Not Yours to Give

[SwissMercenary]

I apologise for how disjointed my posts are, but C'est la vie. Edit: Quotes are for some reason not working.

[quote name='kandrathe' date='Mar 6 2007, 04:03 PM' post='125291']But, what roasts your rooster is that the government takes most of your apples to give to tragic cases who may have done nothing while you busted your butt in toil.
[/quote]

I think you've came to the conclusion a few months back that you don't have a problem with the homeless being given a bed... As long as it's not too comfortable. Likewise, food, as long as whatever cheap slop they get is only enough to keep them on their feet. So that they seek to improve their lot. I'm in agreement with such a policy.

In that case, the government wouldn't need to take half your apples away to fund something like that. More like one out of a hundred.

That adresses your 'tragic cases who may have done nothing.' I don't believe they should get much. I do believe that the money that they currently get could be better spent. That's something that... I have to examine on a case by case basis, before passng judgement.

Now, what about the 'tragic cases who just ended up out-of-luck,' like the fire victims? What about those that got taken advantage of - our roads? What about community youth programs, that encourege children to be active?

That's where most of that half of the apples goes to. Well, that, and healthcare, come to think of it (Which is much in the 'keep the poor bum alive' area, although it's something that 'benefits' everyone, at least here.)

think I clarified that in a different post. My property taxes pay for the bulk of the government in my locality, while the bulk of State and Federal taxes pays for entitlement programs.

Entitlement programs? So, I suppose that means disaster relief, welfare, and community programs, such as youth centres? I suppose Canadian healthcare isn't considered an 'entitlement program', considering that it benefits everyone equally. So, is that it? I think you might find that what I've just listed isn't the biggest slice of the apple pie on the block.

I think there has been a slow erosion of federalism

Wasn't that the entire point of the American Civil War?

slow replacement of it with a growing kleptocracy.

I'd say that it's probably just more publicised these days, then it was a hundred years ago. Probably.

The tax burden is not equally distributed, such that the middle class pay the most punitive taxes. The poor and lower middle classes pay nothing, and the rich do complain, and *are* unfairly burdened but are not "suffering" in a way that would make anyone care.

Possibly the reason the middle class pays the most of the tax pie, is because most of the middle class is most of the country.

My sister, a very rich socialist, once said "I am rich and I should pay 50% of my earnings in taxes". I don't think she understands freedom. I am not even opposed to having a safety net, but more things should be States issues, or local issues and not managed from Washington.

Freedom? I'm not trying to be offensive here, but the government does quite a lot for her, and you. Not nearly as much as it does to the welfare bum next door, now, and it doesn't do it's job all that well, but this isn't a black and white 'freedom vs slavery'.

Here is an example, why should all the citizens of the US pay for the rebuilding of a city that is 40 feet below sea level, built in river delta, and at high risk of being swamped by a large hurricane?

I don't know. Why are you asking me? Frankly, in my mind, the people affected should have been given some money, and a strong recommendation to collect whatever stuff that's still salvageable, and not come back. Disaster relief in an area like that should be a one-shot deal. If you want to come back to live in a swamp, after being bailed out once, on your head it is.

I think usable roads are a government expense in promoting commerce, and I also would have no problem making those roads Toll Roads such that those who use them pay for them.

This isn't a commercial road, which is probably why the Board of Economic Development isn't moving on sending us any apples. There's no commercial reason to repair it - except that it would be devastating to our 99% - residential municipality if we lose it.

Making it a toll road has crossed people's minds, but it won't do anything to help matters on a large scale. For one thing, if you had a nature recreation area near you, but it was on a toll road, you'd probably choose to drive to a different one, or even worse, stay home. More drivers on the road. More automobile emissions. Less people using our naturescape for recreation. Less people in the community being active in such a way. Government investment into maintaining the recreation area down the drain. We might make a little bit of money on the road, we might get it fixed, we might stop further damage from occuring... But all it means is that everyone else will pay for the road anyways. Except they'll pay for it in ways you can't measure in dollars.

Not to mention that if we were to be consistent with a 'pay on use' policy, every road in the country would have to be a toll road.

Come to think of it, that might cut down on traffic, a bit... :rolleyes:

Oh, right, we tax gasoline. Consider that a 'cumilative road toll', eh?

For the record, I live on a cul-de-sac, fourty meters away from the road in question. I'd love to see nothing more then that road be used exclusively by the people living here. Of course, I'd also love to own a pony.

I disagree on the nature of people. There are some who are greedy, but I find the majority of people are compassionate. I think this is why people are not really upset with the government taking away peoples money to give away for "noble" causes. I am not opposed to those taxes that are used to run the government, defend the nation, regulate and promote commerce, or provide for the general welfare.

So what's left?

But, these things must benefit all (or at least a vast majority in every State) those who contribute. I also believe the tax burden should be shared equally, as a flat percentage.

Now, if anything, your example of not giving up the apples and ending up in the gulag is applicable here. You've got 100 apples. I've got 50 apples. Joe has 20 apples. The cost of living is 15 apples. You can afford to give 50 apples. I can afford to give 25 apples. Joe can't afford to give 10 apples. He can either be dragged off to a gulag, or end up on the street.

The people who would benefit from a equalised tax rate would be the upper-middle class - the people who would not would be the lower class. For the middle class - the majority of us, things would remain the same.

It's a question of 'less relative harm to a smaller group of people' or 'more relative harm to a larger group of people,' as it's less of a deal for you to give up 50 apples, instead of 40, but more a deal to Joe, to give up 10 apples, instead of 5. There's also more Joes then people like you around.

Whichever way you look, taxes are all about balancing harm vs benefit to various groups of people. Frankly, I'd go with the 'less relative harm to a smaller group of people' - within reason.

I would also transition the burden of taxation from "Income" based to "Consumption" based to promote investments, savings, and conservation.

I'm no economist, and as much as I don't like consumerism or Reaganomics, that might not be the best way to stimulate the economy.

Ok, if it works for government, then why not the private sector, or persons? We pool all the money for all the people or businesses in a town, and then divide the pie evenly.

As soon as I can vote for the direction those businesses or persons are going, and a system of checks and balances appears, why not? Oh, right, because then they are no longer unaccountable businesses or persons, they become an accountable government.

That's my pie in the sky, at least.

The government has the right to reach into your pocket and take what it deems appropriate for giving to people it deems more needy than you.

This is communism. If I don't want any pie and I refuse to give you my apples you send me to the gulag.

No, that's socialism. Communism is when it takes everything, and gives everyone the same, need or greed be damned. The reason it doesn't work, is because it lacks the incentive for anyone to work. (And let's not talk about Stalinism or Marxism, or Leninism, here, okies?) That's also the reason why extremely unbalanced taxation brackets don't work. However, I do not believe that paying only ~30% income tax when earning 50,000/year removes incentive to work harder, and pay ~40% income tax when earning 80,000/year.

As for the apple pie, you do want some odd 70-80% of it (Police, military, NHS (If it applies), fire, transportation, regulatory commitees, some welfare, etc).

[Occhidiangela]

I apologise for how disjointed my posts are, but C'est la vie. Edit: Quotes are for some reason not working.

When you get to greater than 9 quotes, or a number near that, it does that. Forum software dingus.

Occhi

[Delc]

Now, if anything, your example of not giving up the apples and ending up in the gulag is applicable here. You've got 100 apples. I've got 50 apples. Joe has 20 apples. The cost of living is 15 apples. You can afford to give 50 apples. I can afford to give 25 apples. Joe can't afford to give 10 apples. He can either be dragged off to a gulag, or end up on the street.

Now lets add Bob to the mix. He doesn't like to work and has no education. So the government gives him 15 apples. Where does this leave Joe? Hes working 40+ hours a week to make ends meet, and Bob (who also has trouble making ends meet) gets to sleep in every day and enjoy his favorite hobbies instead of working. Sure he could get a job, but he would probably only make 15-20 apples and he would lose the free ones from the government, so he just collects the free ones and slides by.

Also just because someone can afford to give up 50 apples, why should they? They went to school, got an education, and worked to earn those (entertainment industry would be the exception).

[SwissMercenary]

Now lets add Bob to the mix. He doesn't like to work and has no education. So the government gives him 15 apples. Where does this leave Joe? Hes working 40+ hours a week to make ends meet, and Bob (who also has trouble making ends meet) gets to sleep in every day and enjoy his favorite hobbies instead of working. Sure he could get a job, but he would probably only make 15-20 apples and he would lose the free ones from the government, so he just collects the free ones and slides by.

I think I've outlined the part wherein living purely on the dole should leave you with only enough to keep your body temperature about 36.7 degrees. State shelters, pots of slop, etc. Joe with his 20-5=15 apples should still be better off then Bob, if we only provide him with 7. After all, if the government were to act as the middle man in the distribution of welfare, then, theoretically, it could keep Bob up for less money then it would cost to pay Joe's rent. To put it simply, state-ran shelters should be cheaper to operate, per person, then the cost of private rental units, as there's no middle-men to take a cut. That's of course, assuming the government is fiscally responsible.

Joe works 40/week, and gets enough to rent a place, and feed himself on his remaining 15 apples. Bob, on the other hand, should only get a bunk, and a 6x8 foot room for the night, while sitting on welfare. Enough to keep him going, but not preferable to Joe's situation.

You are attacking the flaws in the current welfare system. You are right to do so. The system is flawed. However, the optimal solution would not be to toss the entire system out, but rather cut it down to size.

Also just because someone can afford to give up 50 apples, why should they?

Because like it or not, we all need the apples to keep the country running, and higher taxes for higher income brackets cause less relative harm to that minority people, then equalised taxes across the board would to a much larger group.

They went to school, got an education, and worked to earn those (entertainment industry would be the exception).

And the 100 apple guy who is taxed for half of them will still be bringing home more then the guy with 60 apples, who is taxed for 24 of them. There's incentive to work, and there's icentive to do more valuable work.

[eppie]

Now lets add Bob to the mix. He doesn't like to work and has no education. So the government gives him 15 apples. Where does this leave Joe? Hes working 40+ hours a week to make ends meet, and Bob (who also has trouble making ends meet) gets to sleep in every day and enjoy his favorite hobbies instead of working. Sure he could get a job, but he would probably only make 15-20 apples and he would lose the free ones from the government, so he just collects the free ones and slides by.

Also just because someone can afford to give up 50 apples, why should they? They went to school, got an education, and worked to earn those (entertainment industry would be the exception).

This is too much a generalization. Just like if I would say that all rich people inherited their money.


Swiss mercenary made a good point. Unless what you might think, the government does far more for rich people than for poor people. Is it normal that somebody because he has the talent to trick people into buying things for a high prize as an estate agent can make millions? Or a stock broker? That is very good in using other peoples money,move it around a bit and gets rich? Well on one hand yes, that is our society but the more money you have the more you profit from a good economy and from a good infrastructure.

I don´t think a workless guy profits from it when a local government pays millions to an airport just to grow so that planes will land and don't go to the next city. (and there are hundreds of other examples).

Of course there are always lazy people that 'don't deserve to get welfare' but just naming a few examples is just a useless way of discussing. There are many more people that do have a lot of money and according to the same standards 'don't deserve it'. But we are not making laws for these examples. We should have controllers that filter out the bad apples (to stay in the line of this discussion).

[eppie]

And the 100 apple guy who is taxed for half of them will still be bringing home more then the guy with 60 apples, who is taxed for 24 of them. There's incentive to work, and there's icentive to do more valuable work.

And there is also a a flaw in our market economy. Jobs that are best for the overall (world) economy don't always get the highest salaries. Think about it there are so many jobs that netto don't add to the world economy. So what you call valuable is maybe valuable for the person...not for the economy. People have an incentive to become NBA players.........but if th world gets any further with that?

[kandrathe]

I apologise for how disjointed my posts are, but C'est la vie. Edit: Quotes are for some reason not working.
I think you've came to the conclusion a few months back that you don't have a problem with the homeless being given a bed... As long as it's not too comfortable. Likewise, food, as long as whatever cheap slop they get is only enough to keep them on their feet. So that they seek to improve their lot. I'm in agreement with such a policy.

In that case, the government wouldn't need to take half your apples away to fund something like that. More like one out of a hundred.

That adresses your 'tragic cases who may have done nothing.' I don't believe they should get much. I do believe that the money that they currently get could be better spent. That's something that... I have to examine on a case by case basis, before passng judgement.

Now, what about the 'tragic cases who just ended up out-of-luck,' like the fire victims? What about those that got taken advantage of - our roads? What about community youth programs, that encourege children to be active?

Yes, I did say that I felt we have a society that should prevent people from starving to death on our streets, but we should not make them comfortable. Government needs to be merely adequate. Children for the most part seem to be loved and taken care of in our society. There are some unfortunate cases, but the majority of parents seem to have compassion for their own children. I don't think the government has a role in overseeing parental guidance, at least not at the federal level.

That's where most of that half of the apples goes to. Well, that, and healthcare, come to think of it (Which is much in the 'keep the poor bum alive' area, although it's something that 'benefits' everyone, at least here.) Entitlement programs? So, I suppose that means disaster relief, welfare, and community programs, such as youth centres? I suppose Canadian healthcare isn't considered an 'entitlement program', considering that it benefits everyone equally. So, is that it? I think you might find that what I've just listed isn't the biggest slice of the apple pie on the block.

It is not so much of a "benefits everyone equally" question so much as it is a "has a constitutional power" question. Communism would be to donate 100% of your income to be distributed equally to all the citizens. I think there is a justice question in here too. Do we want our government to be just?

Wasn't that the entire point of the American Civil War? I'd say that it's probably just more publicised these days, then it was a hundred years ago. Probably. Possibly the reason the middle class pays the most of the tax pie, is because most of the middle class is most of the country. Freedom? I'm not trying to be offensive here, but the government does quite a lot for her, and you. Not nearly as much as it does to the welfare bum next door, now, and it doesn't do it's job all that well, but this isn't a black and white 'freedom vs slavery'.

I think it was very fresh in people minds, during the revolutionary war in America, the oppression of a tyrannical monarch. To have your life now and then be upended by the whims of men who viewed themselves as superior. By the time of the American Civil War, people had forgotten the yoke of King George and were ready to surrender a part of their freedoms. To quote Frederic Bastiat , “Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim - when he defends himself - as a criminal.”

I don't know. Why are you asking me? Frankly, in my mind, the people affected should have been given some money, and a strong recommendation to collect whatever stuff that's still salvageable, and not come back. Disaster relief in an area like that should be a one-shot deal. If you want to come back to live in a swamp, after being bailed out once, on your head it is.
This isn't a commercial road, which is probably why the Board of Economic Development isn't moving on sending us any apples. There's no commercial reason to repair it - except that it would be devastating to our 99% - residential municipality if we lose it.

I agree, but first only if charities failed, and then just enough aid to prevent them from suffering horribly and dying it the streets

Making it a toll road has crossed people's minds, but it won't do anything to help matters on a large scale. For one thing, if you had a nature recreation area near you, but it was on a toll road, you'd probably choose to drive to a different one, or even worse, stay home. More drivers on the road. More automobile emissions. Less people using our naturescape for recreation. Less people in the community being active in such a way. Government investment into maintaining the recreation area down the drain. We might make a little bit of money on the road, we might get it fixed, we might stop further damage from occuring... But all it means is that everyone else will pay for the road anyways. Except they'll pay for it in ways you can't measure in dollars. Not to mention that if we were to be consistent with a 'pay on use' policy, every road in the country would have to be a toll road.

Come to think of it, that might cut down on traffic, a bit... :rolleyes:

Oh, right, we tax gasoline. Consider that a 'cumilative road toll', eh?

For the record, I live on a cul-de-sac, fourty meters away from the road in question. I'd love to see nothing more then that road be used exclusively by the people living here. Of course, I'd also love to own a pony.
So what's left?

I also want to own a pony. :) I think if something, like this road, is over consumed it would be helpful for you to make it available for those who will pay for its support. You don't need to charge for roads that are not over consumed.

Now, if anything, your example of not giving up the apples and ending up in the gulag is applicable here. You've got 100 apples. I've got 50 apples. Joe has 20 apples. The cost of living is 15 apples. You can afford to give 50 apples. I can afford to give 25 apples. Joe can't afford to give 10 apples. He can either be dragged off to a gulag, or end up on the street.

The people who would benefit from a equalised tax rate would be the upper-middle class - the people who would not would be the lower class. For the middle class - the majority of us, things would remain the same.

It's a question of 'less relative harm to a smaller group of people' or 'more relative harm to a larger group of people,' as it's less of a deal for you to give up 50 apples, instead of 40, but more a deal to Joe, to give up 10 apples, instead of 5. There's also more Joes then people like you around.

Again, though, equality means justice. To tax people at higher rates for being successful punishes success. Hence, why I would convert to a consumption tax. Then the secret to wealth would be to work hard, and consume less. Seems like what we really want people to do. I think it is fine to set a lower threshold. If you make at of less than 20 apples, then you get to keep all your apples. 10% or less would be more appropriate, and everyone could participate in supporting the government at a rate that is fair for everyone.

Whichever way you look, taxes are all about balancing harm vs benefit to various groups of people. Frankly, I'd go with the 'less relative harm to a smaller group of people' - within reason.
I'm no economist, and as much as I don't like consumerism or Reaganomics, that might not be the best way to stimulate the economy. As soon as I can vote for the direction those businesses or persons are going, and a system of checks and balances appears, why not? Oh, right, because then they are no longer unaccountable businesses or persons, they become an accountable government.

That's my pie in the sky, at least.

If taxation is harm, then we should endeavor to minimize it. But rather I see mostly that politicians seek to maximize it while placating or distracting the masses from insurrection. I fear the day is coming when they will have added the straw that broke the camel.

No, that's socialism. Communism is when it takes everything, and gives everyone the same, need or greed be damned. The reason it doesn't work, is because it lacks the incentive for anyone to work. (And let's not talk about Stalinism or Marxism, or Leninism, here, okies?) That's also the reason why extremely unbalanced taxation brackets don't work. However, I do not believe that paying only ~30% income tax when earning 50,000/year removes incentive to work harder, and pay ~40% income tax when earning 80,000/year.

As for the apple pie, you do want some odd 70-80% of it (Police, military, NHS (If it applies), fire, transportation, regulatory commitees, some welfare, etc).

Socialism is a compromise position when moving from capitalism towards communism or vice versa. It is not an end state, but only a transitory state. I want there to be a government pie which is as small as possible to cover the narrow mandate needed to maintain a federation of states.

[Griselda]

Children for the most part seem to be loved and taken care of in our society.

Have you spent a lot of time in low-income schools? I would say that the issue goes far beyond the "few unfortunate exceptions".

[ShadowHM]

Socialism is a compromise position when moving from capitalism towards communism or vice versa. It is not an end state, but only a transitory state.

I am curious as to what makes you conclude that socialism is 'only a transitory state'. :blink:

[SwissMercenary]

There are some unfortunate cases, but the majority of parents seem to have compassion for their own children.

I'll leave that to Doc and the teachers here to respond to.

I think if something, like this road, is over consumed it would be helpful for you to make it available for those who will pay for its support.

The rec area that it leads to is used by people from all over the Lower Mainland, although used more often by the people closer to it. Either way, setting up a toll booth will have further reprecussions.

I think it is fine to set a lower threshold. If you make at of less than 20 apples, then you get to keep all your apples. 10% or less would be more appropriate, and everyone could participate in supporting the government at a rate that is fair for everyone.

I'm not sure I understand you, here. For that to happen, you'd have to completely gut government services - many of which have little to do with Welfare.

Take education for instance. I know you'd love to see people pay for the schooling of their own children, but if that were to happen, then just like with my road, there would be consequences down the road. Some people would simply choose not to send their kids to school, then. Twenty years down the road, we'll have a generation of illiterates (Worse then the state of education now), and then we will be paying the cost. A bucket of slop a day starts adding up when half of the country can't count beyond "One, two, three, many"

If taxation is harm, then we should endeavor to minimize it.

It's harm... With a benefit following it. The two are tied. The question is "How much harm and to whom, and how much benefit, and to whom."

Socialism is a compromise position when moving from capitalism towards communism or vice versa. It is not an end state, but only a transitory state. I want there to be a government pie which is as small as possible to cover the narrow mandate needed to maintain a federation of states.

Can't agree less. Look at the USSR, or China. You can't call that socialism. And likewise, for the other direction, it seems to be a pretty damn long 'transitory' state. There's no "Party," here. When it dwelves into Really Stupid Ideas, it's the fault of the voters.

[kandrathe]

Have you spent a lot of time in low-income schools? I would say that the issue goes far beyond the "few unfortunate exceptions".

Not as much as you, I would guess. I'm looking at overall population statistics, but also anecdotally my observation is that being a poor child doesn't mean your parents are abusing or neglecting you. By and large, the children of poor people are loved and cared for as well as the children of the middle and upper classes. I would also hazard to guess that there might be larger emotional and social issues for the children of richer parents (e.g. latch-key, detachment, narcissism, etc.).

Does the federal government need to watchdog the lives of poor people to insure their children are being fed and raised properly? If so, then perhaps also the children of duel income families? Where does it stop? The boundaries of what is a safety net are quickly moving into a nanny state. At what point will the government just take over the raising of children to insure its done properly? Or perhaps, they just make bad parenting against the law.

[kandrathe]

...
I'm not sure I understand you, here. For that to happen, you'd have to completely gut government services - many of which have little to do with Welfare.

No, you set the level of services at merely what is needed, rather than what is wanted.

Take education for instance. I know you'd love to see people pay for the schooling of their own children, but if that were to happen, then just like with my road, there would be consequences down the road. Some people would simply choose not to send their kids to school, then. Twenty years down the road, we'll have a generation of illiterates (Worse then the state of education now), and then we will be paying the cost. A bucket of slop a day starts adding up when half of the country can't count beyond "One, two, three, many"

That might happen. But, as I stated earlier, there were schools before the federal government decided to create the Department of Education. This topic is a hot button emotional morass suited perfectly for waste and abuse. Who can vote against helping children, and who can vote against giving kids a chance a better future? For this reason, this issue needs to be dealt with as close to the voters as possible, meaning at the local level, or possibly at the State level. At the federal level, in regards to education, health, and welfare, you are promoting socialism and the redistribution of wealth. My belief is that it is not governments role to take money by force of law from the middle class, and give it to the poor.

It's harm... With a benefit following it. The two are tied. The question is "How much harm and to whom, and how much benefit, and to whom."

It is harm. And, then my question is; Is it just to harm some to help others?

Can't agree less. Look at the USSR, or China. You can't call that socialism. And likewise, for the other direction, it seems to be a pretty damn long 'transitory' state. There's no "Party," here. When it dwelves into Really Stupid Ideas, it's the fault of the voters.

My take on Russia is that it idealistically tried to jump into communism, and then Stalin seized the opportunity to become the dictator. After that, it was a matter of time before corruption and apathy would unravel it. China is a different story. It has always been a quasi-communistic society, even under the rule of ancient dynasties. It is now emerging from communism into socialism, and in some ways is far more embracing of Capitalism than Europe. From my perspective, Europe has all but abandoned a free market economy and the US/Canada are close on their heals. These transitions take centuries.

I will give a somewhat obtuse example, but perhaps you can see the point of it. There is a law passed here that now requires businesses to allow access to private restroom facilities if certain store patrons require one. H.F. No. 1015 If they deny access to someone who requires access to the businesses private restroom, the business owner and the employees who denied the access are guilty of a petty misdemeanor. When the government starts to step into the private sector and regulate what can and cannot happen on private property, all is lost. When the government can tell a bar owner that they cannot allow smoking in their business, for the sake of the health of the patrons and employees, all is lost. We are losing our freedoms one law at a time. This is how socialism erodes into communism. You may not see it over a few years, but given time the state will own or control all property.

[SwissMercenary]

Is it just to harm some to help others?

Yes. It is impossible to have a functioning society, otherwise. The only question is the degree at which you do it.

It is now emerging from communism into socialism

The market is the most important thing for the Chinese. It's hardly soialism by the European, or even local metric, there. Some of the key industries are state-ran, but that's about it.

We are losing our freedoms one law at a time. This is how socialism erodes into communism. You may not see it over a few years, but given time the state will own or control all property.

And if that isn't an 'emotionally charged' argument (Think of the children!), I don't know what is.:rolleyes:

See above - it is impossible to have a functioning society with no restrictions on freedom. If the restrictions are going too far (I consider the restroom law to be ridicilous, while I support workplace safety regulations - smoking - it's a case-by-case issue), maybe you could try voting for someone who shares your opinions more closely then the current government.

To summarise, I believe that no, the 'technical' instructions of the constitution shoud not necessarily be followed to the letter 200 years after the document was drafted (Much like how today, you don't need to bring your ceremonial sword to an Oxford examination), while the spirit of the document should be respected (In the way that you still aren't allowed to copy your test answers from your neighbour).

I also believe that within reason, it's generally a better idea to inflict less relative harm on a smaller group of people, then inflict more relative harm on a larger group of people. (Fewer of us have 100 apples, compared to those of us who have 20).

I also believe that many of the solutions proposed of having people pay only for the state services they use will cause more harm then good. (See: Education, roads)

And lastly, no, the barbarians are not at the gates.

Those are my points, and at this point it's not very likely that I'm going to be changing my mind on any of them. Feel free to respond, but I think I'm about done.

[Jester]

I think you're exaggerating.

Socialism has yet to "erode" into communism in a single instance, at least that I am aware of. Radical communist states have always been established through revolutionary means: The USSR, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia, North Korea, Vietnam. Most states that adopt a kind of mixed market-socialist hybrid (what you characterize as "all but abandoned" the free market, which strikes me as remarkable in the society I see around me) have gotten there slowly, through democratic change, and have made little if any move towards communism, at least in any sense that resembles existing or former communist states.

To give the local example, the Communist party (and the Marxist-leninist party, not to confuse the two) in Canada is weak enough to be a joke, not strong enough to drag our society ever leftward. If anything, we have shifted steadily towards a free market orientation since the 70s. What, then, of the thesis that socialism is a transition to communism, or backwards? Strikes me that it's taking either Marx, Hayek, or both a little too seriously.

If you mean the sentence...

When the government starts to step into the private sector and regulate what can and cannot happen on private property, all is lost.

... then all is lost, always has been lost, and probably always will be lost. Maybe you might consider moderating this, and other, positions a touch. There could very well be something important to your libertarianism; if so, I'm pretty sure it isn't helpfully served by generalizations that are both ahistorical and excessive.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

I think you're exaggerating.

I might be allowing my passion to show.

... then all is lost, always has been lost, and probably always will be lost. Maybe you might consider moderating this, and other, positions a touch. There could very well be something important to your libertarianism; if so, I'm pretty sure it isn't helpfully served by generalizations that are both ahistorical and excessive.

I could have been clearer. I am not against laws. We need a framework of agreed upon laws in which we can guarantee freedoms, such as copyright protections, or trespass laws. We need those laws which protect citizens and their property. What I am opposed to are the laws which generally usurp freedom for the benefit of some. Again I reach for Bastiat, "Either fraternity is spontaneous, or it does not exist. To decree it is to annihilate it. The law can indeed force men to remain just; in vain would it would try to force them to be self-sacrificing."—from Journal des Economistes

The premise of this thread is that we are in a place in our societies where the government is boiling the frog one degree at a time (no pun intended on Bastiat). We have over time assented to our governments removing a sizable chunk of our incomes to enforce our benevolence. I have also offered some other examples of where "the government knows best" how we should live our lives and criminalizes what it deems to be wrong behavior. It might be considered mean spirited or rude to not allow a suffering person access to your restroom, but is it criminal?

Would it be wrong for an establishment to be all smoking? I don't smoke, and in fact I hate it. If there was an establishment that was all smoking I would not go into it. But this is freedom. Freedom for me and the owner of the establishment. I abhor the alcohol industry as well, but I believe Occhi has a right to enjoy his libations. He has the choice, not me, or the government.

My concern and question still remains, whatever happened to the French and American revolutionary understanding of "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity" or "with Liberty and Justice for all"?

Thank you for the nod of allowing that there might be a shred of value in my exhortations; Libertarian, yes I guess, but I am further an avid Jeffersonian. I'd offer one sentiment of his;

Still one thing more, fellow-citizens--a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities. Thomas Jefferson -- First Inaugural Address

You might share Swiss' POV that after 200 years changes are needed. But, what I see are mostly are erosions. The principles of liberty, equality, justice and freedom are slowly being sacrificed on the alter of social welfare. We might need new laws to regulate planes, trains and automobiles, but poverty is not new. Don't get me wrong! I'm not advocating poverty, and quite the opposite I desire everyone to be productive and successful. I've been poor and it is miserable, so I opted instead for a life of hard work and moderate success. There will always be those unfortunate persons who are unable to cope due to accident or birth defect who having no living relatives would become wards of the State. Yes, we should pay taxes to insure their lives are moderately comfortable. That is a population many factors smaller than what is being shouldered now.

[Chesspiece_face]

Children for the most part seem to be loved and taken care of in our society. There are some unfortunate cases, but the majority of parents seem to have compassion for their own children.

Not according to, well, pretty much all research. all prominant research on paranting styles over the last 50 years has broken down paranting styles by two dimensions: Demandingness and Responsiveness.

Demandingness being the degree to which parants set down rules and expectations for their children and Responsiveness being the degree to which parants express love and are sensitive to their childrens needs.

The most widely used idea of paranting styles uses these dimensions and breaks down paranting styles into four distinct catagories; Authoritative, Authoritarian, Permissive, and Disengaged.

Authoritative is High in Demandingness and Responsiveness, Authoritarian: High in Demandingness and Low in Responsiveness, Permissive Low in Demandingness and High in Responsiveness, and Dissengaged is Low in both catagories.

Which is the promenint style of paranting in the US as of 1994? Dissengaged. Making up a whopping 36% of all families. (Steinberg et al. 1994) Authoritative comes in a close second. So for each family out there in america that offers love and support in conjunction with rules and expectations there is at least one, if not more, families that the parants don't offer their kids jack and doesn't care what their kids do as long as it doesn't impact them.

- Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S., Darling, N., Mounts, N., & Dornbusch, S. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754-770.

[Griselda]

What overall population statistics are you looking at? In the field of education, the income level of the family is known to be a predictor of student achievement in school.

That's why the federal Title One program was created- to "watchdog" the educational success of children from poor families. While education is not equivalent to home life, it's clear that differences in the home produce different results at school. It has been running for decades now, without any of the slippery slope effects that you mentioned.

Anecdotally, I could give you any number of horror stories about the lives of the kids that I work with. I have spent a little bit of time in higher-income schools, enough to know that this isn't a condition of kids in general, but a problem specific to low-income kids. The rate of drug abuse, alcoholism, violence, neglect, etc. in these families is simply astonishing. Sometimes I wonder how the kids can function at all, and to the point where me trying to teach them that "silent e makes vowels say their names" seems downright silly and inconsequential.

[kandrathe]

What overall population statistics are you looking at? In the field of education, the income level of the family is known to be a predictor of student achievement in school.

That's why the federal Title One program was created- to "watchdog" the educational success of children from poor families. While education is not equivalent to home life, it's clear that differences in the home produce different results at school. It has been running for decades now, without any of the slippery slope effects that you mentioned.

Anecdotally, I could give you any number of horror stories about the lives of the kids that I work with. I have spent a little bit of time in higher-income schools, enough to know that this isn't a condition of kids in general, but a problem specific to low-income kids. The rate of drug abuse, alcoholism, violence, neglect, etc. in these families is simply astonishing. Sometimes I wonder how the kids can function at all, and to the point where me trying to teach them that "silent e makes vowels say their names" seems downright silly and inconsequential.

I was looking at;
http://www.childstats.gov I've seen some slippery slope type things, but they are subtle things. I see more attention to "obese" children, or the presence of a smoker in the home as an indication of parental neglect. These and other "sensitivities" are things that were not in the realm of possible when I was a child.

I work with charities and relief organizations, so I come in contact more with families from the social welfare aspect rather than the educational one. I can imagine you have your heart torn out frequently with the types of things some children live with. My point here is that if you look at the statistics, it tells an optimistic story of the trends in the things you are seeing. Most categories of harms are dropping, and health is improving, other than obesity. And, you don't see much improvement in academic achievement, even though the amount of money spent per pupil has risen dramatically. It's hard to find objective research in the area of parenting, since so often those who seek to justify parental oversight are performing the research. By looking at the basic statistics on the number of children who are healthy, read to, immunized, supplied with basic care and education, I would venture a solid 90% are reared with competence. Of the remaining 10%, it is unclear, but I would venture many of those children are also loved, while not entirely cared for due to various reasons including poverty. There are about 5% in jeopardy and this number seems to be consistent from 1974 until now, but dropping slowly over time. So, do we regulate the 100% to capture the 1/20th in jeopardy?

[Griselda]

I need to poke around in the childstats web site some more, but that probably won't be tonight. What I didn't see in a quick glance was a way to compare those stats among children of different income levels.

The thing is, it's not really like there's a few isolated cases where there are issues at home among the kids I work with. It's the few isolated cases where there are no issues at home. If you're going to include "read to" on your list of criteria, well, the numbers just get smaller.

I honestly wonder if most if the increase in the cost of education lately is actually an increase in the cost of health care. With health care costs out of control and rising, the cost to employ anyone, in any field, is going up substantially.

Some argue that we should cut teachers' health benefits, but of course that's not getting to the root of the problem.

[kandrathe]

Not according to, well, pretty much all research. ...

Which is the promenint style of paranting in the US as of 1994? Dissengaged. Making up a whopping 36% of all families. (Steinberg et al. 1994) Authoritative comes in a close second. So for each family out there in america that offers love and support in conjunction with rules and expectations there is at least one, if not more, families that the parants don't offer their kids jack and doesn't care what their kids do as long as it doesn't impact them.

- Steinberg, L., Lamborn, S., Darling, N., Mounts, N., & Dornbusch, S. (1994). Over-time changes in adjustment and competence among adolescents from authoritative, authoritarian, indulgent, and neglectful families. Child Development, 65, 754-770.

I found abstracts to your source, but not the full research article. It's hard to assess its methodology without access to the full research. So even by this study, 76% are not disengaged, meaning they are authoritarian, authoritative or permissive. I guess we are assuming that disengaged is the really bad quadrant. I studied adolescent psychology pretty extensively in college as well, and this type of analysis was prevalent. I find this research to be very subjective, and now that I am a parent I'm not sure just how you would determine a parenting style from surveys or even spot in time observations. Personally, with my children, I have been all of those 4 styles at different times depending on how exhausted I am, what tragedies have occurred in the family, or how long I've had them couped up in the house when it's negative 40 wind chill outside. Overall, I'd say I was authoritative yet nurturing.

Ok, my 2nd nit to pick with this. Breaking down parenting into a 2x2 matrix, and then determining who falls where seems to trivialize parenting, just as Myers-Briggs trivializes the variability of human personality. Your parenting methods need to adapt to the types of children that you have, but there are some general guidelines that should be in place. All children need boundaries, discipline (meaning a set routine), correction if they stray, and tons of love and encouragement.

I will try to find a better reference-able source, and please post a link for this or others if you can find one.