Society, Holidays etc (split from Ossus tax thread)

[Illuminatus Primus]

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that individuals are driven by greed, and if you make greed illegal, they won't work past a certain point.

Yes you are. You repeatedly stated all this corporations would not exist because there would be no motive by the tiny few who have hundreds of millions of dollars in stock. Hello? There'd be no profit motive for the tens of millions of small-time investors, owning a million dollars or less in stocks? This is not the majority of stockholders today?

Very few companies are owned by a single individual. Bill Gates never owned more than 10% of Microsoft, and yet he was still worth over $100 Billion at one point. Furthermore, once he hit the wealth cap, why would he bother to work anymore? He doesn't benefit from working; why not retire and sit on his ass for the rest of his life?

You're being retarded. Why work now? Does he recognize any perceivable change to his lifestyle or security now as he works hard (this being why most of us work?)? Does he? His marginal gains are already untangible and useless for all practical purposes. You think he busts his ass purely for the vanity factor of meeting the Forbes' Richest list every year? And you're acting like once Microsoft, once it was a successful start-up, would totally tank without Bill Gates alone. Single individuals are not that important, and the incentive to start-up is still strong. If you told Bill in the 70s he could start a business, but rather than being a billionaire, he'd only be a multi- or even hundred-millionaire while operating the most successful software company ever, he'd throw his hands up, say "fuck it" and claim he was doing it SOLELY for the long-shot he made the multi-billion???

Every argument you make is an unbelievable strawman distortion.

Sure - but Germany built itself up from the rubble after WWII. It started from essentially NOTHING. In the US, you'd be displacing or overhauling massive institutions that have been around for decades, if not longer. In any case, universal healthcare, free education, a month of vacation, and similar things are the easy part, if you can pay for it. It's Duchess' desired destruction of the free market that will have more serious consequences.

Only if your strawmen resembled real life, which they don't.

[Darth Wong]

Hi guys, sorry I've been away. Too busy in real life.

Anyway, not to try to short-cut a long meandering discussion, but doesn't this whole idea boil down to the question of whether America should be a meritocracy? In a meritocracy, there should be some kind of meaningful connection between your personal merits and your rewards. Vast inheritances completely demolish this connection; they make it possible to be a completely useless turd of a human being and yet still live an incredibly rewarded life with an option to become a two-term President.

If, on the other hand, this complicated set of rules we've created in an effort to make the country a meritocracy is actually more important than the idea of meritocracy itself (a textbook case of confusing the goal with the means), then I suppose we must accept SanchezTheWhaler's perverse logic that Paris Hilton is actually a greater net contributor to society than a doctor or an engineer, by virtue of having and spending lots of money.

[Bilbo]

Anyway, I would not have proposed this a hundred years ago, when the economy was different; it might have prevented the Rockefellers, et. al., from making America an Industrial society, but it will not hurt America now that America is already an industrial society. Something may work great now but not in the past, you know, or vice-versa. Try to implement modern democracy in Sumeria in 3,000 BCE...

So you freely admit that your ideas can freely hard to economic growth and evolution of a nation. Then you casually sweep this away by your unspoken suggestion that America has evolved as far economically as it possibly can.

That is what you are saying right?

Before we were pre-industrial revoluation (which is really a misnomer anyway, industry existed before just in a different format and manner, there is no before and after effect society always evolves) and now we are post industrial and no change like that could ever happen again that might require the levels of individual wealth you yourself suggest were previously needed.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So you freely admit that your ideas can freely hard to economic growth and evolution of a nation. Then you casually sweep this away by your unspoken suggestion that America has evolved as far economically as it possibly can.

That is what you are saying right?

I am saying that economic growth now needs to be tapped for social and ethical concerns. If that slows down economic growth, good, because economic growth is largely unsustainable anyway.

Before we were pre-industrial revoluation (which is really a misnomer anyway, industry existed before just in a different format and manner, there is no before and after effect society always evolves) and now we are post industrial and no change like that could ever happen again that might require the levels of individual wealth you yourself suggest were previously needed.

Yes, it will never require those levels of individual wealth, no, it will not never happen again. The difference is that today a highly sophisticated wealth concentration mechanism in the developed, modern joint-stock corporation exists which has reliably replaced single-family zaibatsu, for lack of a better term, in western economies. Though it should be noted that economic growth is unsustainable and should not be happening right now--we need to focus on creating new sources of energy and minimizing environmental damage, not making people richer. If that needs to change in the future, we can change laws, you know. Such a strange concept, that.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Hi guys, sorry I've been away. Too busy in real life.

Anyway, not to try to short-cut a long meandering discussion, but doesn't this whole idea boil down to the question of whether America should be a meritocracy? In a meritocracy, there should be some kind of meaningful connection between your personal merits and your rewards. Vast inheritances completely demolish this connection; they make it possible to be a completely useless turd of a human being and yet still live an incredibly rewarded life with an option to become a two-term President.

If, on the other hand, this complicated set of rules we've created in an effort to make the country a meritocracy is actually more important than the idea of meritocracy itself (a textbook case of confusing the goal with the means), then I suppose we must accept SanchezTheWhaler's perverse logic that Paris Hilton is actually a greater net contributor to society than a doctor or an engineer, by virtue of having and spending lots of money.

No, a meritocracy would certainly be preferable regardless of method of implementation, as long as it was supplemented by a welfare state.

[Bilbo]

So you freely admit that your ideas can freely hard to economic growth and evolution of a nation. Then you casually sweep this away by your unspoken suggestion that America has evolved as far economically as it possibly can.

That is what you are saying right?

I am saying that economic growth now needs to be tapped for social and ethical concerns. If that slows down economic growth, good, because economic growth is largely unsustainable anyway.

Before we were pre-industrial revoluation (which is really a misnomer anyway, industry existed before just in a different format and manner, there is no before and after effect society always evolves) and now we are post industrial and no change like that could ever happen again that might require the levels of individual wealth you yourself suggest were previously needed.

Yes, it will never require those levels of individual wealth, no, it will not never happen again. The difference is that today a highly sophisticated wealth concentration mechanism in the developed, modern joint-stock corporation exists which has reliably replaced single-family zaibatsu, for lack of a better term, in western economies. Though it should be noted that economic growth is unsustainable and should not be happening right now--we need to focus on creating new sources of energy and minimizing environmental damage, not making people richer. If that needs to change in the future, we can change laws, you know. Such a strange concept, that.

Okay now lets see you put up instead of just babble.

How can you know that level of wealth will never be needed again? It was by your own admission needed in the past. Show me how you can know beyond your own hand-waving bullshit that it will never be needed again? You cannot. Your just making shit up to support your agenda.

[Bilbo]

Hi guys, sorry I've been away. Too busy in real life.

Anyway, not to try to short-cut a long meandering discussion, but doesn't this whole idea boil down to the question of whether America should be a meritocracy? In a meritocracy, there should be some kind of meaningful connection between your personal merits and your rewards. Vast inheritances completely demolish this connection; they make it possible to be a completely useless turd of a human being and yet still live an incredibly rewarded life with an option to become a two-term President.

If, on the other hand, this complicated set of rules we've created in an effort to make the country a meritocracy is actually more important than the idea of meritocracy itself (a textbook case of confusing the goal with the means), then I suppose we must accept SanchezTheWhaler's perverse logic that Paris Hilton is actually a greater net contributor to society than a doctor or an engineer, by virtue of having and spending lots of money.

No, a meritocracy would certainly be preferable regardless of method of implementation, as long as it was supplemented by a welfare state.

How does that even make sense? How is it a meritocracy if it has an artificial floor and ceiling. If the basic concept is that one is rewarded based on their actions then an artificial floor and ceiling (the ceiling particularly) completely contradits that statement and one could argue is actually the complete opposite of a meritocracy.

[Darth Wong]

So you freely admit that your ideas can freely hard to economic growth and evolution of a nation. Then you casually sweep this away by your unspoken suggestion that America has evolved as far economically as it possibly can.

A wealth cap would not have prevented the industrial revolution unless it was set so low that no one could innovate. The industrial revolution was precipitated by a series of important inventions, mostly related to the expansion of the British Empire: most importantly the telegraph and locomotive.

That is what you are saying right?

Before we were pre-industrial revoluation (which is really a misnomer anyway, industry existed before just in a different format and manner, there is no before and after effect society always evolves) and now we are post industrial and no change like that could ever happen again that might require the levels of individual wealth you yourself suggest were previously needed.

I'm not sure where Marina got the idea that vast amounts of personal wealth were necessary for the industrial revolution. Individual inventors and large corporations could get the job done just fine. The primary driver of the industrial revolution was military expansion and scientific advancement. Military expansion is a state enterprise rather than a product of individual wealth, and scientific advancement is a largely public service, as science has not historically been an avenue for fantastic personal gain and scientific theories are public domain.

[Darth Wong]

How does that even make sense? How is it a meritocracy if it has an artificial floor an ceiling. If the basic concept is that one is rewarded based on their actions then an artificial floor and ceiling (the ceiling particularly) completely contradits that statement and one could argue is actually the complete opposite of a meritocracy.

Are you saying that you seriously think it is possible for an individual to have such great personal merit that he will contribute more to society than 50 doctors or 100 to 200 scientists?

The point that you're obviously incapable of grasping is that the system as it stands right now is NOT a meritocracy. Inheritance does not reward merit; it rewards birthright. And the way workers and executives are compensated has precious little to do with merit; look at Wall Street executives whose companies lost billions while they pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses. At the extreme end of the pay scale, the disconnection between merit and compensation is near-total. To argue that any change to this status quo would be "artificial" is to implicitly assume that the system as it stands right now is a perfect meritocracy: an utterly laughable claim.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

So you freely admit that your ideas can freely hard to economic growth and evolution of a nation. Then you casually sweep this away by your unspoken suggestion that America has evolved as far economically as it possibly can.

A wealth cap would not have prevented the industrial revolution unless it was set so low that no one could innovate. The industrial revolution was precipitated by a series of important inventions, mostly related to the expansion of the British Empire: most importantly the telegraph and locomotive.

That is what you are saying right?

Before we were pre-industrial revoluation (which is really a misnomer anyway, industry existed before just in a different format and manner, there is no before and after effect society always evolves) and now we are post industrial and no change like that could ever happen again that might require the levels of individual wealth you yourself suggest were previously needed.

I'm not sure where Marina got the idea that vast amounts of personal wealth were necessary for the industrial revolution. Individual inventors and large corporations could get the job done just fine. The primary driver of the industrial revolution was military expansion and scientific advancement. Military expansion is a state enterprise rather than a product of individual wealth, and scientific advancement is a largely public service, as science has not historically been an avenue for fantastic personal gain and scientific theories are public domain.

It probably wasn't necessary, I just wanted to make the point, Mike, that just because certain conditions, as Sanchez asserted, might need to exist during the Industrial Revolution, doesn't mean they need to exist now. And if they need to exist again in the future, we can just change the laws again.

People here arguing against me seem to be committing the fallacy of assuming that because I think my proposals would (at least in part) work now, that I think they would have always worked, which simply isn't true. I know very well that "one size doesn't fit all"--and yet my opponents here are arguing precisely that, that one size must fit all or else it should not be used. Ignoring the fact, in the process, that we have very well established methods of changing the laws of a country to respond to changing circumstances.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Its easy to see how Mike and other scientists and engineers have such umbrage toward this absurd and black/white claims that "if they cannot make hundreds of billions of dollars, than the cost to society will be unacceptable," when scientists and engineers almost never own the fruits of their labor and intellect, and are rarely richly compensated for them, regardless of their importance. How ironic that we have people harping on the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION as fundamentally requiring train and industry robber barons, and not the unrewarded inventors. Maybe because THAT does not fit their agenda.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Okay now lets see you put up instead of just babble.

How can you know that level of wealth will never be needed again? It was by your own admission needed in the past. Show me how you can know beyond your own hand-waving bullshit that it will never be needed again? You cannot. Your just making shit up to support your agenda.

If it's needed again in the future, and I'm wrong about the modern joint-stock company rendering it superfluous, then the legislators of the future will change the law, and increase the wealth cap. That doesn't mean we should not have a wealth cap, however, as one would be useful and beneficial to society right now. If it isn't in the future, we'd change the law to reflect that.

What's so hard to grasp about some things being a good idea in some circumstances and not in others?

[Bilbo]

So you freely admit that your ideas can freely hard to economic growth and evolution of a nation. Then you casually sweep this away by your unspoken suggestion that America has evolved as far economically as it possibly can.

A wealth cap would not have prevented the industrial revolution unless it was set so low that no one could innovate. The industrial revolution was precipitated by a series of important inventions, mostly related to the expansion of the British Empire: most importantly the telegraph and locomotive.

That is what you are saying right?

Before we were pre-industrial revoluation (which is really a misnomer anyway, industry existed before just in a different format and manner, there is no before and after effect society always evolves) and now we are post industrial and no change like that could ever happen again that might require the levels of individual wealth you yourself suggest were previously needed.

I'm not sure where Marina got the idea that vast amounts of personal wealth were necessary for the industrial revolution. Individual inventors and large corporations could get the job done just fine. The primary driver of the industrial revolution was military expansion and scientific advancement. Military expansion is a state enterprise rather than a product of individual wealth, and scientific advancement is a largely public service, as science has not historically been an avenue for fantastic personal gain and scientific theories are public domain.

I do not really know either. But if by her own statement she thinks it is necessary then that makes her economic theories even more stupid because by her own thought process it can limit industrial growth.

[Bilbo]

It probably wasn't necessary, I just wanted to make the point, Mike, that just because certain conditions, as Sanchez asserted, might need to exist during the Industrial Revolution, doesn't mean they need to exist now. And if they need to exist again in the future, we can just change the laws again.

People here arguing against me seem to be committing the fallacy of assuming that because I think my proposals would (at least in part) work now, that I think they would have always worked, which simply isn't true. I know very well that "one size doesn't fit all"--and yet my opponents here are arguing precisely that, that one size must fit all or else it should not be used. Ignoring the fact, in the process, that we have very well established methods of changing the laws of a country to respond to changing circumstances.

Do I smell backpedaling?

[Illuminatus Primus]

I do not really know either. But if by her own statement she thinks it is necessary then that makes her economic theories even more stupid because by her own thought process it can limit industrial growth.

Justify the value judgment that unchecked industrial growth is always a good thing.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It probably wasn't necessary, I just wanted to make the point, Mike, that just because certain conditions, as Sanchez asserted, might need to exist during the Industrial Revolution, doesn't mean they need to exist now. And if they need to exist again in the future, we can just change the laws again.

People here arguing against me seem to be committing the fallacy of assuming that because I think my proposals would (at least in part) work now, that I think they would have always worked, which simply isn't true. I know very well that "one size doesn't fit all"--and yet my opponents here are arguing precisely that, that one size must fit all or else it should not be used. Ignoring the fact, in the process, that we have very well established methods of changing the laws of a country to respond to changing circumstances.

Do I smell backpedaling?

Jesus you're a Vendetta troll.

[Darth Wong]

Do I smell backpedaling?

Do I smell someone evading points?

Start answering the points being made, asshole.

[Bilbo]

I do not really know either. But if by her own statement she thinks it is necessary then that makes her economic theories even more stupid because by her own thought process it can limit industrial growth.

Justify the value judgment that unchecked industrial growth is always a good thing.

Who said anything about unchecked growth? The impression she suggested was that a certain level of wealth was needed to give the necessary push to accomplish something.

[Illuminatus Primus]

I do not really know either. But if by her own statement she thinks it is necessary then that makes her economic theories even more stupid because by her own thought process it can limit industrial growth.

Justify the value judgment that unchecked industrial growth is always a good thing.

Who said anything about unchecked growth? The impression she suggested was that a certain level of wealth was needed to give the necessary push to accomplish something.

You said she's stupid because by her own admission her program would create conditions where industrial growth might be limited. The inevitable conclusion being "industrial growth being limited" as the possible outcome of any program, is stupid, full stop. Justify that claim.

[Bilbo]

Do I smell backpedaling?

Do I smell someone evading points?

Start answering the points being made, asshole.

Frist she said a certain weight of wealth was needed at the industrial revolution. Then she said it probably wasnt. Then she said if it is needed her perfect legislature is going to somehow magically know this and raise the wealth cap so that whatever might possibly can happen will happen. Sounds like a lot of handwasving bullshit. She has perfect people living in her economic system that all work hard and dont sit on their asses since everyone gets a certain level for free. Then she has perfect government that also somehow can predict the future and know when changes in society are needed.

[Bilbo]

You said she's stupid because by her own admission her program would create conditions where industrial growth might be limited. The inevitable conclusion being "industrial growth being limited" as the possible outcome of any program, is stupid, full stop. Justify that claim.

Nope she did not. She suggested that without the weight of wealth things wouldnt happen.

Anyway, I would not have proposed this a hundred years ago, when the economy was different; it might have prevented the Rockefellers, et. al., from making America an Industrial society,

By her own words she says the industrial revolution would not have happened. That is not slowing that is stopping, which is a big difference.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Sounds like a lot of handwasving bullshit.

And you sound like a troll on a vendetta trip.

She has perfect people living in her economic system that all work hard and dont sit on their asses since everyone gets a certain level for free.

People freeload in the current system. The point is, will they freeload significantly more? Can you prove this in the French case? Is this freeloading cost to the system outweigh the ethical advantages of making sure children do not pay for their parents' mistakes? Of ensuring equal access to opportunity?

Then she has perfect government that also somehow can predict the future and know when changes in society are needed.

Yeah, I have no idea how governments are passing carbon taxes and the like in anticipation of global warming. Must be magic. Clearly this all gets done faster with plentiful multi-billionaires!

You said she's stupid because by her own admission her program would create conditions where industrial growth might be limited. The inevitable conclusion being "industrial growth being limited" as the possible outcome of any program, is stupid, full stop. Justify that claim.

Nope she did not. She suggested that without the weight of wealth things wouldnt happen.

And what are those "things"? If not industrial growth? Stop dancing. You know what you said. Justify what things would be prevented and why those things are necessary, thus making her comments stupid.

Anyway, I would not have proposed this a hundred years ago, when the economy was different; it might have prevented the Rockefellers, et. al., from making America an Industrial society,

By her own words she says the industrial revolution would not have happened. That is not slowing that is stopping, which is a big difference

So fucking what? Are we having another industrial revolution? Why does that matter now? Why would a second industrial revolution being impractically difficult now even be a problem? You're obviously implying that because her own plan by her own admission could limit growth prohibitively that is automatically something worth judging a plan as stupid. You refuse to justify that value judgment with a real argument. Your wall of ignorance grows tiresome, troll.

[Darth Wong]

Do I smell backpedaling?

Do I smell someone evading points?

Start answering the points being made, asshole.

Frist she said a certain weight of wealth was needed at the industrial revolution.

No, she humoured SanchezTheWhaler's claim to this effect.

Then she said it probably wasnt. Then she said if it is needed her perfect legislature is going to somehow magically know this and raise the wealth cap so that whatever might possibly can happen will happen. Sounds like a lot of handwasving bullshit.

Since when is the idea that you can't have a single "one size fits all" solution to every condition a case of "handwaving bullshit"?

She has perfect people living in her economic system that all work hard and dont sit on their asses since everyone gets a certain level for free. Then she has perfect government that also somehow can predict the future and know when changes in society are needed.

So you think "perfect people" are necessary in order to administer any system which attempts to adapt to changing conditions? And that this idiotic assumption somehow validates your equally moronic assumption that the superior answer is a "one size fits all" solution which never changes no matter what economic conditions are in place?

[Graeme Dice]

Why is a government-run corporation better than a privately run corporation? You seem to be assuming that a government run organization will function better than a privately held company, but there are lots and lots of examples where that's simply not true. Shipping for example - UPS and FedEx are far superior the the US Postal Service, although since USPS is heavily subsidized it is substantially cheaper. If all three had to operate without subsidies, USPS would die on the vine.

Canada Post manages to be better than both UPS and FedEx. I'd suggest that the problems with USPS have been deliberately created by the government officials that oversee USPS and are ideologically opposed to its success.

[Graeme Dice]

Specifically state which proposal is inadmissible under constitutional law. I'm sick of your handwaving that things "must" be unworkable without specific examples. How does thing y violate the current understanding of constitutional law?

It's actually a classic is/ought fallacy. He's saying throughout his arguments that because things currently work a certain way that they ought to work that way.