Hillary and the ordinary people

[hrothgar]

 

The libertarians say "taxation is theft." It's a buzz-phrase, and arguments about it, especially by those who don't like it, typically center around the phrase itself rather than the logic behind it — and there is logic behind it, like it or not.

 

If there is logic behind this statement, I don't find it remotely convincing.

 

Lets look at a typical definition of theft: Quoting wikipedia: "In common usage, theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it".

 

Here's the rub: You voluntarily choose to live within the United States. In doing so, you are accepting the social contract that the citizens of the United States have established, and part of that social contract says that you will pay those taxes that the government says that you owe. Your choice to live within society means that you are consenting to be taxed. If you don't like all the various benefits that societies taxes have paid for, you're welcome to leave.

[mikeh]

Is it? Suppose the government said to you "how much did you make last year? Give it here." Would that not be abuse of the power to tax? Yes, that's so extreme even politicians wouldn't be stupid enough to try it, except perhaps under extreme forms of Communism. So the line isn't there. But if that's abuse, and taking say 1%, or 10% of what you made last year is not abuse, then the line is somewhere between the two.

 

The libertarians say "taxation is theft." It's a buzz-phrase, and arguments about it, especially by those who don't like it, typically center around the phrase itself rather than the logic behind it — and there is logic behind it, like it or not. That said, I do agree that governments do (at least, I hope they do) good things, however inefficiently, and that those good things have to be paid for somehow. I'm just not so sure all those things need to paid for with money taken from people under threat of force. And if you don't think there's a threat of force, try not paying your taxes.

 

 

You are either an idiot or malicious, neither of which I believe for a moment, or wilfully ignorant.

 

Richard touched upon the notion of a social contract. I appreciate that this idea is probably anathema to libertarians, but it is something that cannot be denied by anyone with an ounce of objectivity in them.

 

Look at it another way.

 

Humans are social animals. That is impossible to deny on any rational level. If you can't admit this fact, then you are either an irrational ideologue or ignorant.

 

Social animals develop, or have hard-wired into their psyches, societal hierarchies and relationships. Western societies are extremely complex.

 

One of the mechanisms that has evolved in western society is the notion of a government. Once this was probably simply the alpha male in a small group related by kinship. Now, it comes in many forms, some of which are politically elected people, and some of which are bureaucrats or others employed by government, including military and quasi-military forces (for the latter, read: police)

 

As a member of the US society, you routinely have available to you many benefits, especially if, as I infer, you are financially successful.

 

You drive on highways built and maintained with public money. You fly in aircraft using airports and air traffic control methods paid for by the public. You can be reasonably sure the plane is safe because of regulations imposed and monitored, at public expense, by government.

 

You can travel on vacation with some degree of safety because you have, I assume, an American passport.

 

You benefit from the inexpensive availability of various foreign-produced goods because of trade deals negotiated by public servants, and can be assured that the goods are reasonably safe due to government regulation and inspection. If you get sick, you can buy medication knowing that it has been carefully (if not always perfectly) tested and regulated according to rules enforced by public servants.

 

If you are a victim of crime, the police will help you. If you have a civil dispute, you don't need a gun to resolve it (tho I appreciate that some Americans think that that is the best way, especially if you get to shoot first), because society provides, at public expense, a civil justice system.

 

The wealthier one is, the more one benefits from this and the myriad other ways that 'government' uses tax money.

 

Meanwhile, despite the ravings of the anti-tax crowd, the reality is that the poor pay disproportionally more of their income in taxes than do the wealthy. Even those who pay 'no taxes' pay taxes.

 

One cannot buy gasoline without paying taxes, even in jurisdictions with no sales tax. One cannot buy alcohol or tobacco without paying taxes. If one pays rent, the landlord will have factored taxes into the rent that is charged, as will every merchant who sells anything. Meanwhile, while the poor pay less in absolute terms than do the rich, they pay effectively far more of their disposable income than do the rich.

 

Ask yourself this:

 

Who really benefits from the size and cost of the US military? Hint: the shareholders of the companies supplying the military. Yes, the employees benefit as well, but if the military budget were put to more peaceful aims, an awful lot of people would find employment as a result.

 

Who benefits from the policing, especially as it seems to be administered in the US?

 

Who benefits from airports and such? Hint: poor people don't fly much

 

So those who are required to pay income tax are merely being asked to pay for some of the costs of the life they enjoy. The better their life, the more they ought to pay.

 

You don't like it?

 

Move to Somalia, and find out just how well your libertarian ideals fit you for survival in a land with no functioning government.

[hrothgar]

 

As a member of the US society, you routinely have available to you many benefits, especially if, as I infer, you are financially successful.

 

 

Ed is a retired Federal employee, sucking off the government teat, while complain how unfair it is that he is taxed...

[kenberg]

I don't much like the "tax is theft" summary. It's true that every society organizes itself and imposes some constraints on its members.I can't go outside and walk down the street naked. I don't actually want to, but anyway I can't. Some communities are more restricitve than others in what they impose. I doubt that I can keep goats. And i pay taxes. I don't quite agree with Richard's argument that I voluntarily live in the USA. i live here, true, , but this love or leave it argument is not really right however it is applied. I was born here and if I found it sufficiently oppressive I would emigrate, but it is fair to discuss things that one feels should be changed w/o having the rebuttal of "then move" thrown back. We are a society, we set expectations, some of these expectations are put into law and enforced. of course we do this, and I hope and trust that we will keep doing it.

 

 

I regard taxes as practical, and really as a necessity. I seriously doubt that I would like the result if taxes were abolished or even drastically lowered, and I feel comfortable imposing taxes on others as well. That's what a society does, it imposes requirements on its members. I'm ok with debating how much tax and on whom, but we need taxes and so we impose taxes. Calling it theft really strikes me as rhetoric, meaning that it goes nowhere useful. Those who think taxes should be abolished or dramatically lowered can simply say that they think taxes should be abolished or dramatically lowed. And that we should all be able to raise goats in our backyards.

[hrothgar]

BTW, rewatching "Repo Man". Just hit the part where Bid says: "Look at those assholes, ordinary ***** people. I hate 'em."

[awm]

Yes, supply side economics is quite profitable for those who have money to invest - for the other 90%, it sucks.

 

Well I have money to invest, and even putting aside "social justice" issues and voting purely on my stock market balance, supply side economics are a disaster.

 

Today the S&P 500 closed at 2117. On Feb 1, 2009 it was at 825. On Feb 1, 2001 it was at 1349. So eight years of supply side under Bush and stocks lost value. I didn't have money in the market then, but I did lose about 100k on a house! Six years of demand side under Obama and stocks have gone up 150%.

 

Of course I am not in the billionaire class and maybe for them this somehow works out, but plenty of people in the top 10% of income have no love for supply side.

[hrothgar]

Well I have money to invest, and even putting aside "social justice" issues and voting purely on my stock market balance, supply side economics are a disaster.

 

Today the S&P 500 closed at 2117. On Feb 1, 2009 it was at 825. On Feb 1, 2001 it was at 1349. So eight years of supply side under Bush and stocks lost value. I didn't have money in the market then, but I did lose about 100k on a house! Six years of demand side under Obama and stocks have gone up 150%.

 

Of course I am not in the billionaire class and maybe for them this somehow works out, but plenty of people in the top 10% of income have no love for supply side.

 

Now now, we needed Bush to destroy the stock market for it to come roaring back under Obama...

[barmar]

In Dallas, the IRS says it can’t chase tax cheats who owe less than $1 million

Wish I'd heard about that 2 weeks ago. I discovered I made a $3500 mistake on my taxes, in my favor (I added an extra digit in my charitable contributions, so something like $1,500 became $13,500). I voluntarily filed an amendment and paid the extra tax. Now I learn that I'm 3 orders of magnitude too inconsequential for them to bother with.

[hrothgar]

Wish I'd heard about that 2 weeks ago. I discovered I made a $3500 mistake on my taxes, in my favor (I added an extra digit in my charitable contributions, so something like $1,500 became $13,500). I voluntarily filed an amendment and paid the extra tax. Now I learn that I'm 3 orders of magnitude too inconsequential for them to bother with.

 

With fines, penalties, and interest, a small mistake can add up to a million dollars pretty damn quickly

 

I screwed up a filing about 10 years back and had the feds come after me for $200K.

Luckily, I had paid the right amount but messed up the basis cost on some stock.

 

There is a reason that I now have a damn good accountant...

[PassedOut]

Wish I'd heard about that 2 weeks ago. I discovered I made a $3500 mistake on my taxes, in my favor (I added an extra digit in my charitable contributions, so something like $1,500 became $13,500). I voluntarily filed an amendment and paid the extra tax. Now I learn that I'm 3 orders of magnitude too inconsequential for them to bother with.

Nah, you'd have fixed it anyway. But it's certainly irritating for honest folks to find out about tax cheats getting away with it, and I'm sure that this news will tempt some weaker people into noncompliance.

 

I suspect that the anti-government crowd anticipates that and approves of it, and had that in mind when cutting the IRS budget. Maybe the long-range idea is to solve "the immigration problem" by turning the US into a place where no one would want to relocate.

[cherdano]

(...)

supply side economics are a disaster.

 

Today the S&P 500 closed at 2117. On Feb 1, 2009 it was at 825. On Feb 1, 2001 it was at 1349. So eight years of supply side under Bush and stocks lost value. I didn't have money in the market then, but I did lose about 100k on a house! Six years of demand side under Obama and stocks have gone up 150%.

Come on, Adam, you are too smart for cheap arguments like this. Your argument boils down to "the housing crash happened during the Bush administration". The causes for the housing crash are complicated, and supply side economics are pretty far down the list, if they should be listed at all.

[kenberg]

Wish I'd heard about that 2 weeks ago. I discovered I made a $3500 mistake on my taxes, in my favor (I added an extra digit in my charitable contributions, so something like $1,500 became $13,500). I voluntarily filed an amendment and paid the extra tax. Now I learn that I'm 3 orders of magnitude too inconsequential for them to bother with.

 

Maybe, maybe not. We moved about 8 years ago and I inadvertently lost some records. I filed my taxes in good faith and got a note from them saying that I owed them another three grand. They wanted it. I realized my mistake and, with some effort, corrected it. Happily, it turned out that after I recovered the lost records and filed an amended return, they owed me money. That'll teach 'em. I was amused top see that I had to do this in two parts. First I had to file something to stop them from coming after me, then I had to file some stuff with a different office to get them to giev me what I was owed.

 

I decided that life would be simpler if I let someone else do my taxes. I started doing my father's taxes when I was something like thirteen and I am really tired of it. I don't mind the money, for me it's the damn paperwork. If I never again see another tax form, that will be bliss.

[y66]

Guest repo from Greg Manikw, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush from 2003-2005:

 

On Charlatans and Cranks

 

Jared Bernstein, a bigshot at the left-wing thinktank Economic Policy Institute, seems to think I am a hypocrite. He writes:

 

Economists sometimes serve vested interests, and will change their views accordingly. The best example is also one of the best economists, Greg Mankiw. This textbook-writing Harvard prof was Bush’s chief economist for awhile, and during his confirmation hearing and subsequent tenure at the White House, he constantly defended Bushonomics, including supply-side beliefs that he once argued were the musings of “cranks and charlatans."

The problem is, he did not check his facts.

 

I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.

 

The book made clear that the critique applied to a particular reason to favor the tax cuts, not necessarily to the policy of cutting taxes. There are many reasons a person might favor tax cuts besides the belief that tax cuts are self-financing. I hope it is not too pedantic to point out that there is a big difference between rejecting a policy and rejecting one argument made by some proponents of the policy.

 

In the second edition of the text, I took out the phrase "charlatans and cranks" because an editor and some readers of the first edition said (correctly) that it was too inflammatory for a textbook description of a policy debate. But the substantive analysis of tax policy stayed about the same. This old post includes an excerpt from the current edition.

 

My other work has remained consistent with this view. In a paper on dynamic scoring, written while I was working at the White House, Matthew Weinzierl and I estimated that a broad-based income tax cut (applying to both capital and labor income) would recoup only about a quarter of the lost revenue through supply-side growth effects. For a cut in capital income taxes, the feedback is larger--about 50 percent--but still well under 100 percent. A chapter on dynamic scoring in the 2004 Economic Report of the President says about the the same thing.

 

I don't have a problem with a person changing his mind over time based on new evidence and new thinking. So even if I had changed my mind on this issue and somehow decided that broad-based tax cuts were self-financing, I would not feel bad about it. But the truth is, I haven't changed my mind. If anyone tells you I have been inconsistent on this issue, you can be sure that he is either a charl....

 

Okay, let's just say he is mistaken.

[y66]

Which is not to say that Mr. Manikw's views on taxation are shared by a majority of his colleagues in the economics profession or even here in the water cooler. From Iron Men of Wall Street by guess who:

 

Greg Mankiw has written another defense of the 0.1 percent — and this one is kind of amazing.

 

... Mankiw invokes the strong role of financial fortunes in U.S. inequality to argue that the incomes are deserved:

 

A similar case is the finance industry, where many hefty compensation packages can be found. There is no doubt that this sector plays a crucial economic role. Those who work in banking, venture capital and other financial firms are in charge of allocating the economy’s investment resources. They decide, in a decentralized and competitive way, which companies and industries will shrink and which will grow. It makes sense that a nation would allocate many of its most talented and thus highly compensated individuals to the task.

 

Has Greg been living in a cave since 2006? We’re now in the seventh year of a slump brought on by Wall Street excess; the wizardly job of “allocating the economy’s investment resources” consisted, we now know, largely of funneling money into a real estate bubble, using fancy financial engineering to create the illusion of sound, safe investment. We also know that there is a real question whether hedge funds, in particular, actually destroy value for their investors.

 

One more thing: Mankiw argues that our tax system is fair because the top 0.1 percent pays a higher share of income in federal taxes than the middle class. This neglects the partial offset of this progressivity by regressive state and local taxes. But surely the main point is that to the extent that taxes on the 0.1 percent are high (they aren’t really, in historical context) that’s largely because Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election, so that Obama’s partial rollback of the Bush tax cuts and the high-income surcharges that partially finance health reform remained in place and the Ryan budget didn’t happen. It’s kind of funny to claim that our system is fair thanks to policies that you and your friends tried desperately to kill.

[kenberg]

Guest repo from Greg Manikw, Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush from 2003-2005:

 

 

 

This is interesting from several perspectives. The economics, certainly. But also the trouble that arises when we start calling people names. :Charlatans and Cranks" was in the first edition of his text but was removed for the second edition by demand ot the publisher, and Mankiw now agrees. And Bernstein writes "Economists sometimes serve vested interests, and will change their views accordingly. The best example is also one of the best economists, Greg Mankiw.".. If you go to the link and read the follow-up conversation between the two, Bernstein expresses surprise that Manikw took offense by this"Having read your website reacting to my TPM post, you and your readers got me all wrong. I certainly didn't accuse you of hypocrisy and meant no offense at all. In fact, I called you one of the best economists, and have always enjoyed your work, " Uh huh.Well, I can see why Manikw did not take Bernstein's words as a compliment. Being called a really talented prostitute is, at best, a mixed compliment.

[y66]

This is interesting from several perspectives. The economics, certainly. But also the trouble that arises when we start calling people names. :Charlatans and Cranks" was in the first edition of his text but was removed for the second edition by demand ot the publisher, and Mankiw now agrees. And Bernstein writes "Economists sometimes serve vested interests, and will change their views accordingly. The best example is also one of the best economists, Greg Mankiw.".. If you go to the link and read the follow-up conversation between the two, Bernstein expresses surprise that Manikw took offense by this"Having read your website reacting to my TPM post, you and your readers got me all wrong. I certainly didn't accuse you of hypocrisy and meant no offense at all. In fact, I called you one of the best economists, and have always enjoyed your work, " Uh huh.Well, I can see why Manikw did not take Bernstein's words as a compliment. Being called a really talented prostitute is, at best, a mixed compliment.

The Art of Controversy by Arthur Shopenhauer has an entertaining and useful discussion of ad hominem and ad personam arguments:

 

Another trick is to use arguments ad hominem, or ex concessis* When your opponent makes a proposition, you must try to see whether it is not in some way — if needs be, only apparently — inconsistent with some other proposition which he has made or admitted, or with the principles of a school or sect which he has commended and approved, or with the actions of those who support the sect, or else of those who give it only an apparent and spurious support, or with his own actions or want of action. For example, should he defend suicide, you may at once exclaim, “Why don’t you hang yourself?” Should he maintain that Berlin is an unpleasant place to live in, you may say, “Why don’t you leave by the first train?” Some such claptrap is always possible.

 

* The truth from which I draw my proof may he either (1) of an objective and universally valid character; in that case my proof is veracious, secundum veritatem; and it is such proof alone that has any genuine validity. Or (2) it may be valid only for the person to whom I wish to prove my proposition, and with whom I am disputing. He has, that is to say, either taken up some position once for all as a prejudice, or hastily admitted it in the course of the dispute; and on this I ground my proof. In that case, it is a proof valid only for this particular man, ad hominem. I compel my opponent to grant my proposition, but I fail to establish it as a truth of universal validity. My proof avails for my opponent alone, but for no one else. For example, if my opponent is a devotee of Kant’s, and I ground my proof on some utterance of that philosopher, it is a proof which in itself is only ad hominem. If he is a Mohammedan, I may prove my point by reference to a passage in the Koran, and that is sufficient for him; but here it is only a proof ad hominem.

 

A last trick is to become personal, insulting, rude, as soon as you perceive that your opponent has the upper hand, and that you are going to come off worst. It consists in passing from the subject of dispute, as from a lost game, to the disputant himself, and in some way attacking his person. It may be called the argumentum ad personam, to distinguish it from the argumentum ad hominem, which passes from the objective discussion of the subject pure and simple to the statements or admissions which your opponent has made in regard to it. But in becoming personal you leave the subject altogether, and turn your attack to his person, by remarks of an offensive and spiteful character. It is an appeal from the virtues of the intellect to the virtues of the body, or to mere animalism. This is a very popular trick, because every one is able to carry it into effect; and so it is of frequent application. Now the question is, What counter-trick avails for the other party? for if he has recourse to the same rule, there will be blows, or a duel, or an action for slander.

 

It would be a great mistake to suppose that it is sufficient not to become personal yourself. For by showing a man quite quietly that he is wrong, and that what he says and thinks is incorrect — a process which occurs in every dialectical victory — you embitter him more than if you used some rude or insulting expression. Why is this? Because, as Hobbes observes,* all mental pleasure consists in being able to compare oneself with others to one’s own advantage. Nothing is of greater moment to a man than the gratification of his vanity, and no wound is more painful than that which is inflicted on it. Hence such phrases as “Death before dishonour,” and so on. The gratification of vanity arises mainly by comparison of oneself with others, in every respect, but chiefly in respect of one’s intellectual powers; and so the most effective and the strongest gratification of it is to be found in controversy. Hence the embitterment of defeat, apart from any question of injustice; and hence recourse to that last weapon, that last trick, which you cannot evade by mere politeness. A cool demeanour may, however, help you here, if, as soon as your opponent becomes personal, you quietly reply, “That has no bearing on the point in dispute,” and immediately bring the conversation back to it, and continue to show him that he is wrong, without taking any notice of his insults. Say, as Themistocles said to Eurybiades — Strike, but hear me. But such demeanour is not given to every one.

 

* Elementa philosophica de Cive.

 

As a sharpening of wits, controversy is often, indeed, of mutual advantage, in order to correct one’s thoughts and awaken new views. But in learning and in mental power both disputants must be tolerably equal. If one of them lacks learning, he will fail to understand the other, as he is not on the same level with his antagonist. If he lacks mental power, he will be embittered, and led into dishonest tricks, and end by being rude.

 

The only safe rule, therefore, is that which Aristotle mentions in the last chapter of his Topica: not to dispute with the first person you meet, but only with those of your acquaintance of whom you know that they possess sufficient intelligence and self-respect not to advance absurdities; to appeal to reason and not to authority, and to listen to reason and yield to it; and, finally, to cherish truth, to be willing to accept reason even from an opponent, and to be just enough to bear being proved to be in the wrong, should truth lie with him. From this it follows that scarcely one man in a hundred is worth your disputing with him. You may let the remainder say what they please, for every one is at liberty to be a fool — desipere est jus gentium. Remember what Voltaire says: La paix vaut encore mieux que la vérité**. Remember also an Arabian proverb which tells us that on the tree of silence there hangs its fruit, which is peace.

 

** Peace is better than the truth; I hardly knew neither one nor the other in this world.

[PassedOut]

I've actually talked with people who think that tax cuts more than pay for themselves in increased tax revenue. Wouldn't call them charlatans or cranks though, but folks who've been fooled by charlatans and cranks and lack the ability to discern that.

[Winstonm]

I've actually talked with people who think that tax cuts more than pay for themselves in increased tax revenue. Wouldn't call them charlatans or cranks though, but folks who've been fooled by charlatans and cranks and lack the ability to discern that.

 

This is what happens when (IMO) political choices are governed by belief systems, as the political leaders (as proxy for preachers) make proclamations that are accepted as truth (by the laymen) without sufficient objective validation as to the veracity of the claim. Just as the story of Moses leading the Jews out of Egypt became accepted as fact, with no supportive objective evidence, so, too, does the idea of tax cuts paying for themselves become "fact" for the political laymen when it is "preached" to them over and over.

 

There is a reason Fox News is the most watched news network, and (IMO) it is because the Mr. Murdoch learned how to manipulate viewers by showing acceptance of non-verifiable stories as facts (i.e., Moses and the 10 commandments) and providing the same assumed-fact slant to Fox news stories. But reality can find no objective evidence of "The Exodus" while "Some people say..." does not constitute either a "fact" or "news".

[y66]

From A Better Way to Rein In Lobbying by Lee Drutman, the author of “The Business of America Is Lobbying: How Corporations Became Politicized and Politics Became More Corporate.”

 

It’s easy to get depressed about the state of American democracy. But we don’t need to be. The solutions are not overly complicated: Give government the resources it needs to think for itself and to develop policy without having to depend almost entirely on outside lobbyists. Make sure all sides have the resources to make their best case. The politics of checks and balances can do the rest.

[awm]

Come on, Adam, you are too smart for cheap arguments like this. Your argument boils down to "the housing crash happened during the Bush administration". The causes for the housing crash are complicated, and supply side economics are pretty far down the list, if they should be listed at all.

 

It's more of an anecdote than an argument. But the trend of the economy doing better under demand-side economics is actually quite well documented. The same comparison would hold for Clinton vs. Reagan, for example. Or you can get better information at the state level, where governors like Scott Walker and Sam Brownback have implemented supply-side schemes to great fanfare and grandiose claims about the economic benefits, only to see their states perform worse than neighboring states with different policies.

 

My personal experience doesn't have much to add here though, because I was still in college during the Clinton administration and have never lived in a state where the Republicans had full control of government.

 

Lower taxes are well and good, but people with money to invest do a lot better when the stock market does better and this is usually enough to outweigh an extra tax on gains.

[blackshoe]

I can't go outside and walk down the street naked. I don't actually want to, but anyway I can't.

Sure you can. There will be consequences, of course. There would be consequences (what will the neighbors think of you?) even if it weren't illegal.

[blackshoe]

That's what a society does, it imposes requirements on its members.

The folks who founded this country attempted to go another way. They suggested that "…to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…"

 

In practice, government is force. It imposes not by the consent of the governed, but by the threat of force.

 

Someone upthread said that filing tax returns in the US is voluntary. Really? What do you think would happen if you didn't. Okay, the IRS doesn't currently have to manpower to go after the little guy. What about Bill Gates? Suppose he just doesn't file, and when they go after him (and they will) he says "but filing is voluntary, I don't have to do it"? What do you think would happen?

[kenberg]

The folks who founded this country attempted to go another way. They suggested that "…to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…"

 

In practice, government is force. It imposes not by the consent of the governed, but by the threat of force.

 

Someone upthread said that filing tax returns in the US is voluntary. Really? What do you think would happen if you didn't. Okay, the IRS doesn't currently have to manpower to go after the little guy. What about Bill Gates? Suppose he just doesn't file, and when they go after him (and they will) he says "but filing is voluntary, I don't have to do it"? What do you think would happen?

 

Oddly, I also was thinking of choosing this very same line from the Declaration. The practical fact is that "the consent of the governed" does not and cannot mean the "unanimous consent of the governed". We would never do anything. I realize you would like the gov to do a lot less, but I doubt that this extends to not wanting the government to do a thing unless it first gets absolutely unanimous consent. So "consent of the governed" means "via some sort of democratic process where everyone gets a vote", with the power of the majority having at least some constraint. We could think a bit about the philosophy behind these constraints. The "tyranny of the majority" is often mentioned, but now the problem may really be more "the tyranny of the super rich". Rich people can be good people just as a voting majority can be made up of mostly good people, but I think it is in keeping with our traditions to rein in power when it becomes excessive. Busting up trusts was once important, regulating super pacs can be important. If we approach this with the philosophy of "In order to form a more perfect union" we have a shot at getting it right.

 

As to tax being voluntary. You hear that sometimes (I don't recall it up thread but could be). It's not voluntary, just like it's not theft. Anyway, whether voluntary or theft, it isn't going away.

[blackshoe]

Oddly, I also was thinking of choosing this very same line from the Declaration. The practical fact is that "the consent of the governed" does not and cannot mean the "unanimous consent of the governed". We would never do anything. I realize you would like the gov to do a lot less, but I doubt that this extends to not wanting the government to do a thing unless it first gets absolutely unanimous consent. So "consent of the governed" means "via some sort of democratic process where everyone gets a vote", with the power of the majority having at least some constraint. We could think a bit about the philosophy behind these constraints. The "tyranny of the majority" is often mentioned, but now the problem may really be more "the tyranny of the super rich". Rich people can be good people just as a voting majority can be made up of mostly good people, but I think it is in keeping with our traditions to rein in power when it becomes excessive. Busting up trusts was once important, regulating super pacs can be important. If we approach this with the philosophy of "In order to form a more perfect union" we have a shot at getting it right.

Interestingly, L. Neil Smith based an entire alternate world series on the premise that the word "unanimous" did appear in the final version of the declaration. That resulted in a world in which the Whiskey Rebellion succeeded, Washington was executed for treason, and the Articles of Confederation (suitably amended over time) still govern two hundred years later (the first book, The Probability Broach, was set in 1987). Yes, it's fiction. Still a fun read, imo.

 

One scene I especially liked: the main character, from something like, and yet unlike, our version of reality, is getting a tour of the capital, a small town in Kansas that is deserted unless the Continental Congress is in session — and that only occurs when a major crisis is imminent. He's shown a corridor with framed pictures of all the Presidents of the Continental Congress. At one point the guide stops, points at one of the frames and says "and this was our proudest moment". There is no picture in the frame, only a small brass plaque on which is engraved "None of the above is acceptable." :P

 

Another quote from that first book: "Telephone operator" (not a human, apparently an AI) says "Sir, I have nine billion listings on three planets, nine moons, and twenty seven asteroids, and there is no 'Denver, City and County of'!"

 

Oh, and the current President of the NA Confederacy is Hugh Featherstone-Haugh (pronounced "Fanshaw") an African mountain gorilla.

 

I did mention this is fiction, right? :lol: :lol:

As to tax being voluntary. You hear that sometimes (I don't recall it up thread but could be). It's not voluntary, just like it's not theft. Anyway, whether voluntary or theft, it isn't going away.

What that last at least I agree. B-)

[kenberg]

If we go to fiction for political thoughts, certainly one of my favorites comes from my absolutely favorite noir film of the 1940s. The Third Man. Harry Lime (Orson Welles) is explaining life to the naive and idealistic Holly Martins (Joseph Cotton). I take the quote from here

 

Don't be so gloomy. After all it's not that awful. Like the fella says, in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. So long Holly.

 

No, I don't see the world this way. Harry Lime was created by Graham Greene as total evil. But I do think that a little skepticism now and then can be extremely useful.

 

I remain interested in just how people do come to decisions. The title of this thread refers to Hillary Clinton and "ordinary people". Ordinary people seldom have deep discussions about quantum field theory. Nor are they prepared to hold their own with a professional economist. In this sense, I regard myself as ordinary. The difference between these two fields is that most people realize that they do not understand quantum field theory but an absurdly large number of people think that they fully understand economics.

 

Still, we vote, so we must choose. Ordinary people will elect the president. Someone once observed that all important decisions are made on the basis of insufficient information.