that being said, i somewhat agree with eljeffe (i think?) on the taxation system. a high flat tax (45+%) with a large exemption ($40,000) i think would be able to ensure that:
1) the poor would not have to pay more taxes;
2) rich people would not be able to use loopholes to minimize their tax burden; and
3) we could save money on administrative expenses.
I'll go you one further and say that if you apply the same concept (flat rate, high floor) to a consumption tax instead of a production tax, you'd have the perfect tax system.
But that "something" can never amount to anything other than the sort of financial balancing in punishment that you're arguing against. You can never give them back what justice took, only try to make up for it in a way that "makes up for it" about as as well as putting someone in jail "makes up for" their crime.
Also Nostregar I think what you're getting at is the difference between morality and ethics. Ethical behavior is doing what best suits the needs and rules of the community you are in, while moral behavior is a more direct and personal notion of objective right and wrong.
But that "something" can never amount to anything other than the sort of financial balancing in punishment that you're arguing against. You can never give them back what justice took, only try to make up for it in a way that "makes up for it" about as as well as putting someone in jail "makes up for" their crime.
Draw me a conclusion, Yar.
Are you arguing that nothing is better than something? That's what I'm reading.
if youre wondering whether im a libertarian or not, im not. i think they are stupid.
Are you an anarchist?
Your views on government seem interesting.
No he's worse than all of those, he's a lawyer.
hahahah! you bastard.
no, im not an anarchist. im not sure how to describe myself actually. extremely socially liberal (except with respect to crime). extremely fiscally conservative, except with respect to taxes.
i hate the wars, i hate intolerance, i hate bush. i support abortion. evolution is fact. i mildly dislike expanding the welfare system, i absolutely despise american's irresponsible spending habits. i mostly support israel but i often sympathize with the palestinians. i support the death penalty obviously.
i think i support the idea of responsibility, fiscal, social and criminal.
one of these things is not like the other :whistle:
unlike some atheists, i dont attempt to disregard emotion entirely. i think it is both a useful tool and a meaningful part of what makes us human. i embrace it. i dont embrace it as much as i do logic and reason, but that doesnt mean i disregard it or that it is bad.
if youre wondering whether im a libertarian or not, im not. i think they are stupid.
Are you an anarchist?
Your views on government seem interesting.
No he's worse than all of those, he's a lawyer.
hahahah! you bastard.
no, im not an anarchist. im not sure how to describe myself actually. extremely socially liberal (except with respect to crime). extremely fiscally conservative, except with respect to taxes.
i hate the wars, i hate intolerance, i hate bush. i support abortion. evolution is fact. i mildly dislike expanding the welfare system, i absolutely despise american's irresponsible spending habits. i mostly support israel but i often sympathize with the palestinians. i support the death penalty obviously.
i think i support the idea of responsibility, fiscal, social and criminal.
And you believe that responsibility involves taking action in to your own hands and gettign revenge for being wronged?
one of these things is not like the other :whistle:
unlike some atheists, i dont attempt to disregard emotion entirely. i think it is both a useful tool and a meaningful part of what makes us human. i embrace it. i dont embrace it as much as i do logic and reason, but that doesnt mean i disregard it or that it is bad.
emotion is a good thing.
I'm not an atheist, I'm an economist.
Emotion is great for the human experience, but it DOES NOT lead to practical, rational, objective decision making.
that being said, i somewhat agree with eljeffe (i think?) on the taxation system. a high flat tax (45+%) with a large exemption ($40,000) i think would be able to ensure that:
1) the poor would not have to pay more taxes;
2) rich people would not be able to use loopholes to minimize their tax burden; and
3) we could save money on administrative expenses.
I'll go you one further and say that if you apply the same concept (flat rate, high floor) to a consumption tax instead of a production tax, you'd have the perfect tax system.
i dont mean to derail, but would you mind just explaining how that could work for consumption taxes? one quick post, then we'll put it to rest, i promise. im just intensely interested.
Are you arguing that nothing is better than something? That's what I'm reading.
The conclusion is the same as Keth's - the arguments about the unique special nature of capital punishment among other punishments are arguments which, upon closer inspection, are much weaker than they are presented to be. Capital punishment is government murder? Well incarceration is government abduction. You can't take back an execution? Well you can't take back an incarceration either. There are degrees here, yes, and I won't deny that killing someone does occupy somewhat of a special place on that spectrum other than just being at on end of it. But punishing an innocent is bad and irrevocable no matter what the punishment, and part of our government's job is to dole that punishment out as best it can. So while I don't relish the death penalty, I'm not going to be signing any petitions to stop it, either.
If I were to "draw" you a conclusion, it would probably start off looking all cool with pencil-shading and ninjas and a sweet sunset on the horizon, but then degrade into errant doodles of wangs and flowers and stuff.
If I were to "draw" you a conclusion, it would probably start off looking all cool with pencil-shading and ninjas and a sweet sunset on the horizon, but then degrade into errant doodles of wangs and flowers and stuff.
And you believe that responsibility involves taking action in to your own hands and gettign revenge for being wronged?
no. personal revenge leads to more problems than solutions.
but like i said in one of the first few posts, i respect the desire for revenge. i find it to be noble, a desire to balance the scales, to seek fairness.
i think we have to put it aside nevertheless. the realities of our life have shown us that no matter how noble the desire for revenge, the results turn out ugly. so we (including me) trust in our flawed system and put aside our desire, all for the greater good of society.
but that doesnt mean that the desire is "petty," "ignoble" or bad. good intentions often lead to bad results, but that doesnt mean the intentions now constitute "badness" also. i dont confuse means and ends. the ends sought (fairness) were noble but the means that would have been used (personal revenge) too often lead to disaster.
that's why i infinitely prefer a friend who would "back me up" over one who would "turn the other cheek". that doesnt mean we should actually go out and kill someone though.
one of these things is not like the other :whistle:
unlike some atheists, i dont attempt to disregard emotion entirely. i think it is both a useful tool and a meaningful part of what makes us human. i embrace it. i dont embrace it as much as i do logic and reason, but that doesnt mean i disregard it or that it is bad.
emotion is a good thing.
I'm not an atheist, I'm an economist.
Emotion is great for the human experience, but it DOES NOT lead to practical, rational, objective decision making.
with respect to the atheism comment, i meant myself.
i would argue that practical, rational, objective decision making is not always best.
i dont mean to derail, but would you mind just explaining how that could work for consumption taxes? one quick post, then we'll put it to rest, i promise. im just intensely interested.
The bill has been on the floor for years, in the Senate I think.
1.) No more IRS. No estate, corporate, capital gains, income tax.
2.) A federal sales tax of somewhere around 30%, collected and managed pretty much the same way state and local sales tax is currently handled.
3.) A monthly credit everyone gets on a debit card that is equal to the average expenditures in your county/state for someone who makes $X (poverty level or whatever). If you don't even make enough to spend that much, then this is a net plus.
It's a revenue neutral plan, so the government is taking the same amount out of the ecomony.
People argue that taxing consumption would kill the economy, but you have to realize that the extra income everyone would have, plus the reduced cost of doing business, would actually make consumption equally, or likely more, affordable than before (the "more" comes in when businesses move jobs back into the US, adding more jobs, and corporations significantly reduce their overhead in trying to understand, predict, and manage their tax liabilities, reducing the cost to produce). Also consumption is historically much more stable than income, so revenue would fluctuate less.
People also contend that it is highly regressive, because the wealthier you are the less you spend on consumption. This gets into a deeper discussion on the value of that money to the economy as investment capital creating jobs and such, but regardless, some plans include a small but highly progressive income or capital gains tax to keep the wealth envy in check.
i dont confuse means and ends. the ends sought (fairness) were noble but the means that would have been used (personal revenge) too often lead to disaster.
Right, meaning that fairness was never really an end, only a means, and that well-being or the aversion of disaster was the actual end.
but like i said in one of the first few posts, i respect the desire for revenge. i find it to be noble, a desire to balance the scales, to seek fairness.
How do you feel about the phrase "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."?
one of these things is not like the other :whistle:
unlike some atheists, i dont attempt to disregard emotion entirely. i think it is both a useful tool and a meaningful part of what makes us human. i embrace it. i dont embrace it as much as i do logic and reason, but that doesnt mean i disregard it or that it is bad.
emotion is a good thing.
I'm not an atheist, I'm an economist.
Emotion is great for the human experience, but it DOES NOT lead to practical, rational, objective decision making.
with respect to the atheism comment, i meant myself.
i would argue that practical, rational, objective decision making is not always best.
Can you think of one instance (besides executions) where the U.S. Government, who carries out the executions, has not acted in an rational and objective manner, and it has worked out for the best?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
i dont mean to derail, but would you mind just explaining how that could work for consumption taxes? one quick post, then we'll put it to rest, i promise. im just intensely interested.
The bill has been on the floor for years, in the Senate I think.
1.) No more IRS. No estate, corporate, capital gains, income tax.
2.) A federal sales tax of somewhere around 30%, collected and managed pretty much the same way state and local sales tax is currently handled.
3.) A monthly credit everyone gets on a debit card that is equal to the average expenditures in your county/state for someone who makes $X (poverty level or whatever). If you don't even make enough to spend that much, then this is a net plus.
It's a revenue neutral plan, so the government is taking the same amount out of the ecomony.
People argue that taxing consumption would kill the economy, but you have to realize that the extra income everyone would have, plus the reduced cost of doing business, would actually make consumption equally, or likely more, affordable than before (the "more" comes in when businesses move jobs back into the US, adding more jobs, and corporations significantly reduce their overhead in trying to understand, predict, and manage their tax liabilities, reducing the cost to produce). Also consumption is historically much more stable than income, so revenue would fluctuate less.
People also contend that it is highly regressive, because the wealthier you are the less you spend on consumption. This gets into a deeper discussion on the value of that money to the economy as investment capital creating jobs and such, but regardless, some plans include a small but highly progressive income or capital gains tax to keep the wealth envy in check.
you seriously underestimate the disincentive properties this tax would have on consumption. Just having more money in your pocket doesn't mean you will automatically spend it.
If I were to "draw" you a conclusion, it would probably start off looking all cool with pencil-shading and ninjas and a sweet sunset on the horizon, but then degrade into errant doodles of wangs and flowers and stuff.
You've got nothing but semantics today?
Fair enough.
sometimes i find you to be trollish. i obviously respect you as a poster, but i respect yar as well and i think when you make comments like the one above, it diminishes you and your position.
yar was very clear in his response. he stated quite clearly that death has a special end point on the spectrum, but it is still a matter of degrees. if you have no real response to that, i would suggest simply letting the point go.
When did people start masturbating to Vulcans? It seems like the main argument in this thread is turning into those who allow themselves to feel emotions and those who don't, and I really don't understand how that came about. Having emotional reactions without logic isn't good, but neither are purely logical reactions without emotion.
People are also using 'revenge' in place of every other word, including punishment, justice, etc., and it really makes me disrespect your position, because it shows an inability to understand nuance, or how motivation can affect an outcome, even if results remain the same - which is odd, because that's a large component of this entire debate.
you seriously underestimate the disincentive properties this tax would have on consumption. Just having more money in your pocket doesn't mean you will automatically spend it.
Except that's the general idea behind the last several tax rebates and that's exactly what happened. Furthermore, the cost of doing business goes down sharply, which competitively drives down prices to the point of greatly diminishing the actual effect of the tax. Remember, you're slapping a tax on at the register but removing one a little further up the production line.
People are also using 'revenge' in place of every other word, including punishment, justice, etc., and it really makes me disrespect your position, because it shows an inability to understand nuance, or how motivation can affect an outcome, even if results remain the same - which is odd, because that's a large component of this entire debate.
Does the death penalty serve another purpose besides revenge?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
i dont mean to derail, but would you mind just explaining how that could work for consumption taxes? one quick post, then we'll put it to rest, i promise. im just intensely interested.
The bill has been on the floor for years, in the Senate I think.
1.) No more IRS. No estate, corporate, capital gains, income tax.
2.) A federal sales tax of somewhere around 30%, collected and managed pretty much the same way state and local sales tax is currently handled.
3.) A monthly credit everyone gets on a debit card that is equal to the average expenditures in your county/state for someone who makes $X (poverty level or whatever). If you don't even make enough to spend that much, then this is a net plus.
It's a revenue neutral plan, so the government is taking the same amount out of the ecomony.
People argue that taxing consumption would kill the economy, but you have to realize that the extra income everyone would have, plus the reduced cost of doing business, would actually make consumption equally, or likely more, affordable than before (the "more" comes in when businesses move jobs back into the US, adding more jobs, and corporations significantly reduce their overhead in trying to understand, predict, and manage their tax liabilities, reducing the cost to produce). Also consumption is historically much more stable than income, so revenue would fluctuate less.
People also contend that it is highly regressive, because the wealthier you are the less you spend on consumption. This gets into a deeper discussion on the value of that money to the economy as investment capital creating jobs and such, but regardless, some plans include a small but highly progressive income or capital gains tax to keep the wealth envy in check.
this is very interesting to me. i have to think about it a bit and if anyone else is interested, maybe we could start a thread on it.
i dont confuse means and ends. the ends sought (fairness) were noble but the means that would have been used (personal revenge) too often lead to disaster.
Right, meaning that fairness was never really an end, only a means, and that well-being or the aversion of disaster was the actual end.
i dont see the world in black and white yar.
sometimes the ends do justify the means, sometimes they dont.
in this specific scenario, i would argue that revenge killing is not justified even if it would be fair because there are other means which are less destructive to society which can also achieve acceptable levels of fairness.
fairness is still the goal but averting disaster is a primary consideration.
if well-being or the aversion of disaster was the actual end, we could just pay off a criminal so he wouldnt engage in another crime. i would be vehemently against this.
if well-being or the aversion of disaster was the actual end, we could just pay off a criminal so he wouldnt engage in another crime. i would be vehemently against this.
Because you know it would likely lead to total breakdown in society. Commit a crime and the government will pay you? How can you possibly think that is the simplest way to end crime? That incentivizes crime!
And the rest of your post was still saying exactly what I am saying. Fairness was never the goal, it's only a good, but imperfect, means.
If I were to "draw" you a conclusion, it would probably start off looking all cool with pencil-shading and ninjas and a sweet sunset on the horizon, but then degrade into errant doodles of wangs and flowers and stuff.
You've got nothing but semantics today?
Fair enough.
sometimes i find you to be trollish. i obviously respect you as a poster, but i respect yar as well and i think when you make comments like the one above, it diminishes you and your position.
yar was very clear in his response. he stated quite clearly that death has a special end point on the spectrum, but it is still a matter of degrees. if you have no real response to that, i would suggest simply letting the point go.
just my three cents.
Yar and I have a history.
Did you miss the post where he called me more confusing than Memento?
People are also using 'revenge' in place of every other word, including punishment, justice, etc., and it really makes me disrespect your position, because it shows an inability to understand nuance, or how motivation can affect an outcome, even if results remain the same - which is odd, because that's a large component of this entire debate.
Does the death penalty serve another purpose besides revenge?
That's kind of the purpose of the whole thread, isn't it? Just replace death penalty with 'punishment'. I think it definitely can, though I don't think it usually does.
you seriously underestimate the disincentive properties this tax would have on consumption. Just having more money in your pocket doesn't mean you will automatically spend it.
Except that's the general idea behind the last several tax rebates and that's exactly what happened. Furthermore, the cost of doing business goes down sharply, which competitively drives down prices to the point of greatly diminishing the actual effect of the tax. Remember, you're slapping a tax on at the register but removing one a little further up the production line.
IS that exactly what happened?
I seem to remember criticism that too many people were using their tax rebates to pay off their debts, rather than create new spending.
When did people start masturbating to Vulcans? It seems like the main argument in this thread is turning into those who allow themselves to feel emotions and those who don't, and I really don't understand how that came about. Having emotional reactions without logic isn't good, but neither are purely logical reactions without emotion.
Legislation should be void of emotion. People should not.
Legislation should be in place to prevent people's emotions from leading them to go to far, so that people can be free to be as emotional as they like.
People are also using 'revenge' in place of every other word, including punishment, justice, etc., and it really makes me disrespect your position, because it shows an inability to understand nuance, or how motivation can affect an outcome, even if results remain the same - which is odd, because that's a large component of this entire debate.
I'm not using revenge to mean anything other than revenge.
The concept of "punishment" is too broad to talk about it as a single thing. Punishment can reffer to anything as simple as "consequences", or anything as specific as CP and torture.
Do I believe that criminals should have consequences? Of course i do. I don't believe that death or waterboarding are appropriate consequences, though.
When did people start masturbating to Vulcans? It seems like the main argument in this thread is turning into those who allow themselves to feel emotions and those who don't, and I really don't understand how that came about. Having emotional reactions without logic isn't good, but neither are purely logical reactions without emotion.
Legislation should be void of emotion. People should not.
Legislation should be in place to prevent people's emotions from leading them to go to far, so that people can be free to be as emotional as they like.
I think we have very different definitions of 'emotion', because I really can't fathom your position. I would argue that things like the bill of rights are borne out of emotion. Bankruptcy laws, endangered species protection, etc. I would argue that the desire to help your fellow man is born out of emotion, and not pure logic.
Do I believe that criminals should have consequences? Of course i do. I don't believe that death or waterboarding are appropriate consequences, though.
but like i said in one of the first few posts, i respect the desire for revenge. i find it to be noble, a desire to balance the scales, to seek fairness.
How do you feel about the phrase "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."?
the government's taking of the criminal's eye is not the moral equivalent of a criminal taking an innocent's eye.
it surprises me that people still use that saying in light of how meaningless it is.
if well-being or the aversion of disaster was the actual end, we could just pay off a criminal so he wouldnt engage in another crime. i would be vehemently against this.
Because you know it would likely lead to total breakdown in society. Commit a crime and the government will pay you? How can you possibly think that is the simplest way to end crime? That incentivizes crime!
youre assuming that the public receives perfect information regarding how crimes are dealt with. furthermore, you also assume that people would prefer to conduct crimes than engage in honest work. you assume that the amount the government would pay you would be more than what you could make working. you assume that the social stigma of being a criminal would not prevent people from crime. for many people, taking a government handout is embarrassing enough to not want to go through with it.
i was obviously providing the example as an extreme. but if you're really that worried about incentives, just make it a discretionary measure. just like people argue that the death penalty does not deter (which it obviously would, if used more often), a discretionary payout would not incent, if used sparingly.
even if this method were used for only one criminal a year, in the entire u.s., i would still disagree with it.
And the rest of your post was still saying exactly what I am saying. Fairness was never the goal, it's only a good, but imperfect, means.
then i think you missed my point.
im saying fairness is the goal. but there are many paths toward that goal. some paths are less destructive than others yet still provide us with the fair result we seek.
When did people start masturbating to Vulcans? It seems like the main argument in this thread is turning into those who allow themselves to feel emotions and those who don't, and I really don't understand how that came about. Having emotional reactions without logic isn't good, but neither are purely logical reactions without emotion.
Legislation should be void of emotion. People should not.
Legislation should be in place to prevent people's emotions from leading them to go to far, so that people can be free to be as emotional as they like.
I think we have very different definitions of 'emotion', because I really can't fathom your position. I would argue that things like the bill of rights are borne out of emotion. Bankruptcy laws, endangered species protection, etc. I would argue that the desire to help your fellow man is born out of emotion, and not pure logic.
but like i said in one of the first few posts, i respect the desire for revenge. i find it to be noble, a desire to balance the scales, to seek fairness.
How do you feel about the phrase "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."?
the government's taking of the criminal's eye is not the moral equivalent of a criminal taking an innocent's eye.
it surprises me that people still use that saying in light of how meaningless it is.
look at what I was specifically responding to.
You were talking about private individuals wanting revenge there, not the government.
but like i said in one of the first few posts, i respect the desire for revenge. i find it to be noble, a desire to balance the scales, to seek fairness.
How do you feel about the phrase "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."?
the government's taking of the criminal's eye is not the moral equivalent of a criminal taking an innocent's eye.
it surprises me that people still use that saying in light of how meaningless it is.
look at what I was specifically responding to.
You were talking about private individuals wanting revenge there, not the government.
but ive stated multiple times that i am against the act of personal revenge. it is possible to separate action and desire. i respect the desire for revenge but i dont condone the act itself. i respect someone who desires revenge more than the person who simply desires to turn the other cheek.
also you can substitute the victim or his family or whatever for "government" in that sentence. i dont think reaction is the moral equivalent of action. lethal self defense is not the moral equivalent of murder.
Can you think of one instance (besides executions) where the U.S. Government, who carries out the executions, has not acted in an rational and objective manner, and it has worked out for the best?
One, though it may depend on your definition of best.
Did you miss the post where he called me more confusing than Memento?
Don't make me start a thread about moral culpability so you can tell everyone not to post in it and then threaten to ban me like you did six years ago!!!!!!!!
I seem to remember criticism that too many people were using their tax rebates to pay off their debts, rather than create new spending.
Yeah, that's what happened this last time around, but that was a very unique economic situation. And paying off debt isn't necessarily a bad thing. Your overall point was not correct - if people suddenly make more money, in a normal economy they will tend to spend it. Even in a down economy they will tend to spend it, but more may use it instead to try to drag themselves out of the debt hole they're in.
I seem to remember criticism that too many people were using their tax rebates to pay off their debts, rather than create new spending.
Yeah, that's what happened this last time around, but that was a very unique economic situation. And paying off debt isn't necessarily a bad thing. Your overall point was not correct - if people suddenly make more money, in a normal economy they will tend to spend it. Even in a down economy they will tend to spend it, but more may use it instead to try to drag themselves out of the debt hole they're in.
but you are also disincentivising spending at the same time. You're conveniently ignoring that fact.
but like i said in one of the first few posts, i respect the desire for revenge. i find it to be noble, a desire to balance the scales, to seek fairness.
How do you feel about the phrase "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."?
the government's taking of the criminal's eye is not the moral equivalent of a criminal taking an innocent's eye.
it surprises me that people still use that saying in light of how meaningless it is.
look at what I was specifically responding to.
You were talking about private individuals wanting revenge there, not the government.
but ive stated multiple times that i am against the act of personal revenge. it is possible to separate action and desire. i respect the desire for revenge but i dont condone the act itself. i respect someone who desires revenge more than the person who simply desires to turn the other cheek.
also you can substitute the victim or his family or whatever for "government" in that sentence. i dont think reaction is the moral equivalent of action. lethal self defense is not the moral equivalent of murder.
i dont think i can be any more clear than this.
I think you were pretty clear a couple of pages ago:
i respect a man who hurts those who have hurt him far more than one who does nothing. i would want such a man as my friend. turn the other cheek is dandy to talk about, but i dont think anyone actually really thinks we should subscribe to it.
i respect a man who hurts those who have hurt him far more than one who does nothing. i would want such a man as my friend. turn the other cheek is dandy to talk about, but i dont think anyone actually really thinks we should subscribe to it.
after someone has fired a explosive device into at a civilian crowd in israel, i wonder what choice you would make. do you think the israeli government is petty and childish? i do not bring this up to inflame you and i hope you do not take offense. i simply wonder how consistently you apply your ideology.
Just to check: you believe in this philosophy as an attorney?
So if, say, one of the people who signed a contract with one of your clients felt like they got screwed by it, you'd respect them for raping your family?
Posts
But that "something" can never amount to anything other than the sort of financial balancing in punishment that you're arguing against. You can never give them back what justice took, only try to make up for it in a way that "makes up for it" about as as well as putting someone in jail "makes up for" their crime.
Also Nostregar I think what you're getting at is the difference between morality and ethics. Ethical behavior is doing what best suits the needs and rules of the community you are in, while moral behavior is a more direct and personal notion of objective right and wrong.
Draw me a conclusion, Yar.
Are you arguing that nothing is better than something? That's what I'm reading.
hahahah! you bastard.
no, im not an anarchist. im not sure how to describe myself actually. extremely socially liberal (except with respect to crime). extremely fiscally conservative, except with respect to taxes.
i hate the wars, i hate intolerance, i hate bush. i support abortion. evolution is fact. i mildly dislike expanding the welfare system, i absolutely despise american's irresponsible spending habits. i mostly support israel but i often sympathize with the palestinians. i support the death penalty obviously.
i think i support the idea of responsibility, fiscal, social and criminal.
unlike some atheists, i dont attempt to disregard emotion entirely. i think it is both a useful tool and a meaningful part of what makes us human. i embrace it. i dont embrace it as much as i do logic and reason, but that doesnt mean i disregard it or that it is bad.
emotion is a good thing.
And you believe that responsibility involves taking action in to your own hands and gettign revenge for being wronged?
I'm not an atheist, I'm an economist.
Emotion is great for the human experience, but it DOES NOT lead to practical, rational, objective decision making.
i dont mean to derail, but would you mind just explaining how that could work for consumption taxes? one quick post, then we'll put it to rest, i promise. im just intensely interested.
If I were to "draw" you a conclusion, it would probably start off looking all cool with pencil-shading and ninjas and a sweet sunset on the horizon, but then degrade into errant doodles of wangs and flowers and stuff.
You've got nothing but semantics today?
Fair enough.
no. personal revenge leads to more problems than solutions.
but like i said in one of the first few posts, i respect the desire for revenge. i find it to be noble, a desire to balance the scales, to seek fairness.
i think we have to put it aside nevertheless. the realities of our life have shown us that no matter how noble the desire for revenge, the results turn out ugly. so we (including me) trust in our flawed system and put aside our desire, all for the greater good of society.
but that doesnt mean that the desire is "petty," "ignoble" or bad. good intentions often lead to bad results, but that doesnt mean the intentions now constitute "badness" also. i dont confuse means and ends. the ends sought (fairness) were noble but the means that would have been used (personal revenge) too often lead to disaster.
that's why i infinitely prefer a friend who would "back me up" over one who would "turn the other cheek". that doesnt mean we should actually go out and kill someone though.
with respect to the atheism comment, i meant myself.
i would argue that practical, rational, objective decision making is not always best.
1.) No more IRS. No estate, corporate, capital gains, income tax.
2.) A federal sales tax of somewhere around 30%, collected and managed pretty much the same way state and local sales tax is currently handled.
3.) A monthly credit everyone gets on a debit card that is equal to the average expenditures in your county/state for someone who makes $X (poverty level or whatever). If you don't even make enough to spend that much, then this is a net plus.
It's a revenue neutral plan, so the government is taking the same amount out of the ecomony.
People argue that taxing consumption would kill the economy, but you have to realize that the extra income everyone would have, plus the reduced cost of doing business, would actually make consumption equally, or likely more, affordable than before (the "more" comes in when businesses move jobs back into the US, adding more jobs, and corporations significantly reduce their overhead in trying to understand, predict, and manage their tax liabilities, reducing the cost to produce). Also consumption is historically much more stable than income, so revenue would fluctuate less.
People also contend that it is highly regressive, because the wealthier you are the less you spend on consumption. This gets into a deeper discussion on the value of that money to the economy as investment capital creating jobs and such, but regardless, some plans include a small but highly progressive income or capital gains tax to keep the wealth envy in check.
Right, meaning that fairness was never really an end, only a means, and that well-being or the aversion of disaster was the actual end.
How do you feel about the phrase "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."?
Can you think of one instance (besides executions) where the U.S. Government, who carries out the executions, has not acted in an rational and objective manner, and it has worked out for the best?
you seriously underestimate the disincentive properties this tax would have on consumption. Just having more money in your pocket doesn't mean you will automatically spend it.
sometimes i find you to be trollish. i obviously respect you as a poster, but i respect yar as well and i think when you make comments like the one above, it diminishes you and your position.
yar was very clear in his response. he stated quite clearly that death has a special end point on the spectrum, but it is still a matter of degrees. if you have no real response to that, i would suggest simply letting the point go.
just my three cents.
Does the death penalty serve another purpose besides revenge?
this is very interesting to me. i have to think about it a bit and if anyone else is interested, maybe we could start a thread on it.
i dont see the world in black and white yar.
sometimes the ends do justify the means, sometimes they dont.
in this specific scenario, i would argue that revenge killing is not justified even if it would be fair because there are other means which are less destructive to society which can also achieve acceptable levels of fairness.
fairness is still the goal but averting disaster is a primary consideration.
if well-being or the aversion of disaster was the actual end, we could just pay off a criminal so he wouldnt engage in another crime. i would be vehemently against this.
And the rest of your post was still saying exactly what I am saying. Fairness was never the goal, it's only a good, but imperfect, means.
Yar and I have a history.
Did you miss the post where he called me more confusing than Memento?
That's kind of the purpose of the whole thread, isn't it? Just replace death penalty with 'punishment'. I think it definitely can, though I don't think it usually does.
IS that exactly what happened?
I seem to remember criticism that too many people were using their tax rebates to pay off their debts, rather than create new spending.
Legislation should be void of emotion. People should not.
Legislation should be in place to prevent people's emotions from leading them to go to far, so that people can be free to be as emotional as they like.
I'm not using revenge to mean anything other than revenge.
The concept of "punishment" is too broad to talk about it as a single thing. Punishment can reffer to anything as simple as "consequences", or anything as specific as CP and torture.
Do I believe that criminals should have consequences? Of course i do. I don't believe that death or waterboarding are appropriate consequences, though.
I think we have very different definitions of 'emotion', because I really can't fathom your position. I would argue that things like the bill of rights are borne out of emotion. Bankruptcy laws, endangered species protection, etc. I would argue that the desire to help your fellow man is born out of emotion, and not pure logic.
Ok, I can agree with this.
the government's taking of the criminal's eye is not the moral equivalent of a criminal taking an innocent's eye.
it surprises me that people still use that saying in light of how meaningless it is.
youre assuming that the public receives perfect information regarding how crimes are dealt with. furthermore, you also assume that people would prefer to conduct crimes than engage in honest work. you assume that the amount the government would pay you would be more than what you could make working. you assume that the social stigma of being a criminal would not prevent people from crime. for many people, taking a government handout is embarrassing enough to not want to go through with it.
i was obviously providing the example as an extreme. but if you're really that worried about incentives, just make it a discretionary measure. just like people argue that the death penalty does not deter (which it obviously would, if used more often), a discretionary payout would not incent, if used sparingly.
even if this method were used for only one criminal a year, in the entire u.s., i would still disagree with it.
then i think you missed my point.
im saying fairness is the goal. but there are many paths toward that goal. some paths are less destructive than others yet still provide us with the fair result we seek.
but memento was awesome! i wouldve taken that was a compliment. :P
anyway, point taken. let's just carry on.
well said!
look at what I was specifically responding to.
You were talking about private individuals wanting revenge there, not the government.
but ive stated multiple times that i am against the act of personal revenge. it is possible to separate action and desire. i respect the desire for revenge but i dont condone the act itself. i respect someone who desires revenge more than the person who simply desires to turn the other cheek.
also you can substitute the victim or his family or whatever for "government" in that sentence. i dont think reaction is the moral equivalent of action. lethal self defense is not the moral equivalent of murder.
i dont think i can be any more clear than this.
Yeah, that's what happened this last time around, but that was a very unique economic situation. And paying off debt isn't necessarily a bad thing. Your overall point was not correct - if people suddenly make more money, in a normal economy they will tend to spend it. Even in a down economy they will tend to spend it, but more may use it instead to try to drag themselves out of the debt hole they're in.
but you are also disincentivising spending at the same time. You're conveniently ignoring that fact.
I think you were pretty clear a couple of pages ago:
So if, say, one of the people who signed a contract with one of your clients felt like they got screwed by it, you'd respect them for raping your family?
I'm just checking.