate time to have repaid from the people who have benefitted
> more than anyone else from the circumstances that this country makes
> available, from the conditions that make it possible to become....
In the realm of technology, Gates is a genius. Outside of that, he can
be just as foolish as anyone else. Gates doesn't have to repay anybody
anything. He gave the world full measure for the money he made. If he,
for whatever reason, thinks he should pay more taxes, he is perfectly
able to do so. It's his money. Only...how he thinks giving the
government more money to waste amounts to repaying anybody for anything
is beyond me.
But when you levy a tax, you are saying, in effect, "I think I should
pay more in taxes and, by golly, I'm going to see to it that everyone
else pays more, too!"
You do what you want with your money and kindly allow everyone else to
do what they want with their money.
That is the only definition of "fair" I can come up with, in this
context. That is obviously not the same definition Gates had in mind or
just about anyone else who uses the phrase "fair tax." Could someone who
does so kindly provide your definition of "fair"?
--
Tomm Catt
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice, there is.
Tomm Carr
>
> You call if "freedom". Someone born to such a situation (through no
> fault of their own) might call vast wealth accrued over generations of
> inherited wealth "tyranny". The aristocracy in Europe would have
> been better off with their money in the hands of the competent.
And in a Capitalistic, free-market environment, that is exactly what
happens. The aristocracy of Europe was by fiat. There was no natural
movement into or out of the class.
In any free-market system, if the inheritors are competent, then the
money is already in competent hands so there is no problem. If the
inheritors are incompetent, they quickly lose their fortune. The money
may start out in their hands but money has a way of seeking competency.
In the US, about 80% of people who start out life rich are no longer
rich after 10 years. And about 80% of the people who are rich at any
given point, did not start out rich. So, again, there is no problem.
Besides, estate taxes do not put the money in the hands of the
competent. They put the money in the treasury of the State. This is all
just empty rationalization.
1Z
> Aslavecan also free himself but he might have to risk death to
> achieve it.
A slave can also free himself but only if he is alive in the first
place.
>Better Red than dead, Izzy?
The last of the Macarthyites. You are a veritable coelacanth.
Potroast
> And in a Capitalistic, free-market environment, that is exactly what happens.
Again, when you speak of "capitalism" and using America as an
example... you are NOT talking about the capitalist system promoted by
Oism (albeit the same word is being used). You are taking credit from
a system that exists in America (built on a mixed economy) and
applying it to a system that DOESN'T exist. (nor ever has). This is
not to say it wouldn't work but the onus is on others to prove it
would.
IMO pawning off a theoretical government model on such a complex issue
as certain to succeed (or trying to claim America's system as
equivalent to your own views on capitalism)... only diminishes the
credibility of the argument.
> Besides, estate taxes do not put the money in the hands of the
> competent. They put the money in the treasury of the State. This is all
> just empty rationalization.
You can utter the words "empty rationalization" but it doesn't match
reality. There is evidence to support the case mixed economies work.
For example, in practice a significant portion of wealthy individuals
that started off poor... used the public education system. A
significant portion of notable 20th century scientists... used a
public education system. (paid by the taxpayer)
I would agree too much money in state hands is a bad thing. However,
I think the same would be true of corporations that became too large
as well. Central planning by giant entities is economically
inefficient (be they called governments or corporations or anything
else).
The communists were self-righteously sure their proposed system was
both morally and economically superior. They were dramatically wrong
(but many people had to first suffer for them to admit it). Oism may
be a great system... or it may be tyranny wrapped in a terrible
economic model. It's hard to say without a real world test. If you
ever want one... I would recommend less moralizing and more specific
details as to how it would function. For instance... how would you
fund a military, courts, police, prisons.... without
taxation?
1Z
wrote:
> "1Z" <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5e7ce913-d97e-4cb5...@k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 26 Oct, 05:01, Arnold Broese <arnold_broeseREM...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> In a Capitalist system wealth is managed perfectly fairly. Each gets what
> >> he
> >> earns and deserves. If not, sue for fraud.
>
> > False: the underserving can inherit wealth. The talented can be
> > exploited. The ability to sue depends on the ability to pay.
>
> People have a right to give away their property, even to the unworthy.
if they do , then it is not the case that "each gets what
he earns and deserves."
Condemned out of your own mouth.
>It
> takes a dictator to decide who is worthy, if not the individual involved. Is
> that what you are? If you sue, and win, the other party pays. If you have a
> good case, some lawyers will take your case free of charge, for a stake in
> the award.
If thre are no obejctive facts about who is worthy,
there is not fact that "each gets what
he earns and deserves."
> > "Property" is legally defined. If the state says that 25% of an
> > inheritance is the
> > state's that is legal because the state makes it so. If you think the
> > state has no moral right, you need to show that wealth was created ex
> > nihilo
> > without the exploitaiton of any kindof common good or public property.
> > Otherwise the state has a moral right to payment for the public
> > services it provides.
>
> If you substitute the legal for the moral, then nothing that happened in
> Germany in WW2 was immoral, right?
Which is why you shouldn't make that substitution.
> > There is no wealth creation ex nihilo. wealth creation
> > always involves public goods, so others do have a say.
> I am against public goods for that reason. They give people like you the
> excuse to control every one.
I don't control every one.
Companies do not want to take of the education of their
workfiorce, the provision of their water and power, the state
of the road otuside their offices...
> >> How about lower taxes regardless.
> > How are you going to magic away national debt?
> By not implementing the policies you are so fond of.
By going bakc in time and not implementing
them?
Arnold Broese
> >
> If thre are no obejctive facts about who is worthy,
> there is not fact that "each gets what he earns and deserves."
By 'worthy', I mean that the wealth or property was not obtained by force.
If a bum is given a fortune to waste, it doesn't mean that he wasn't
considered worthy by the donor. It does become unworthy when someone
appoints himself as moral dictator, and uses force to implement his 'morals'
on others. It amazes me how the 'do-gooders' claim the moral high ground,
when their comrades in arms are dictators.
Ask yourself, would the users of force be better off, if those they exploit
ceased to exist? Then ask yourself if those who don't believe in
expropriating the wealth of others, would be worse off with those who prey
on them, gone. See who needs whom in order to live; brings to mind
'parasite'.
--
Arnold
Tomm Carr
> On Oct 24, 6:07 am, Tomm Carr <TommC...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Such as...? Who are currently rebuilding kingdoms with unearned,
>> inherited wealth? Give us a name.
>
> That's just it. I'm suggesting that's NOT the case now but most
> western countries have been living in a mixed economies for a couple
> of hundred years now haven't they? You seem to be the one that wants
> to change things here.
Oh, this is rich. Pot...kettle...black.
"Change" is not my motto. I don't support change just for the sake of
change nor do I oppose change just because it leads to something
different and different is scary.
I advocate principles -- you advocate results. I offer reasons for my
beliefs and my actions -- you offer excuses. I draw maps to destinations
-- you hand out travel brochures. I explain how dreams are possible but
not guaranteed -- you proclaim that dreams are impossible so it's best
not to even try. I see nothing but unlimited opportunities every way I
turn -- you look around and see nothing but bars. I speak of cautious
optimism -- you preach panic and blind fear. I emphasize the importance
of rationality and planning for the future -- you say grab what you can
while the taking's good.
Has it yet occurred to you that you have absolutely nothing to offer me
or people like me? Do you yet understand that we are not interested in
taking what does not belong to us, no matter how you wrap the concept in
glorious words and promises of life filled with ease and escape from
responsibilities? We seek what you cannot offer -- a life filled with
value and based on honor. It may not be a life particularly long or
filled with ease or free of stress or worry or pain. But it will be a
life well worth living. A life filled with pride and utterly lacking in
guilt. We want the things that cannot be taken from anyone -- only earned.
> Taxation is NOT theft. Theft is theft. Taxation is taxation. They are
> two noticeably different concepts.
A hammer is a tool. It can be used to kill a man -- or to build a house.
A scalpel is a tool. It can be used to slit a throat -- or perform
surgery. An army is a tool. It can be used to protect a people -- or
repress them. Anything can be used or misused.
>> Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is simple: find a single
>> company that, without the mandate of law:
>> 1) established a monopoly position in its industry,
>> 2) displayed any of the characteristics of a monopoly (raised prices at
>> will, failed to innovate, reduced the quality of its product, etc.).
>> 3) and remained in its monopoly position for any significant length of
>> time (say, a year or more) after exhibiting said behavior.
>
> You answered your own question. AT&T. When its monopoly in the US
> was broken up by the government in the 80s there was an explosion of
> telecommunications products soon after. That "government mandated"
> monopoly came about specifically due to AT&T management using its
> enormous influence to avoid the anti-trust laws you decry (which is
> something that can be repeated if US anti-trust laws are ever ignored
> again) Nearly a hundred years ago AT&T execs were arguing against anti-
> trust laws in the name of "free enterprise".
>
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Telephone_%26_Telegraph#A_national_mon
opoly
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment
Don't you even read what you cite? Thank you for supporting my
arguments. From the first cite above:
"In 1918 the federal government nationalized the entire
telecommunications industry, with national security as the stated
intent. Rates were regulated so that customers in large cities would pay
higher rates to subsidize those in more remote areas. [AT&T president
Theodore] Vail was appointed to manage the telephone system with AT&T
being paid a percentage of the telephone revenues. AT&T profited well
from the nationalization arrangement which ended a year later. States
then began regulating rates so that those in rural areas would not have
to pay high prices, and competition was highly regulated or prohibited
in local markets. Also, potential competitors were forbidden from
installing new lines to compete, with state governments wishing to avoid
"duplication." The claim was that telephone service was a "natural
monopoly," meaning that one firm could better serve the public than two
or more. Eventually, AT&T's market share amounted to what most would
regard as a monopolistic share."
Years later, the feds spent 13 years in court to break up a monopoly
that only existed because of laws that prevented any other company from
competing against it. How's that for a good use of taxes? They could
have broken up AT&T without spending a single day in court.
The anti-trust laws were passed to "save" us from a boogy-man that
doesn't exist. It was specifically Standard Oil that triggered the
action. Did Standard Oil do anything to harm the consumer? Their crime
was that they reduced the price of kerosene from $0.26 a gallon in 1870
(its first year of operation) to less than $.06 cents a gallon by 1897.
How did this hurt consumers? It didn't, obviously. But it did kill off
most of the competition. *That* is the purpose of anti-trust laws: to
save companies from "too much" competition.
A free-market economy works to benefit the consumer, not the producers.
If producers can operate efficiently and bring benefit to the market,
they thrive and make a profit. If they are unsuccessful, they die and
their assets are sold off to more efficient producers. Either way, the
consumer benefits. And this is a problem...how?
But you never hear of how monopolies are only harmful to other
corporations while being a great benefit to consumers. No, monopolies
are only discussed as being *potentially* harmful to consumers. But such
harm has never actually occurred. Such harm is not even theoretically
possible in the context of a free market. Even if a company could
establish itself in a monopolistic position (i.e it has no competition),
it can't *act* like a monopoly because, in a free market, the *threat*
of competition never goes away. Such harmful monopolies are only
possible when the monopoly is maintained by government fiat -- which
closes off free-market corrections.
1Z
wrote:
> "1Z" <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:b91ab9a2-91a8-4467...@w37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > If thre are no obejctive facts about who is worthy,
> > there is not fact that "each gets what he earns and deserves."
>
> By 'worthy', I mean that the wealth or property was not obtained by force.
Uhhh-huhhh. You may have noticed that wealth is distributed very
unevenly.
Is the millionare 100,1000 more pacifist than the pauper?
> If a bum is given a fortune to waste, it doesn't mean that he wasn't
> considered worthy by the donor.
And that doesn't mean he was in fact worthy. ANyone can make
a mistake.
(BTW, theft also dsitributes money to the worthy. The thief
thinks he is worthy of his victim's money. And in the absence
of an objective criterion of worthiness, who is to gainsay him?)
> It does become unworthy when someone
> appoints himself as moral dictator, and uses force to implement his 'morals'
> on others.
Uhhh-huhhh. So there is no third option between moral dictatorship
and subjective whim?
>It amazes me how the 'do-gooders' claim the moral high ground,
> when their comrades in arms are dictators.
Whatever. Even if do-gooding does not distribute wealth
to the worthy. that does not mean capitalism does instead.
Perhaps no system does.
Potroast
> Potroast wrote:
> > On Oct 24, 6:07 am, Tomm Carr <TommC...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Such as...? Who are currently rebuilding kingdoms with unearned,
> >> inherited wealth? Give us a name.
>
> > That's just it. I'm suggesting that's NOT the case now but most
> > western countries have been living in a mixed economies for a couple
> > of hundred years now haven't they? �You seem to be the one that wants
> > to change things here.
>
> Oh, this is rich. Pot...kettle...black.
>
> "Change" is not my motto. I don't support change just for the sake of
> change nor do I oppose change just because it leads to something
> different and different is scary.
>
> I advocate principles -- you advocate results.
Principles based on what if not results? The Koran? Your feelings?
Results matter. (and no... executing people to accomplish some goal
isn't "results")
> I offer reasons for my beliefs and my actions -- you offer excuses.
> I draw maps to destinations you hand out travel brochures. I explain how dreams are possible but
> not guaranteed -- you proclaim that dreams are impossible so it's best
> not to even try. I see nothing but unlimited opportunities every way I
> turn -- you look around and see nothing but bars.
> I speak of cautious
> optimism -- you preach panic and blind fear. I emphasize the importance
> of rationality and planning for the future -- you say grab what you can
> while the taking's good.
More meaningless insults rather than substance (you know... things
like facts, statistics, examples, arguments related to the discussion,
etc...). I have said none of these things you try to pawn off on me.
Presumably you are having a conversation with a stereotype.
Can we stick to something of substance?
> Has it yet occurred to you that you have absolutely nothing to offer me
> or people like me?
Yes. Yes. You've repeated this several times now. I am a lowly
parasite compared to your ubermensch mightiness. I got it. Can we
stick to arguments of substance because if you continue to use a
significant portion of your posts as a method to rudely insult me I'm
just going to stop going to responding.
> Do you yet understand that we are not interested in taking what does not belong to us,
> no matter how you wrap the concept in glorious words and promises of life filled with ease and escape >from responsibilities?
Who is "us"? Do you speak for some collective?
> We seek what you cannot offer -- a life filled with value and based on honor. It may not be a life particularly long or filled with ease or free of stress or worry or pain. But it will be a
> life well worth living. A life filled with pride and utterly lacking in
> guilt. We want the things that cannot be taken from anyone -- only earned.
Who is "we"? Do you speak for some collective?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Telephone_%26_Telegraph#A_natio...
> opoly
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsbury_Commitment
>
> Don't you even read what you cite? Thank you for supporting my
> arguments. From the first cite above:
>
> "In 1918 the federal government nationalized the entire
> telecommunications industry, with national security as the stated
> intent. Rates were regulated so that customers in large cities would pay
> higher rates to subsidize those in more remote areas. [AT&T president
> Theodore] Vail was appointed to manage the telephone system with AT&T
> being paid a percentage of the telephone revenues. AT&T profited well
> from the nationalization arrangement which ended a year later. States
> then began regulating rates so that those in rural areas would not have
> to pay high prices, and competition was highly regulated or prohibited
> in local markets. Also, potential competitors were forbidden from
> installing new lines to compete, with state governments wishing to avoid
> "duplication." The claim was that telephone service was a "natural
> monopoly," meaning that one firm could better serve the public than two
> or more. Eventually, AT&T's market share amounted to what most would
> regard as a monopolistic share."
> Years later, the feds spent 13 years in court to break up a monopoly
> that only existed because of laws that prevented any other company from
> competing against it. How's that for a good use of taxes? They could
> have broken up AT&T without spending a single day in court.
Hey arguments rather than personal insults. Woo hoo.
AT&T was nationalized at war time (I'm guessing for national security
reasons). It's been a private company for most of the last 100 years.
The point here is AT&T management clearly sought out a monopoly by
finding a way around anti-trust laws. It appears like it was
disastrous to the telecommunications industry (bringing it almost to
standstill from a consumer standpoint). Tesla was toying with
wireless technology over a hundred years ago... and yet up to the 80s
we were still using rotary dial phones? (a 19th century technology)
> The anti-trust laws were passed to "save" us from a boogy-man that
> doesn't exist. It was specifically Standard Oil that triggered the
> action. Did Standard Oil do anything to harm the consumer? Their crime
> was that they reduced the price of kerosene from $0.26 a gallon in 1870
> (its first year of operation) to less than $.06 cents a gallon by 1897.
> How did this hurt consumers? It didn't, obviously. But it did kill off
> most of the competition. *That* is the purpose of anti-trust laws: to
> save companies from "too much" competition.
You are correct to assert Standard oil dropped prices but that's not
why Standard oil was broken up. The Sherman Anti-trust act (the grand-
papa of monopoly legislation) was a direct result of business
practices of Standard Oil and some other companies of the era
(legislation introduced by a Republican Senator and signed into law by
a Republican President I might add)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
The supreme court of US ruled against Standard Oil specifically
because it viewed its business practices as a corruption of free
market principles. (which they believed require fair competition to
uphold) They would see your views as a corruption of capitalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil_Co._of_New_Jersey_v._United_States
When you argue that market fixes itself you again speak in theories
not practice. America has had anti-trust laws for majority of its
history, ALL of its time as a notable global power, and YOUR ENTIRE
LIFE. (thus again-you are speaking theories NOT practice)
> A free-market economy works to benefit the consumer, not the producers.
> If producers can operate efficiently and bring benefit to the market,
> they thrive and make a profit. If they are unsuccessful, they die and
> their assets are sold off to more efficient producers. Either way, the
> consumer benefits. And this is a problem...how?
>> But you never hear of how monopolies are only harmful to other
> corporations while being a great benefit to consumers. No, monopolies
> are only discussed as being *potentially* harmful to consumers. But such
> harm has never actually occurred.
Again, AT&T seems to be a textbook example of how consumers (and an
economy) can be dramatically harmed by a monopoly.. Was it a
coincidence immediately after its breakup in the eighties an explosion
in telecommunications technology occurred? (and massive drop in long
distance prices) I shudder to think where the Internet would be today
had it been if continued to be left in AT&T hands (who kept
competitors from forming for decades by shutting out local exchanged
from long distance). It's ironic that you are complaining about anti-
trust laws..... using a technology that probably wouldn't be
available to you if AT&T's monopoly had been left to stand. For
example, Cisco would probably not exist if it the US government hadn't
broken up AT&T. (who would Cisco sell routers to other than AT&T?)
And they are just one one example... out of possible hundreds that
might not exist today. (mostly hardware vendors that would have been
forced to comply with any and all demands of AT&T execs)
> Such harm is not even theoretically possible in the context of a free market. Even if a company could
> establish itself in a monopolistic position (i.e it has no competition),
> it can't *act* like a monopoly because, in a free market, the *threat*
> of competition never goes away. Such harmful monopolies are only
> possible when the monopoly is maintained by government fiat -- which
> closes off free-market corrections.
Seeing as you live in an age of anti-trust laws... you have little
evidence to back up your claim "harmful monopolies are only possible
if monopoly is maintained by government. (although I would agree
government monopolies can be harmful too) And 100 years ago when anti-
trust legislation wasn't around... both the left and right wing would
have dramatically disagreed with your definition of what "free market"
capitalism should represent. ("free" doesn't mean "free to do any
thing criminal". It means "free to trade fairly" The mixed economy we
live in (I live in Canada and it's pretty much the same as the US
other than public heath care) does not describe your proposed
absolutist system. Taxation has been a fixture of western governments
throughout the modern era. What you fail to grasp is your theoretical
system might seriously suck. Warner Von Braun suggested a single test
is worth a thousand expert opinions.
Arnold Broese
>> > If thre are no obejctive facts about who is worthy,
>> > there is not fact that "each gets what he earns and deserves."
>>
>> By 'worthy', I mean that the wealth or property was not obtained by
>> force.
>
> Uhhh-huhhh. You may have noticed that wealth is distributed very unevenly.
> Is the millionare 100,1000 more pacifist than the pauper?
What makes you decide that 'eveness' is just, when such equality always
comes at the expense of liberty? I suppose it is because egaltarians place
little value on liberty.
>
>> If a bum is given a fortune to waste, it doesn't mean that he wasn't
>> considered worthy by the donor.
>
> And that doesn't mean he was in fact worthy. ANyone can make a mistake.
In a free country, one is allowed to make mistakes with his own property,
but that assumes he is allowed to own his property. If he makes a mistake,
what business is it of yours? I think Bill Gates is nuts with the way he
distributes his wealth; do you think I should get involved and force him to
give his money to people *I* think more worthy?
> (BTW, theft also dsitributes money to the worthy. The thief
> thinks he is worthy of his victim's money. And in the absence
> of an objective criterion of worthiness, who is to gainsay him?)
>
>> It does become unworthy when someone
>> appoints himself as moral dictator, and uses force to implement his
>> 'morals'
>> on others.
>
> Uhhh-huhhh. So there is no third option between moral dictatorship
> and subjective whim?
There is; it is known as the right to one's property. Dictatorship goes with
subjective whim, not property rights.
>>It amazes me how the 'do-gooders' claim the moral high ground,
>> when their comrades in arms are dictators.
>
> Whatever. Even if do-gooding does not distribute wealth
> to the worthy. that does not mean capitalism does instead.
> Perhaps no system does.
"Whatever"?, Such casual acceptance of thuggery speaks for itself. Again, a
dictator does not allow individuals to determine what is worthy to them. A
dictator is a central planner of worthiness. A dictator sets out to rectify
reality, because in reality people have different abilities. A dictator
thinks reality is unfair to make some people enterprising, and others lazy.
Do-gooders have much in common with dictators.
--
Arnold
Arnold Broese
>>
> The supreme court of US ruled against Standard Oil specifically
> because it viewed its business practices as a corruption of free
> market principles. (which they believed require fair competition to
> uphold) They would see your views as a corruption of capitalism.
Competition is the RESULT of a free market, not the cause of it. A monopoly
is not "having no competition", it is a business that legally restricts
competition.
>
> Again, AT&T seems to be a textbook example of how consumers (and an
> economy) can be dramatically harmed by a monopoly.. Was it a
> coincidence immediately after its breakup in the eighties an explosion
> in telecommunications technology occurred?
Wasn't AT&T a legally protected monopoly that had that legal protection
taken away with the break-up? The point is that being a dominant competitor,
is not a monopoly, if the market is open to others. The fact that the
dominant company is hard to beat, shows how little money is being made in
the business. Lots of competitors means lots of money is being made from
consumers; few competitors means the pickings are slim. Which do you think
most benefits consumers, and which benefits producers? Anti trust is a
business protection racket, not a benefit to consumers.
--
Arnold
1Z
> > And that doesn't mean he was in fact worthy. ANyone can make a mistake.
>
> In a free country, one is allowed to make mistakes with his own property,
> but that assumes he is allowed to own his property.
True, but that has nothing to do with the original point.
Capitalism does not guarantee that wealth goes to the
deserving.
> > Uhhh-huhhh. So there is no third option between moral dictatorship
> > and subjective whim?
>
> There is; it is known as the right to one's property.
There is no third way OF DEFINING WORTHINESS?
> > Whatever. Even if do-gooding does not distribute wealth
> > to the worthy. that does not mean capitalism does instead.
> > Perhaps no system does.
>
> "Whatever"?,
YOu went off the original point.
Capitalism does not guarantee that wealth goes to the
deserving.
Tomm Carr
> On Oct 27, 4:09 am, Tomm Carr <TommC...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And in a Capitalistic, free-market environment, that is exactly what
>> happens.
>
> Again, when you speak of "capitalism" and using America as an
> example... you are NOT talking about the capitalist system promoted by
> Oism (albeit the same word is being used).
Interesting. You seem to be running out of intellectual ammunition with
which to keep up your side of the battle, so you start throwing out
anything within reach.
I don't believe I have used the word "Objectivism" in any form or used a
distinctly Objectivist argument. I have based all my argument on generic
economic theory, psychology and morality.
Here is the basis of your latest response: "Well, I can't argue with the
points you bring up but it's just Oist crap anyway so I really don't
have to."
You have a funny way of conceding the argument, but I'll take whatever I
can get.
Tomm Carr
> YOu went off the original point.
> Capitalism does not guarantee that wealth goes to the
> deserving.
Granted. I will also stipulate that Socialism *does* guarantee that
wealth goes to the deserving.
Do you really, in your wildest dreams, think for one tiny second that
when Socialists gain power they will allow you to define such terms as
"deserving" and "worthy"?
You can't even define the words now. You use them as if they had meaning
but you really have no other meaning than "those I choose."
Jim Klein
> True, but that has nothing to do with the original point.
> Capitalism does not guarantee that wealth goes to the
> deserving.
You've turned yourself into a one man Parade Of Cliches.
Do you even bother to see how idiotic this particular
tack is? I'd be ashamed for a teenager who offered it.
But hey...if you can get everyone to agree, I'll
sell the halos to mark the deserving!
jk
Jim Klein
> Can we stick to something of substance?
He did...
> > Has it yet occurred to you that you have absolutely nothing to offer me
> > or people like me?
>
> Yes. Yes. You've repeated this several times now. I am a lowly
> parasite compared to your ubermensch mightiness. I got it. Can we
> stick to arguments of substance because if you continue to use a
> significant portion of your posts as a method to rudely insult me I'm
> just going to stop going to responding.
It's not an insult; it's the whole point. You're so busy
being defensive, that it flies right over your head.
You're a person; I'm a person; Tomm's a person---every
person is a person. Get it? A is A.
You defend institutional coercion because it's the only
way you can get what you want--what you think you
need--from other people. Tomm's point, which was
Rand's point, is correct---there is simply NO WAY for
you to get that, EXCEPT through coercion.
You have nothing to offer Tomm or me. Hence there
is no reason for us to coerce anything from you. But
it's NOT true the other way around. You MUST coerce
something from us, or so you think.
The problem isn't that Tomm thinks he's greater
than you. He's the one offering "equality" in the
relevant (social) context. Use your volition to
offer him something and maybe he'll offer you
something in return.
YOU are offering inequality socially because YOU
are saying that your wishes and/or needs gives you
some claim to his production, which means his life.
Don't skip over the important stuff just because you
think it's insulting. Try to get it.
> Who is "us"? Do you speak for some collective?
and
> Who is "we"? Do you speak for some collective?
He is speaking for those who wish to live as humans
are---rational, volitional organisms.
You are speaking for those who wish to live as
humans are not. That's why none of your ideas
work. Mankind has progressed in spite of the
claptrap for which you've fallen, not because of it.
jk
Jim Klein
wrote:
> Wasn't AT&T a legally protected monopoly that had that legal protection
> taken away with the break-up?
Of course it was. Both its Govco-created monopoly
and its Govco-created "break-up" caused immense
problems which linger to this very day, mainly over
who owns that last bit of cable bringing the dial
tone in. Never mind that this wouldn't even be an
issue in a free-market economy---it would've
been rendered moot about a decade ago.
Gee, how far have computers brought us
forward in the last few decades? How regulated
was that industry, while all this was going on?
The only thing which comes close to Potroast's
level of fear, is his naivete. Both are extreme.
jk
1Z
> 1Z wrote:
> Granted. I will also stipulate that Socialism *does* guarantee that
> wealth goes to the deserving.
I don't agree with that either,
> Do you really, in your wildest dreams, think for one tiny second that
> when Socialists gain power they will allow you to define such terms as
> "deserving" and "worthy"?
I am not a socialist or promoting socialism.
1Z
> On Oct 28, 6:38 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > True, but that has nothing to do with the original point.
> > Capitalism does not guarantee that wealth goes to the
> > deserving.
>
> You've turned yourself into a one man Parade Of Cliches.
I suppose that accusaiton has a na dded piqauncy coming as it does
from
a Randroid.
> Do you even bother to see how idiotic this particular
> tack is? �
Pointing out that Arnold has directly contradicted his own claim that
captialism
distirbnuted wealth to the deserving is idiotic in what way exactly?
>I'd be ashamed for a teenager who offered it.
>
> But hey...if you can get everyone to agree, I'll
> sell the halos to mark the deserving!
Agree with what ... that Arnold has not made his case?
Fred Weiss
> The anti-trust laws were passed to "save" us from a boogy-man that
> doesn't exist. It was specifically Standard Oil that triggered the
> action. Did Standard Oil do anything to harm the consumer? Their crime
> was that they reduced the price of kerosene from $0.26 a gallon in 1870
> (its first year of operation) to less than $.06 cents a gallon by 1897.
> How did this hurt consumers? It didn't, obviously. But it did kill off
> most of the competition. *That* is the purpose of anti-trust laws: to
> save companies from "too much" competition.
Ida Tarbell who wrote the famous muckraking attack on Standard had a
personal motive. Standard had put her father out of business!
But you are absolutely right. Anti-trust has absolutely nothing to do
with "protecting consumers". That's its excuse but not its purpose.
It's purpose is to protect whiny and incompetent competitors. The
Microsoft suit for example was originally brought by Netscape. Poll
after poll showed that Microsoft's customers opposed the suit and
supported Microsoft. Ironically, Netscape was subsequently sold to AOL
for a tidy billion or so. I forget the exact amount. So they hardly
had any basis for complaint. But that didn't stop the rampaging DOJ.
That said, and apart from the legal/economic principles involved, it's
hard to be sympathetic to Bill Gates. He mounted a dreadful defense,
pretty much granting most of the premises of the basis for the suit.
He demonstrated then - and has subsequently confirmed it - that he is
a philosophical imbecile. (Unfortunately, historically, many
businessmen have been and continue to be.)
It's an encouraging sign however that finally many businessmen are
being drawn to Rand. Maybe we'll eventually see that in much better
push-back to gov't intervention.
Fred Weiss
1Z
Microsoft barely bothers to compete in the OS market. Its products
are packaged with new PCs so that most consumers never make
a conscious choice to use it. Vista was trash at any price, not an
example
of one of your mythical monopolies makign its products ever better
and cheaper.
1Z
> after poll showed that Microsoft's customers opposed the suit and
> supported Microsoft.
OTOH, the technically savvy hate M$ so much they donate
their time to devleoping free and open-source altenatives.
Potroast
> On Oct 28, 1:12 pm, Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Can we stick to something of substance?
>
> He did...
>
> > > Has it yet occurred to you that you have absolutely nothing to offer me
> > > or people like me?
>
> > Yes. Yes. You've repeated this several times now. I am a lowly
> > parasite compared to your �ubermensch mightiness. I got it. �Can we
> > stick to arguments of substance because if you continue to use a
> > significant portion of your posts as a method to rudely insult me I'm
> > just going to stop going to responding.
>
> It's not an insult; it's the whole point. �You're so busy
> being defensive, that it flies right over your head.
Bullshit. He went on and on about how he's superman and I'm nothing.
It had absolutely nothing to do with the thread discussion. Pretty
much the same as you. on this last post.. When your interested in
sticking to some specific subject maternal rather than making things
personal let me know. (or repeating "coercion" over and over again ad
infinitum as a reply to any topic)
Potroast
> Potroast wrote:
> > On Oct 27, 4:09 am, Tomm Carr <TommC...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> And in a Capitalistic, free-market environment, that is exactly what
> >> happens.
>
> > Again, when you speak of "capitalism" and using America as an
> > example... you are NOT talking about the capitalist system promoted by
> > Oism (albeit the same word is being used).
>
> Interesting. You seem to be running out of intellectual ammunition with
> which to keep up your side of the battle, so you start throwing out
> anything within reach.
>
> I don't believe I have used the word "Objectivism" in any form or used a
> distinctly Objectivist argument. I have based all my argument on generic
> economic theory, psychology and morality.
You stated " *Any* reason you may come up with to take away any part
of it is a rationalization of theft."
Taxation is theft is NOT general economic theory, psychology, or
morality. It's a Randian fringe theory (very fringe in fact). Fringe
doesn't necessarily mean OIsm is necessarily wrong about everything it
suggests but again the onus is others to provide evidence their
alternate system of governance would function better economically than
what we have.
> Here is the basis of your latest response: "Well, I can't argue with the
> points you bring up but it's just Oist crap anyway so I really don't
> have to."
You are quoting something I didn't say. What I said is you can't take
one system and claim positive results from it on another system. In
this case a system where "taxation is theft". I repeated my argument
t because you repeated your attempt to align your version of
capitalism (i.e. tax is theft) with our current version of capitalism
(i.e. moderate taxation is acceptable)
Your absolute position is one and the same with Oism isn't it? Or is
a little "theft" fine for you? (And as far as I know even most
libertarians don't officially endorse a complete elimination of taxes
only a reduction).
Jim Klein
> Taxation is theft is NOT general economic theory, psychology, or
> morality. It's a Randian fringe theory (very fringe in fact). Fringe
> doesn't necessarily mean OIsm is necessarily wrong about everything it
> suggests but again the onus is others to provide evidence their
> alternate system of governance would function better economically than
> what we have.
That's nice. Could you dovetail this statement with
your assertion that consensus doesn't hold a
special place in your heart?
BTW, how does one provide evidence for systems
that are "alternate" to those in existence? I'll trust
you mean, "What we figure," but you really mean,
"What I feel."
And then, there was the problem that "better
economically" had almost no meaning to you.
That is, you couldn't pin down the referent. If
you think that's wrong, then pin it down now.
What does "better economically" mean to you,
as you used it in this instance?
jk
Fred Weiss
> On 29 Oct, 11:02, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>
> Microsoft barely bothers to compete in the OS market. Its products
> are packaged with new PCs so that most consumers never make
> a conscious choice to use it.
Which is one of the main reasons the PC market exploded in the first
place.
Fred Weiss
> On 29 Oct, 11:02, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
> �Poll
>
> > after poll showed that Microsoft's customers opposed the suit and
> > supported Microsoft.
>
The "technically savvy" always hate the market dominating, consumer
driven products.
They hated the Model T. They hated the Kodak Box Camera. etc.etc.
It is however the market dominating consumer driven company(s) which
build the market and then make it possible for other companies to
exploit smaller niches, some of which are driven by the more
technically savvy.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
> Taxation is theft is NOT general economic theory, psychology, or
> morality. It's a Randian fringe theory...
This one preceded Rand, actually by a lot. It had its advocates even
as early as the 19th Cent.
It also has current advocates who are not Randian.
However you are right that it is a decidedly minority view. But then
so were a lot of views which subsequently became the prevailing
wisdom.
Fred Weiss
Potroast
> However you are right that it is a decidedly minority view. But then
> so were a lot of views which subsequently became the prevailing
> wisdom.
That's true. Also true is I've never seen a working prototype of Oism
so I can't really say it wouldn't work with certainty.
While I was originally horrified at Oism (over the whole nuke the
middle east thing).... I don't see anything intrinsic in Oism that is
explicitly against the use of exclusively non-lethal force. Assuming
the accompanying technology and economics became available in the
centuries ahead what reason would there be not to stick to a less
coercion approach right? Over the very long haul we may not be in
disagreement on that aspect of our views. (although in this case the
onus is on me to present arguments in support my unproven fringe non-
lethal force theory)
I also originally had a different feel for the words "self-interest"
and "selfishness" than your usage. .They were terms I previously
associated with anti-social behavior but I realize now you don't
intend it in that way (or at least not theoretically). Language is
such a messy imprecise thing unfortunately (and once one's ego and
moral indignation flares up it becomes even more difficult to have
polite debates to explore issues)
While some of my positions make me appear left of you (specifically my
stances towards moderate taxation), I am not actually in the liberal
ideological camp or pro taxation. For a variety of philosophical
reasons I don't see eye-to-eye with the leftist outlook. The chief
reason why I default to the current system (which is essentially
liberal republics) is because I simply lack a complete detailed
coherent alternative. Even an imperfect system is something of value.
If we were living in the 15th century and could point at golden age
Athens would be one thing. But since we still appear to be riding the
crest of human achievement dramatic change is less tempting. Even if
one has heart problems, unless one goes into cardiac arrest,
installing another heart is a risky proposition. While some things
Rand says definitely make sense to me I'm largely skeptical of the
viability of your proposed system because fine details that are
conspicuously missing.
That all said... I am not opposed to small scale experimentation
geared towards reducing taxes provided it can be persuasively shown to
be economically beneficial in each instance.
Tomm Carr
> On Oct 28, 9:34 pm, Tomm Carr <TommC...@Gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't believe I have used the word "Objectivism" in any form or used a
>> distinctly Objectivist argument. I have based all my argument on generic
>> economic theory, psychology and morality.
>
> You stated " *Any* reason you may come up with to take away any part
> of it is a rationalization of theft."
>
> Taxation is theft is NOT general economic theory, psychology, or
> morality.
So now you are claiming the power to tax.
What else can you do that mere private citizens such as myself cannot?
Tomm Carr
> On Oct 28, 10:13 pm, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Bullshit. He went on and on about how he's superman and I'm nothing.
Interesting that you would take anything I said as a claim of power or
superiority. From end to end it was a renunciation of any superiority
over anyone in any sphere of life. It was a treatise of complete and
total equality among all people. It was a recognition of the importance
of morality, mutual respect and willing exchange as the basis for all
human interaction.
It is your claims on the productive effort of others that place you in
the position of superman. Natuarally. Who would advocate a society based
on service to others if he did not intent to be a member of the group
being served?
Potroast
> On Oct 29, 12:50 pm, Potroast <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Taxation is theft is NOT general economic theory, psychology, or
> > morality. It's a Randian fringe theory (very fringe in fact). �Fringe
> > doesn't necessarily mean OIsm is necessarily wrong about everything it
> > suggests but again the onus is others to provide evidence their
> > alternate system of governance would function better economically than
> > what we have.
>
> That's nice. �Could you dovetail this statement with
> your assertion that consensus doesn't hold a
> special place in your heart?
I;ve already been over this. Elections seems reasonable to me for
selecting governments. They don't seem reasonable to me during open
heart surgery. One doesn't have to always live in absolutes.
> And then, there was the problem that "better
> economically" had almost no meaning to you.
> That is, you couldn't pin down the referent. �If
> you think that's wrong, then pin it down now.
Again I've been over this. More wealth, more technology, more
security, longer lives, more space travel, etc... etc... More is
generally a good thing (although again not an absolute)
These things are measurable not vague. For a specific example let me
go back to the manned space program. I see manned deep space missions
as a necessary survival backup plan for humanity in the age of thermal
nuclear weapons. (not to mention maybe one day some high energy
physics research might have some unexpected results). I support a
government funded space program primarily because free enterprise
hasn't yet produced one yet. When it does, I will support a free
enterprise space program and advocate the elimination of a government
program.
I am not the enemy of free enterprise (or government for that matter).
I am the enemy of ineptness. (including when I find it myself) If your
version of free enterprise is economically more efficient than what
what we have today then you have little to worry about from people
like me. If it fails miserably it hardly seems reasonable to expect
others to live in squalor simply appease a moral theory. (unless one
is a communist apparatchik in 1970s USSR)
Potroast
> Potroast wrote:
> > On Oct 28, 10:13 pm, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Bullshit. He went on and on about how he's superman and I'm nothing.
>
> Interesting that you would take anything I said as a claim of power or
> superiority. From end to end it was a renunciation of any superiority
> over anyone in any sphere of life
I said none of the things you attribute to me below.
" I advocate principles -- you advocate results. I offer reasons for
my
beliefs and my actions -- you offer excuses. I draw maps to
destinations
-- you hand out travel brochures. I explain how dreams are possible
but
not guaranteed -- you proclaim that dreams are impossible so it's best
not to even try. I see nothing but unlimited opportunities every way I
turn -- you look around and see nothing but bars. I speak of cautious
optimism -- you preach panic and blind fear. I emphasize the
importance
of rationality and planning for the future -- you say grab what you
can
while the taking's good. "
And this sure doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement of my personal
character does it?
"Has it yet occurred to you that you have absolutely nothing to offer
me
or people like me? Do you yet understand that we are not interested in
taking what does not belong to us, no matter how you wrap the concept
in
glorious words and promises of life filled with ease and escape from
responsibilities? We seek what you cannot offer -- a life filled with
value and based on honor."
At the risk of sounding patronizing, a lesson I learned at some point
of my Internet life was the importance of rereading my own posts
before clicking send. While I'll do a quick proof, what I mostly check
for is self-righteous narrative posing as pertinent "facts". The way I
distinguish is facts should involve details like dates, times, events,
specific points related to the thread discussion (or at least tangents
of that discussion). What I would define as "rants" are words whose
sole purpose appear to be simply to put down the other guys character
(because. boo hoo, he doesn't agree with me about something)
Character assassinations are pointless because observation tells me it
will only end up in a tit-for-tat exchange that doesn't communicate
anything. (unless one is a sadomasochist that gets an erection off
being insulted) While some rudeness in moments of passion will slip
through, I am a firm believer it should be the exception not the
rule.
IMO the point of debate is not to use the other guy as an outlet for
my negative stereotypes. When someone (of any beliefs) politely
responds to one of my points, I believe I try to do them the same
courtesy. Occasionally disagreement doesn't have to be disagreeable.
It can be an enjoyable and rewarding experience. I enjoy enjoying.
1Z
Huh? You mean IBM PC or personal computer. The Mac is a packaged
system
as well. The IBM PC won out because it could be made cheaply.
1Z
> It is however the market dominating consumer driven company(s) which
> build the market and then make it possible for other companies to
> exploit smaller niches, some of which are driven by the more
> technically savvy.
Whatever. Don't tell me everyone loves Uncle Bill.
1Z
> While I was originally horrified at Oism (over the whole nuke the
> middle east thing)
A lot of individual O-ists ignore the no-initiation-of-force rule
when it suits them
Fred Weiss
Apple made precisely the same mistake that Sony made with the Beta
VCR. It refused to license it to other manufacturers. Apple saw itself
as more than an OS. They also wanted to sell the whole package, but
they lacked the clout - and they simply were unable to compete with
the onslaught of manufacturers, e.g. Dell, Compaq, Gateway, etc.,
using Windows.
However it survives and has a substantial user base.
>The IBM PC won out because it could be made cheaply.
And Windows was one of its "cheap" components. As a matter of fact it
got progressively cheaper as it improved its power, stability, and
functionality for essentially the same cost. Without it the PC would
never have taken off the way it did.
Furthermore, for all the supposed "hatred" of Windows, every time they
came out with a new release lines started forming around the block -
sometimes a day or more ahead - to get the first copies.
So I repeat, the anti-trust suit against Microsoft had nothing
whatever to do with protecting its customers. It was Microsoft's
competitors who were whining - oh, and of course, the self-proclaimed
"tech savvy" crowd that scorned anything to do with a mass market and
who had no understanding whatever of what that involves and requires.
They of course are precisely the same group now bitching about
"outsourcing" as if the market owes them a living. They have the
mentality of the medieval guilds.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
What are you yapping about now?
1Z
> On Oct 30, 5:32 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 30 Oct, 01:45, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 29, 7:26 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On 29 Oct, 11:02, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Microsoft barely bothers to compete in the OS market. Its products
> > > > are packaged with new PCs so that most consumers never make
> > > > a conscious choice to use it.
>
> > > Which is one of the main reasons the PC market exploded in the first
> > > place.
>
> > Huh? You mean IBM PC or personal computer. The Mac is a packaged
> > system as well.
>
> Apple made precisely the same mistake that Sony made with the Beta
> VCR. It refused to license it to other manufacturers. Apple saw itself
> as more than an OS. They also wanted to sell the whole package, but
> they lacked the clout - and they simply were unable to compete with
> the onslaught of manufacturers, e.g. Dell, Compaq, Gateway, etc.,
> using Windows.
>
> However it survives and has a substantial user base.
>
> >The IBM PC won out because it could be made cheaply.
>
> And Windows was one of its "cheap" components.
Not as cheap as FOSS, obviously. In fact the original
PC was supplied with MS-DOS, which was very nearly DR-DOS,
and there is absolutely no reason to beleive that the MS version
was cheaper than any alternative.
> As a matter of fact it
> got progressively cheaper as it improved its power, stability, and
> functionality for essentially the same cost.
Still not as cheap as FOSS, and it sitll doesn;t have
the stability of Linux.
>Without it the PC would
> never have taken off the way it did.
Oh, please. How do you know? What were the alternatives?
> Furthermore, for all the supposed "hatred" of Windows, every time they
> came out with a new release lines started forming around the block -
> sometimes a day or more ahead - to get the first copies.
What do you think happens when a new Mac OS or Linux distro
comes out? Sheesh.
1Z
Dropping bombs on a country that hasn't attacked you (Peikoff,
Kilcher, Speicher)
is initaiton of force.
Mark N
> That all said... I am not opposed to small scale experimentation
> geared towards reducing taxes provided it can be persuasively shown to
> be economically beneficial in each instance.
Economically beneficial to whom? I would think that a reduction in a
given individual's taxes would usually be economically beneficial to
that individual.
Mark
Potroast
> Potroast wrote:
> > That all said... I am not opposed to small scale experimentation
> > geared towards reducing taxes provided it can be persuasively shown to
> > be economically beneficial in each instance.
>
> Economically beneficial to whom?
Towards GDP (or in some instances gross global product) As long as no
one is harmed in the process I don't mind wealthier rich people. Or
wealthier poor people. The money will eventually move around (at the
latest when they pass away).
There is a caveat thought. I don't approve of big inheritances. I
don't see it as either economically efficient or fair play. If someone
becomes fabulously wealthy via their own efforts during their own
lifetime... more power to them. I don't respect vast wealth acquired
from great grandparents. That's a classic case of freeloading. (ala
middle age European aristocrats) and part of the current system I'd
prefer (slowly) changed. I'd be much more comfortable with tax
deductions during one's life time if there were caps on inheritance. I
don't believe people are made equal but I believe in equal opportunity
(so those that excel can be given the opportunity to do so)
> I would think that a reduction in a
> given individual's taxes would usually be economically beneficial to
> that individual.
Tax reductions don't always help those that are too poor to pay much
tax to begin with. They received all sorts of services they would not
otherwise have. Even the middle class gets coin from the wealthy
(that have a have a disproportionate tax burden) And heck even the
wealthy can sometimes seem to benefit.
For example, in Canada it costs GM less money to produce cars in part
because it doesn't have to pay health insurance premiums for all its
employees. The tax burden appears to be LESS than the private
insurance alternative. This equation is one some people in this forum
seem to have difficulty believing (presumably because it conflicts
with their political outlook) but the numbers do seem to actually back
it up.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_spe_per_per-health-spending-per-person
If faced with exceptions to the rule....where credible evidence exists
some government programs are economical beneficial..... is it more
important to follow the principle as an absolute....or to make
adjustments in one's principles?
Potroast
I don't want to completely dismiss Gates talent/hard work but frankly
MS originally got control of OS market partially due to luck. Had IBM
execs approached Tim Patterson (or someone else) MS wouldn't be
nearly as big today. People forget back then IBM was the I/T company.
It was IBM's brand name that was the big selling point in the
beginning. Microsoft was still obscure (I sure wish I had invested in
MS stock back then). While Mac's UI and mouse made DOS look positively
stone age for nearly a decade (until Windows 3.1 which still wasn't as
good).... people still bought DOS machines. I think the rationale was
an "IBM compatible" sticker made it a better business tool than an
Apple (which really wasn't the case against the Mac in most instances
but that's marketing for you)
Apple tried to go the cloning route a few years ago (sans Jobs) but
the plan failed miserably. Quality was lower with the clones
(dragging down Apple's reputation with them) and they only ended up
competing against their own market share. Almost put Apple out of
business. (Then Jobs returned. The man is clearly talented in
business)
IMO what's kept MS on top since that time isn't so much quality as
user familiarity. Average users simply don't want to learn a new OS
like Linux. Similarly few employers use it on desktops because they
don't want to pay employees to learn it. It's way cheaper to pay a
license every few years than to pay for weeks of training and lost
productivity. (but LInux's future looks bright on servers and non-PC
devices)
Arnold Broese
news:bcdfa688-8df6-4e32...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> If faced with exceptions to the rule....where credible evidence exists
> some government programs are economical beneficial..... is it more
> important to follow the principle as an absolute....or to make
> adjustments in one's principles?
It has been recorded that people have survived a fall without a parachute,
and some have been killed despite wearing a parachute. Similarly some have
survived because they were not wearing a seatbelt, and so avoided drowning.
How should I adjust the principle that 'it always a good principle to wear a
parachute or seatbelt,' in the face of this credible evidence? Just because
one survives Russian Roulette once, in no reason to invalidate the fact that
it will likely kill you in the end; that principle stands. Principles
Perhaps an investigation into the circumstances, along with the forces
(incentives) involved, would reveal that there was nothing wrong with the
principle. Government programs lack the incentives for people to carry them
out. The real incentive is to entrench oneself in the trough, and expand
one's empire, not to supply a service.
Finally a quote from Rand on Principles:
A principle is "a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other
truths depend." Thus a principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great
number of concretes. It is only by means of principles that one can set one's
long-range goals and evaluate the concrete alternatives of any given moment.
It is only principles that enable a man to plan his future and to achieve
it.
The present state of our culture may be gauged by the extent to which
principles have vanished from public discussion, reducing our cultural
atmosphere to the sordid, petty senselessness of a bickering family that
haggles over trivial concretes, while betraying all its major values,
selling out its future for some spurious advantage of the moment.
To make it more grotesque, that haggling is accompanied by an aura of
hysterical self-righteousness, in the form of belligerent assertions that
one must compromise with anybody on anything (except on the tenet that one
must compromise) and by panicky appeals to "practicality."
--
Arnold
Fred Weiss
> On 30 Oct, 14:13, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
> > > A lot of individual O-ists ignore the no-initiation-of-force rule
> > > when it suits them
>
> > What are you yapping about now?
>
> Dropping bombs on a country that hasn't attacked you...
You don't have to wait until someone attacks you if they pose an
imminent threat.
Israel did precisely the same thing in their brilliant execution of
the Six Day War.
Fred Weiss
1Z
> On Oct 30, 12:12�pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 30 Oct, 14:13, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
> > > > A lot of individual O-ists ignore the no-initiation-of-force rule
> > > > when it suits them
> > Dropping bombs on a country that hasn't attacked you...
> You don't have to wait until someone attacks you if they pose an
> imminent threat.
Says who? Initatition is initiation. Once you add a bunch of
loopholes to it, you might as well not bother with the
NOIF rule.
> Israel did precisely the same thing in their brilliant execution of
> the Six Day War.
What's that got to do with Objectivism?
Where does it say any action by Israel
is automatically compatible with Rand's teachings?
Potroast
wrote:
> "Potroast" <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bcdfa688-8df6-4e32...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > If faced with exceptions to the rule....where credible evidence exists
> > some government programs are economical beneficial..... is it more
> > important to follow the principle as an absolute....or to make
> > adjustments in one's principles?
>
> It has been recorded that people have survived a fall without a parachute,
> and some have been killed despite wearing a parachute. Similarly some have
> survived because they were not wearing a seatbelt, and so avoided drowning.
> How should I adjust the principle that 'it always a good principle to wear a
> parachute or seatbelt,' in the face of this credible evidence?
What you say is valid but it may not be applicable in any given
instance. For example, when we eat sometimes we use a fork. Sometimes
a spoon. If we had a principle to always use a fork it wouldn't be
very useful when eating soup! :)
> Just because
> one survives Russian Roulette once, in no reason to invalidate the fact that
> it will likely kill you in the end; that principle stands. Principles
> Perhaps an investigation into the circumstances, along with the forces
> (incentives) involved, would reveal that there was nothing wrong with the
> principle. �Government programs lack the incentives for people to carry them
> out. The real incentive is to entrench oneself in the trough, and expand
> one's empire, not to supply a service.
>
> Finally a quote from Rand on Principles:
> A principle is "a fundamental, primary, or general truth, on which other
> truths depend." Thus a principle is an abstraction which subsumes a great
> number of concretes. It is only by means of principles that one can set one's
> long-range goals and evaluate the concrete alternatives of any given moment.
> It is only principles that enable a man to plan his future and to achieve
> it.
Principles are important to help us function but the trick is how does
one know if their principle is valid? People tell us all sorts of
things about reality. Obviously they are not always correct (and Rand
is no exception. If she understood capitalism perfectly she would have
been much wealthier than she was). I know I've been wrong. (lol. My
stock portfolio during the tech bubble knows)
Just because a person claims their principle as an absolute truism...
doesn't always make it so. The only way to know if something is true
(or not) is via observation (or trusting someone else's observations)
If observations tell someone they are wrong in the alleged
principle... and they stick to them.... then that is an act of
irrationality.
Modern science shows determining reality is a much more laborious task
than just moving our lips and asserting a narrative. It's not always
black and white (since evidence can exist that supports both
arguments). I'm not a omnipresent God that has a foolproof methodology
for always determining the validity of a particular principle, but I
see the communists as a textbook example of self-righteous ignorance
posing as "principle".
For decades they ranted about their principles of equality and
justice.... but meanwhile they would brush over the simple observable
reality their nation's store shelves were mostly bare... surpress
people's voice to object... kill their own countryman... and in some
ways were the most extreme form of inequality imaginable (everyone's
equal... except Stalin) After 80 years of it I think it's enough to
suggest whatever their system of government was supposed to
represent... it sucked ass when it came to deliverables.
I see religious metaphysics as perhaps the supreme example of
principle gone haywire (not to be confused with every action of
someone religious). When it comes to their Gods they ignore their
senses completely and stick to "principle". Some religions have been
waiting thousands of years now. Still no word from above. At what
point do we call such a principle absurdity?
> it includes observation.
>
> The present state of our culture may be gauged by the extent to which
> principles have vanished from public discussion, reducing our cultural
> atmosphere to the sordid, petty senselessness of a bickering family that
> haggles over trivial concretes, while betraying all its major values,
> selling out its future for some spurious advantage of the moment.
Your seem to essentially be describing the difference between an
epicurean and hedonistic outlook. The hedonist looks primarily at the
pleasure of the now. The epicurean is willing to be uncomfortable in
the now to achieve the greater pleasure in the future. The latter
makes more sense as you say.
> To make it more grotesque, that haggling is accompanied by an aura of
> hysterical self-righteousness, in the form of belligerent assertions that
> one must compromise with anybody on anything (except on the tenet that one
> must compromise) and by panicky appeals to "practicality."
Your point is valid. I would throw in there that everyone can be
practical at times. For example, one of your principles is your
disagreement with taxation... yet you still pay taxes. While you may
not like it, you are being practical because you realize you might
face imprisonment or fines if you don't. (not to mention one can
wiggle their way around income tax but sales tax is a much harder
prospect)
For me, I am practical about my principle of non-lethal force. While I
find war in no-uncertain terms the greatest single evil mankind faces.
(in the age of nukes we have become the greatest threat to out own
extinction)... yet when some wars happen I stay silent. (e.g the first
gulf war) I don't feel good about it but the technology for the
situation I prefer isn't there yet. I have to be practical about it
least some tyrant rips our heads off.
Potroast
> On Oct 30, 12:12�pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 30 Oct, 14:13, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
> > > > A lot of individual O-ists ignore the no-initiation-of-force rule
> > > > when it suits them
>
> > > What are you yapping about now?
>
> > Dropping bombs on a country that hasn't attacked you...
>
> You don't have to wait until someone attacks you if they pose an
> imminent threat.
Define "imminent". A week? A year? 50 years?
> Israel did precisely the same thing in their brilliant execution of
the Six Day War.
The war was fought brilliantly but there was no immediate threat.
Israel started that war as a land grab. That said, Greece did the same
thing when it was being formed too. In both instances, both ethnic
groups were reclaiming land that was forcefully taken from them in the
past. There is at least there is some sort of moral rationale to it
but one has to ask who are the first owners of any nation? (and why)
America on the other hand had no pretext whatsoever. Early Europeans
(and later early Americans) took whatever they wanted by force. Native
Indians didn't actually give away two continents. They were wholesale
slaughtered (Indians were the terrorists of their day) On the plus
side, Americans have done a good job being a plural society . Even
native Indians are better off as Americans than they would have been
just as native Indians (plus they are still free to be that too). Win-
win despite the originally ugliness.
Most nations have used force to steal someone else's property at some
point in their history but brush over the unpleasant parts in their
history books. Nation building in the age of nukes is a very
dangerous game to play though.
Tomm Carr
> On Oct 31, 5:09 am, Fred Weiss <fredwe...@papertig.com> wrote:
>> You don't have to wait until someone attacks you if they pose an
>> imminent threat.
>
> Define "imminent". A week? A year? 50 years?
I must admit I have never been entirely comfortable with the
non-initiation of force principle. If we have the right to protect
ourselves from force or threat of force, NIOF only protects us from
force. It is useless in the face of threats.
However, if we claim the ability to use force in defense of the threat
of force or the imminent use of force (I assume that no one will argue
that, in this context, they are the same thing -- if anyone wants, I can
supply a defense later) then we take on the responsibility of making and
defending judgment calls. There is less need of accurate, defensible
judgment if we wait until we are actually under attack, although we are
never quite free of it (did the guy who just cut us off in traffic use
force against us?).
The attraction of NIOF is that we rarely have to face the consequences
of having made an error in judgment. If we decide wrongly in evaluating
a threat, then it will have been we who initiated force. Life is full of
decisions, of course, and each one carries with it the possibility of
error. A decision to initiate the use of force in order to handle a
perceived threat carries with it grave consequences when and if we make
a mistake. But that is only reason to make extra effort in verifying the
accuracy of the judgment, not an excuse to relinquish the decision
altogether. The latter is moral cowardice.
Force, accurately perceived and handled while still just a threat, can
be handled far easier and will end with less harm (on both sides). Like
catching a cancer in the early stages, the cure is generally much easier
and success is more assured. If force is withheld until the first overt
attack, the damage (for both sides) by the time the force is
successfully repulsed will be much greater -- assuming, of course, that
we will ultimately be successful.
In this age where the first strike could well be carried out with
biological or nuclear weapons, failing to anticipate and handle the
situation while it is but just a threat is tantamount to abdicating your
right to self-defense.
>> Israel did precisely the same thing in their brilliant execution of
> the Six Day War.
>
> The war was fought brilliantly but there was no immediate threat.
> Israel started that war as a land grab.
Israel has never exhibited any such tendency, before or since. It's
enemies, otoh, have never passed up an opportunity to rattle their
saber's in Israel's direction.
But suppose Israel did want land...
Let's say you hate your neighbor. You passionately hate your neighbor.
You decide you are going to march right over and kill him. You load your
gun and, just as you turn toward the front door, the neighbor, in a
drunken rage, kicks in the door, waves around a gun and even takes a few
wild shots in your general direction.
Gee, wasn't it nice of your neighbor to make it possible for you to kill
him without fear of being charged with murder?
> America on the other hand had no pretext whatsoever. Early Europeans
> (and later early Americans) took whatever they wanted by force.
Yes, they did. The entire world once operated on nothing more lofty than
overwhelming force. We -- civilization -- have matured since then. We
are better. Would you want your moral character to forever be called
into question because you used to pick on your sister when you were
little children?
> ... Nation building in the age of nukes is a very
> dangerous game to play though.
In the age of nukes, nation building is no longer an option -- it is an
absolute necessity. In fact, the Nazis and Communists have shown us that
the level of technology has long since reached the point that murder can
be performed on a scale utterly unimaginable by the most cruel tyrants
in times past. When a government turns on its own people, like seeing a
man beating his wife and children, we cannot turn away and claim "it's
none of my business."
Evil is more than just doing evil yourself. Evil is also cooperating
with evil or just allowing it to proceed unobstructed.
Tomm Carr
> one know if their principle is valid? People tell us all sorts of
> things about reality. Obviously they are not always correct (and Rand
> is no exception. If she understood capitalism perfectly she would have
> been much wealthier than she was).
What a complete lack of philosophical and psychological, um, principles.
In the first place, even if perfect knowledge of any set of principles
could be obtained, that does not preclude mistakes.
Second of all, and much more importantly, you should know that the
measure of success is much more than the amount of money one manages to
amass. There is surely not a single one of us that could not go out
starting tomorrow and increase the amount of money we made. We don't
because there are a lot more we want from life than just money.
"If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" Most of us are too smart to
want to be rich. Financially rich, that is.
> For me, I am practical about my principle of non-lethal force. While I
> find war in no-uncertain terms the greatest single evil mankind faces.
> (in the age of nukes we have become the greatest threat to out own
> extinction)... yet when some wars happen I stay silent. (e.g the first
> gulf war) I don't feel good about it but the technology for the
> situation I prefer isn't there yet. I have to be practical about it
> least some tyrant rips our heads off.
Just as you cannot determine the "correct" definition of a word without
context (*fast* can mean "move rapidly," "not move at all" or "refrain
from eating." Quick, without knowing the context I'm thinking of, give
me the correct definition) you cannot determine the morality of any act
without knowing the context. Is killing a person moral or immoral? You
can't know without also knowing the context. Is lying moral or immoral?
Again, without context, impossible to know. Is war moral or immoral?
Refraining from engaging in war, when war is morally justified, could be
the single most evil act we could ever commit.
Fred Weiss
> Potroast wrote:
> > Principles are important to help us function but the trick is how does
> > one know if their principle is valid? People tell us all sorts of
> > things about reality. Obviously they are not always correct �(and Rand
> > is no exception. If she understood capitalism perfectly she would have
> > been much wealthier than she was).
>
> What a complete lack of philosophical and psychological, um, principles.
To say the least.
Fred Weiss
x
x
x
x
Potroast
Does one typically go to swim instructors that haven't demonstrated a
proficiency as excellent swimmers? While Rand spoke about capitalism.
she wasn't particularly good at it. While this doesn't prove or
disprove the validity of her claims it certainly is not a point in her
favor.
Potroast
The question remains unanswered. How long a period is "imminent"?
This isn't the 19th century were armada's had to be assembled. With
modern weaponry any nation can launch an attack within hours. At what
point does an attack get labeled "imminent" then? And what criteria
does one exactly use to determine one isn't actually doing the sucker
punching?
> > America on the other hand had no pretext whatsoever. Early Europeans
> > (and later early Americans) took whatever they wanted by force.
>
> Yes, they did. The entire world once operated on nothing more lofty than
> overwhelming force. We -- civilization -- have matured since then. We
> are better. Would you want your moral character to forever be called
> into question because you used to pick on your sister when you were
> little children?
I explicitly said most nations were formed this way did this so I'm in
no way picking on America (just using a national history more people
are familiar with).
And when I say "nation building" (in this instance) I'm implying
creating or expanding national boundaries specially via force.
The former Yugoslavian states are another great example of how
dangerous it is to try to create or expand new nations by force (IMO
more major ethnic wars are currently in a fermenting stage in the
Balkans due to many unresolved issues) In most cases a nation is more
than just borders. There is typically a dominant ethnic group within
it. Disturbing that ethnic group's sense of itself is tantamount to
genocide from its own perspective. In the modern world.... ethnic
wars can go on indefinitely because diasporas in other nations can
keep fighting them even if they lose territory. The real problem is
nukes though. For as long as any nation has them, other nations will
see it as moral justification to acquire them too. They will argue
abandoning them is tantamount to abdicating their right to self-
defense.
Arnold Broese
> Does one typically go to swim instructors that haven't demonstrated a
> proficiency as excellent swimmers? While Rand spoke about capitalism.
> she wasn't particularly good at it. While this doesn't prove or
> disprove the validity of her claims it certainly is not a point in her
> favor.
Your thought processes are totally pragmatic, even trying to grasp the real
meaning of what a principle is. You measure a persons expertise in
understanding (Capitalism) by how many dollars they accumulate. That is NOT
the meaning of Capitalism. Rand wrote plenty about the meaning of
Capitalism; that is was a MORAL social system that was in accord with the
nature of man. The nature of man is to survive by being free to use his
mind. Only a system that allowed this freedom could thus be moral. It was a
system that allowed values to be acquired.
Your inferences that values are only measured by cash in hand, shows
complete failure of understanding this. I think I know why that is, and it
is due to your epistemology; a failure to grasp the meaning and method of
thinking in principles. By definition, principles cannot be compromised. If
an error occurs using a specific principle, then one needs to correct the
principle, not abandon principles. Principles set your reference standards,
and should be anchored in reality.
The futility of these discussions is that they revolve around facts, when
the real differences lie in the *processing* of those facts.
--
Arnold
Tomm Carr
>
> The question remains unanswered. How long a period is "imminent"?
The answer remains: it's a judgment call. A good working definition will
be something like "as soon as the threat has been recognized with an
acceptable degree of probability as being real."
Delaying reaction much beyond that point would be reckless.
Anticipating the you will respond with a demand to define "acceptable
degree of probability," my answer is to let the UN figure that out. It's
about time it started earning its keep. But I have a feeling the
international community already has a working definition.
> I explicitly said most nations were formed this way did this so I'm in
> no way picking on America (just using a national history more people
> are familiar with).
>
> And when I say "nation building" (in this instance) I'm implying
> creating or expanding national boundaries specially via force.
Then I would ask what are you talking about? The only nation building I
know of is the one being done, if half-heartedly, by the US and there is
no changing of national boundaries involved. The only force involved has
been forcing the government to recognize the freedoms of its own people.
If you have a non-forceful method of getting tyrannies to stop acting
tyrannical, then, by all means, let us know.
As for ethnic friction, it is the Left that divides the human population
into ethnic segments. Take the Palestinians, for example. There is not
or ever has been any such ethnic or racial group that we now call
"Palestinians." In fact, prior the the establishment of Israel, the Jews
living in the Middle East were the group designated by the label
"Palestinians."
Of all the things that are legitimate sources of pride and self-respect,
race and ethnicity are 'way down at the bottom of the list. Yet it is
the Left, the "progressives," that demand that race/ethnicity are uber
alles and demand that everyone born into a racially or ethnically
distinct group must remain there and continue to act, speak and think
according to the norms of that group.
If by "nation building," you mean the move to carve out political states
to be populated only or mainly by members of some racial or ethnic
group, then I would agree that it is a Bad Idea.
America, to its credit, listened to all the tribal leaders in Iraq
telling them that each tribe was different from and hated all the other
tribes and so had to have separate jurisdictions, if not countries, in
order to relieve strife. We told them, in effect, "Rubbish! Get over
yourselves and work for the common benefit of all." The tribes got
together, parleyed amongst themselves for a while and then came back and
said, "Sure. Okay."
All problems have solutions. Generally, the best solution for stupid
problems is to point out that "That's stupid!" This solution is rejected
out of hand by the Left because it is "insensitive." How insensitive is
it to keep letting people kill themselves?
Potroast
wrote:
> "Potroast" <ilou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f00516b1-adfa-4b0a...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Does one typically go to swim instructors that haven't demonstrated a
> > proficiency as excellent swimmers? While Rand spoke about capitalism.
> > she wasn't particularly good at it. While this doesn't prove or
> > disprove the validity of her claims it certainly is not a point in her
> > favor.
>
> Your thought processes are totally pragmatic, even trying to grasp the real
> meaning of what a principle is. You measure a persons expertise in
> understanding (Capitalism) by how many dollars they accumulate. That is NOT
> the meaning of Capitalism. Rand wrote plenty about the meaning of
> Capitalism; that is was a MORAL social system that was in accord with the
> nature of man.
And I would wholeheartedly agree that capitalism ALSO a system of
moral interaction (as was communism, as is liberalism, as is fascism,
as "isms" relating to philosophy tend to be). But as with most words,
there are different definitions and contexts. One dictionary defines
capitalism as...
"An economic system in which the means of production and distribution
are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to
the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."
http://www.answers.com/capitalism
Rands philosophy isn't called "capitalism". Her philosophy is called
'objectivism". The two words are not synonyms. They are not
interchangeable concepts. Even her views on capitalism are NOT the
exact same as the system of capitalism to be found in western
countries, Since you speak about epistemology, you must "know" that
while Rand spoke of capitalism... on a very practical level most of
the philosophical underpinnings of modern capitalism weren't Rands.
Adam Smith's Theory of Moral Sentiments was/is far more influential to
modern capitalism in practice than Rand. She arrived well into
capitalist era before she wrote about her own views on the matter. Her
theories on government may be correct but again that's tbd (as its not
the currently reigning brand of capitalism)
> The nature of man is to survive by being free to use his
> mind. Only a system that allowed this freedom could thus be moral. It was a
> system that allowed values to be acquired.
>
> Your inferences that values are only measured by cash in hand, shows
> complete failure of understanding this.
I do not typically measure a man by how many dollars they accumulate
(although I can do so in some situations). I usually break down people
into constitute parts of expertise rather than assess them as some
lump being of absolute righteousness or evil. (the exceptions being
things like giant achievers and mass murderers) Thus a man who has
studied physics I listen to more intently when physics comes up for
discussion. And if I wish advice about healthI listen more carefully
to the words of my doctor. And when my car breaks down I listen to my
mechanic.
And if someone claims to know something or two about capitalism and
profits.... should I go to the nearest homeless shelter for advice?
> By definition, principles cannot be compromised. If
> an error occurs using a specific principle, then one needs to correct the
> principle, not abandon principles. Principles set your reference standards,
> and should be anchored in reality.
I agree on both points completely Arnold. A man cannot function well
without principles. Such a man would likely see reality as a wall of
sensory data and would live largely by instinct.
Arnold Broese
>>
> Rands philosophy isn't called "capitalism". Her philosophy is called
> 'objectivism". The two words are not synonyms. They are not
> interchangeable concepts. Even her views on capitalism are NOT the
> exact same as the system of capitalism to be found in western
> countries,
Objectivism, as a philosophy, has four main branches: 1) Metaphysics (the
concept of reality) and 2) Epistemology (How you manage to understand it),
are the foundations upon which 3) ethics is based. Politics, 4) is ethics in
a social setting. Politics is only a BRANCH of her philosophy. Rand was not
trying to describe the technical workings of Capitalism, but explaining it's
ethical basis.
Her views were the first to place a moral foundation under Capitalism, and
show that those aspects that did not conform to this morality, belonged to a
mixed economy, not unfettered Capitalism. She was a supporter of unregulated
(not to be confused with lawlessness) Capitalism.
She was trying to point out that the word 'Capitalism' could not stand for
any arbitrary system of government involvement that allowed some aspects of
free enterprise to exist. The degree of government control (not to be
confused with objective laws supporting individual rights), runs from zero
(Capitalism) to full dictatorial control (Fascism). Anything in between, is
a mixed economy, and THAT is why her definition is different from the
imprecise grey mixture generally accepted. Please try to memorize this.
--
Arnold
Potroast
wrote:
> She was a supporter of unregulated (not to be confused with lawlessness) Capitalism.
What do you see as the difference between a "law" and a "regulation"?
> She was trying to point out that the word 'Capitalism' could not stand for
> any arbitrary system of government involvement that allowed some aspects of
> free enterprise to exist. The degree of government control (not to be
> confused with objective laws supporting individual rights), runs from zero
> (Capitalism) to full dictatorial control (Fascism). Anything in between, is
> a mixed economy, and THAT is why her definition is different from the
> imprecise grey mixture generally accepted. Please try to memorize this.
I already understood this definition. I think Rand would replace the
word "fascism" with "communism" since the means of production are
completely controlled by the state in communism not fascism. Fascism
is its own mix that involves elements from both right and left
ideology with a heavy dose of racial-centrism. (which really is its
most defining feature)
What I don't get is how can one fund even bare minimum things like
courts, military, prisons, police, and minimal government.... without
taxation. (since by her definition taxation is "theft" right?). The
other part I don't get is why so many Oists are certain their system
would work in an economically efficient manner. For instance, given
the track record of human history.... social unrest due to economic
disparity would seem to naturally erupt causing economic disruptions.
For ANY system to work... it has to account for the fact many citizens
will not subscribe to it.
Les Cargill
> On Nov 1, 2:28 am, Tomm Carr <TommC...@Gmail.com> wrote:
>> Potroast wrote:
>
> The former Yugoslavian states are another great example of how
> dangerous it is to try to create or expand new nations by force (IMO
> more major ethnic wars are currently in a fermenting stage in the
> Balkans due to many unresolved issues) In most cases a nation is more
> than just borders. There is typically a dominant ethnic group within
> it. Disturbing that ethnic group's sense of itself is tantamount to
> genocide from its own perspective. In the modern world.... ethnic
> wars can go on indefinitely because diasporas in other nations can
> keep fighting them even if they lose territory. The real problem is
> nukes though. For as long as any nation has them, other nations will
> see it as moral justification to acquire them too. They will argue
> abandoning them is tantamount to abdicating their right to self-
> defense.
But what really put the kleptocrats in power in former Yugoslavia is
that the economy crashed to the point where only kleptocrats could
*gain* power. The ethnic nonsense was just how they divided up sides,
because everybody knows how to use that for divide and conquer
purposes.
Once an economy is so ruined that the rule of law no longer
applies, this is what you'll have.
--
Les Cargill
Arnold Broese
> I already understood this definition. I think Rand would replace the
> word "fascism" with "communism" since the means of production are
> completely controlled by the state in communism not fascism. Fascism
> is its own mix that involves elements from both right and left
> ideology with a heavy dose of racial-centrism. (which really is its
> most defining feature)
The issue isn't how they exercise that control; the issue is between no
control and full control. Both Communism and Fascism potentially have total
control over the means of production. The difference between Left and Right
here is technique of control, not the issue of control itself.
> What I don't get is how can one fund even bare minimum things like
> courts, military, prisons, police, and minimal government.... without
> taxation. (since by her definition taxation is "theft" right?).
By the time the government had shrunk to the level of just maintaining law
and order, this would be a non issue. One would still be accepting that one
was reducing taxes 'to the extent possible', and be looking for ways to
carry this out. The point to bear in mind is that these services are not a
redistribution of wealth, but a framework for creating and keeping it.
The
> other part I don't get is why so many Oists are certain their system
> would work in an economically efficient manner. For instance, given
> the track record of human history.... social unrest due to economic
> disparity would seem to naturally erupt causing economic disruptions.
> For ANY system to work... it has to account for the fact many citizens
> will not subscribe to it.
Social unrest comes from pitting one section of society against the other -
at the public tax trough. When people realize that no one has the power to
exploit them, and that justice prevails, they will be too busy with their
own concerns to get involved with efforts to exploit others.
--
Arnold
Arnold Broese
>
> What do you see as the difference between a "law" and a "regulation"?
By "law" I mean objective laws based on the concept of individual rights.
Thus if a bank cheated a customer, the law would be on the side of the
customer. I know that "regulation" is a very broad term, so that is why I
clarified my meaning. I am distinguishing between regulations that protect
individuals and regulations that exploit them. For example the White House
stepping on the rights of GM bond holders in favour of the unions is a
regulation that violates objective law supporting contracts. Since you don't
think in principles, I suspect you will dismiss this on the grounds of
impracticality.
My principles do not condone theft. I realize this comes across as
simplistic, inflexible and narrow minded, but I would rather be inflexibly
honorable than adaptively dishonest.
--
Arnold