Video: The most “unpatriotic” thing you’ll see this year

Alright, since SOMEbody has to do this…

Viscount_Bolingbroke:

Well, the simple fact is that those with more have less need of the marginal dollar.</blockquote

I can understand your point there, and I can only grudgingly concur.

How much is needed to live on? How much is for showing off? And how much of that showing off is needed? For starters, we can’t change the tax system into a new one. We can just tweak the numbers.

While your initial point is all fine, you simply shoot yourself in the foot by NOT asking the crucial question:

Who is to decide WHERE “enough” money is enough?

This is the reason attempts to absolutely centralize production simply collapse: those making decisions on how much often misjudge the situation. which usually means quality and/or quantity fall far below what is healthy.

The idea that everyone should keep what they earn is rather ludicrous, as is a flat tax.

How so? I’m not saying it won’t be difficult as hell, but I think that if the Western Allies could charge the fortress of Stevastopol and emerge bloodied but victorious, we too could charge the roudina of Mount Tax System and win, though reform is almost by definition long and painful. But, as LBJ and Nixon proved by radically altering the tax system in the first place, it isn’t impossible.

And while there are certainly problems with a flat tax as it is (lack of room to adjust, etc), who is to say that our CURRENT tax system is not as bad or worse? Granted, we can’t say that it IS or ISN’T yet, but it isn’t like our current system is pleasant.

Second, the value of a dollar to a millionaire is far less than that same dollar to someone below the poverty line.

You have a point, but you are missing a bigger one:

WHO CREATES WEALTH?

Here’s a hint: it usually isn’t those living on the street. I should know: how many people do you think I hired when I was living off of the charity soup kitchens?

And what happens to the money the rich and the “rich” pay out? Does it vanish? No, it doesn’t. It goes around, which has been proven by experiments tracing individual dollars around the economy and across the oceans and back again.

Thus, the point is that while an individual dollar is of less concern to Bill Gates than to Charlie Watkins of the San Jose Overpass, Charlie Watkins can hardly create jobs or produce much, now can he?

Thus to fund government it is logical to take more dollars from those with more to take.

Meh, perhaps, but you go overboard by changing from Taking $5,000 in Taxes from a Millionaire each month and $5 or less from the poor souls under the Overpass to BLEEDING the Rich dry and taking $998,000 in taxes from the Rich while letting the poor get a free ride.

Am I saying we bleed the poor to death? God no, ’cause I’ve been there. But let’s at least have them pull some weight, no?

I wasn’t always semi-Marxist, but poverty gives you a whole new outlook on life.

Well, tell me about it, because I’ve been there as well. Unless we compare notes, I can’t decide who “Got it Worse,” but I can tell you that I was pretty badly off, and I had to do things that literally embarrass me today (no, I didn’t do anything that would require regret like stealing, but it isn’t a period of my life I would like to repeat).

And you are right, living on the edge does add perspective to it.

Firstly, you realize how damn GOOD we are in comparison to some, even when we are living largely on charity and from hand-or-foot-to-mouth. You should have SEEN the Mexican nationals who came across the border. Some of them were literally skin and bones (and I WISH I was exaggerating on that), or had suffered from cartel violence (yes, it was going on than too).

Now, I wasn’t great, but I never was shot even in some rather ugly parts of town and I always had a healthy layer of blubber on me.

And I didn’t have to worry much about somebody coming from “higher up” and Shanghaiing me at gunpoint for some “Great State Project” that needed warm bodies with a pulse.

You see, it isn’t a part of my life I would like to relive, but it is one I could probably survive again if need be.

Can one say the same for those poor individuals who came across the border or who toil in Chinese sweatshops?

You begin to understand the lie of the American Dream.

Au Contaire, you begin to see how damn WELL it holds up under immense pressure, though I do concede that it isn’t true for everyone.

It doesn’t work out that everyone can retire a millionaire if they invest wisely.

Dat true, dat true. I do believe that Fontaine on BioShock said that “”These intellectuals and philosophy types always seem to forget one thing. Someone always has to clean the toilets, even in paradise.”

In addition, Death of a Salesman should tell us that one can do everything right and still fail.

But while the American Dream is not guarenteed- a point you are correct on- you still miss another point:

Is it not good to have even that CHANCE?

I mean, look at India- even today, when things have definitely improved a lot-; there are entire families condemned to live and die in filth without ANY chance whatsoever to improve because they are “Untouchable.”

Say what you will, but the American poor are hardly in such a situation.

Oh yes, and guess what: even the Untouchables still have far more rights and opportunities than those who had the misfortune to belong to the wrong ethnicity, wrong beliefs- religious, capitalist, Democratic-Republican, etc- or who simply were on the “$hit List” of a party bigwig in those nations that openly declare their Marxist heritage.

Sound appetizing?

Not everyone has the drive, luck, or cunning to climb to the top.

And some have all of the above but STILL can’t climb to the top.

But that brings me back to my previous point: is that not better than having entire families being consigned to the ash heap of history NOT because of their identities or boons as humans but as a CASTE?

Besides, why should being rich be important?

Um, because they are the engine that fuels the ecconomy?

Anyway, I say tax the rich.

Yes. But I say tax them only to finance the government, NOT as some attempt to crush them on the behalf of some Social experiment.

They benefitted from the bubbles of mortgage and stock market, and they will benefit again when the recovery comes.

Yes, but only if they REMAIN rich, as opposed to having fallen under the poverty line from excessive taxation.

The rich are mortal, and they do not have infinite money.

Now that things are tough, it’s time for them to cough up the funds for those who are unable to survive.

Fair point, but there is a fine line between making sure the poor can find enough to not starve and what Marxism proposes.

The assumption in conservative circles seems to be that hard work and self-reliance are the most important virtues.

They aren’t: Justice, Honor, and Morality are. But Self-Reliance is up there.

I used to think so as well, but what happens if you simply don’t want to work your ass off, spending all your time amassing wealth?

Than you work your ass off spending SOME of your time amassing wealth and using the rest for the activities of your choice?

Or you can expect to become dependent on food coupons and other people’s charity- the charity of those who DO work- while you can never reasonably expect to do much?

The latter seems to be what you advocate for.

Should you suffer? If the answer in your head is “yes,” then you’re a social Darwinist.

Hat to tell you, g’vner, but the WORLD is socially Darwinian. What happened back in ye olde days if you didn’t want to “work your a$$ off” hunting and farming?

YOU DIED.

It isn’t about what I think- though yes, I do think the poor should suffer to a degree, just as the rest of us must suffer-, but about the realities of the economy and of human nature itself.

As I’ve grown, matured, and got more experienced, I’ve become more compassionate.

As do most. However, that brings me to another point: for all your growth in experience and compassion, have you ever considered what it is like for the wage earner trying to stay in the black to both avoid ruin and to do what they wish to do?

I realize that there are a great many kinds of people in the world. Some are greedy, some are altruistic.

You seem to think Greed and Altruism are mutually exclusive. Here’s a hint: They aren’t. Look at “Wreckafeller”, Gates, and Carnegie.

The problem in our world is that we try to shove all kinds of people into the same mould- that of the hard-working capitalist always trying to improve their station. It’s become a social virtue to be a workaholic.

While you have a point, I must say that history is rarely made by those dependent on handouts.

This flies in the face of our advances in technology, siceince, and medicine.

And pray tell me how do you think those advances came about? By those working their a$$es off trying to make deadlines or to climb into prosperity.

We should be enjoying our time as leisure and self-exploration while seeking enlightenment through an understanding of the complex universe we live in.

And can one not do that in between shifts? Enlightenment is hardly opposite of enrichment (though the two are not necessarily alike either).

Of course, many don’t do that. They prefer a reductionist world-view such as religion or politics which offers trite answers to all of life’s complexities

Or they do their philosphising outside of the workplace and in between shifts (or perhaps during them if they can multitask). Such slander against those who are probably responsible for your continued existence is sickening. While some workaholics are indeed rather “shallow,” not all of us are.

And those “shallow” workaholics can actually bring tangible results, which I think even the “deep” poor would have trouble doing.

while freeing them of any responsibility.

Oh, like the responsibility to make a living, work to better humanity, and to care for one’s family, one’s friends, and the poor?

The irony is DEEP.

Let me put it this way: as under the Constitution, you have the inalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. As such, I am hardly going to advocate literally starving the poor out. But it goes both ways, and you have to accept some tradeoffs.

Let me put it this way: if you are rich, you have to put up with taxes but have the luxury to use the rest of your money as you please as long as you meet the legal obligations. And that is fine with me.

If you are an Impoverished Philosopher like you seem to advocate, you are free to draw breath and a mixture of government and private charity.

But the catch is that you can’t really expect to fairly get that X-BOX/Collected works of Marx/DVD Player on food coupons, now can you?

If you are fine with that, than that is fair by me. Just keep in mind that you ultimately are far more dependent on us than we are on you, and that you too must pitch in should an event such as war or natural disaster occur (no, you don’t have the legal obligation, but you have the MORAL obligation, like the rest of us).

That is all I ask.

Case in point: If you buy into Objectivism

Well, I don’t, and for reasons I shall get into later.

you absolve yourself from worrying about how your profit-

Not necessarily, because there are several breeds of “Objectivism,” and Rand was certainly a believer in Capitalism, but may I also point out that Objectivism as a philosophy is hardly generous to the poor or those in the way of one’s personal enhancement?

seeking affects those who you use (such as workers or investors) to earn those profits. If they get taken advantage of, who cares? It’s their own fault. They should have been more responsible.

And THIS much I can agree with you on. While I agree with some of Rand’s points, you can only take the “Dog-Eat-Dog” factor to a certain level before it becomes destructive, not only to society as a whole, but also to the individual.

The fact is that life isn’t fair, and that there will always be those who through misfortune, birth, or circumstance have less wealth, power, and opportunity.

And I can to. But the point is that is it just for those without them to take advantage of those with it to ultimately do nothing but philosophize and draw breath?

I see nothing wrong with those who choose to seek advantage being taxed to support the rest of society.

Well, I do, but I view it as a necessary evil to sustain the system that allows people the opportunity to “seek advantage” in the first place. But can we not agree that the poor must be taxed at a certain level too in order to both be somewhat fair to the rich and to encourage the poor to rise above their misfortune?

If the compassionate reasons for doing so don’t appeal, think of it as insurance against the pitchforks coming around to take by force.

But the problem with that is that once you pass a certain point and people believe (rightfully or wrongly) that working for one’s benefit and those of one’s loved ones is more trouble than it is worth, you have a whole lot of angry people doing nothing productive- indeed, being DESTRUCTIVE by their very nature- and nothing gets done.

Do you have ANY idea what would happen if that would happen?
Well, let’s just say that suddenly, charity and government aid goes out the window.

If society is set up as a struggle for dominance, don’t be surprised when those who cannot become dominant conventionally attempt to use unconventional means

True, but may I point out that it is not merely a case of SOCIETY being “set up” as a struggle for dominance, but that human nature itself is largely coded that way (remember, our ancestors spent their formative years trying to come up with odd doodads involving rocks and sticks to try and get enough to survive and to prevent anyone from taking it away).

The capitalists of the late 1900’s took the lesson to heart and became the greatest philanthropists in history.

Which brings me back to my previous point: human nature is by definition complex. Solzhenitsyn did more-or-less say that “the divide between good and evil lies in each man’s heart,” and the simple fact is that each individual has different boons and flaws, from the saintly (Gandhi, for example, heavily damaged the Allied war effort against Hitler and Stalin) to the sinful (Stalin was reknown for being a loving father to Svetlana, and would often take her with him to his “work”).

Also, I would personally disagree with the idea that they were the “Greatest Philanthropists in History,” though I believe that comes from my belief that freedom is worth more than money (and so the Western Allied leaders and soldiers of WWI, WWII, and at certain points of the Cold War were truly the “Greatest Philanthropists in history.”

Now we rely on the government for philanthropy, and so taxes are how it has to be done today. It sucks but it’s how things are.

A. Not exclusively; there is plenty of private charity out there if you look.

B. Yes it sucks, but it is necessary. However, here we get back to the “Tradeoffs.” Is it just for “Impoverished Philosophers” to expect all the joys of the world on the back of taxes? Somehow I doubt it. If you are happy with that tradeoff, so be it. But don’t bleed us dry.

So when those of you who have to cut checks to Uncle Sam do so, feel angry if you like but also understand that it isn’t unfair.

Oh, to an extent it is. But it is a necessary evil.

It’s the cost of doing business.

True.

It’s what was decided generations ago as how we wanted our society to function.

Not so much, it is how we were forced to adapt generations ago when we realized that there are some things even the most productive individual, and CERTAINLY “Deadbeat Economists” and Overpass Philosophers can not do alone.

Then go and earn more money if that’s what makes you happy.

Or here’s a better idea: make more money to cover “Cost of Doing Business” and then use what you have to DO what makes you happy. Climb Mount Everest. Visit Marx’s study. Do whatever in the bounds of legality. But the ticket is not free, that much you should realize.

I’m hearing a lot of stories about how people worked so hard for their lucre.

Cute. Suddenly, providing the necessities to our families AND YOU is “Shameful.” If you insist on living off of our dime, at least have the decency in not insulting us.

You chose to do that and were born into it.

Oh, so we all earned our fortune because we were “born” to succeed, not having “earned” anything from the ground up. Charming.

It doesn’t entitle you to anything. It doesn’t mean those who either chose not to do as you did or were unfortunate enough to be born into different circumstances are inferior.

Um, hate to tell you, but Yes it does, Yes it does, and yes it does. The simple fact is that we are those who provide all but the air you breathe to you and your fellow “Poor Philospohers.” That food you eat? Grown and/or raised in faraway fields by a rough combination of agribusiness and other producers/refiners. Those clothes you wear (that is a reasonable guess, no?)? The material that made them was grown in the fields, shipped to the factories, and than refined to make garments. Those food coupons and other government benefits you enjoy? Paid for by the taxpayer. The freedom to live your “life” philosophizing on other’s dimes? Earned in blood by those who fought, killed, died, tortured, and were tortured to preserve your RIGHT to Life, Liberty, the Pursuit of Happiness, and the ability to have food coupons delivered to you on welfare.

Yet, in all that philosophizing, you apparently never took those things into account.

The blunt fact is that we have made our society- for better or worse- off of our sweat and blood and those of our forebearers. Simply put, we work, we make the rules. Fortunately, they are not terribly inhumane rules- as I can personally attest to, and you obviously can as well-, all we ask is that you don’t take our sacrifices for YOUR livelihood (such as it is) for granted, that you do not belittle us, and that you aid us in times of crisis.

Yet this sort of social Darwinism and moralizing is the default response.

After millenia of foraging, hunting, planting, and fighting to survive, you wonder why?

Perhaps if I had been put into situations that were similar I might think the same way

.

Yes, I think if YOU actually had to fear the taxman, I believe you would actually care more about preserving your livelihood and that of your family. If you had to ever fight and kill for Liberty, I think you would be more appreciative of what must be done. Which is why I propose levying taxes on the poor as well as the rich and the middle class.

Privileged people tend to think they earned the privilege.

And would it be a stretch to say that they are often right about that?

It can be distressing for those who think they had power and control to relaie thet they in fact were at the mercy of fortune the same as those they looked down on as inferior.

You have a point, but you are missing a larger one: who is more at the mercy of fortune and fate? Back in ye olde days of Sumeria, if a famine struck, who would be more likely to survive: the hardworking farmer or the layabout philosopher who lived solely at the mercy of the Priest-King? The answer is hard to tell given the high mortalities of the day, but the former would at least have some stock of food to turn their back on, while the latter would likely have only the whims of fate. Does this mean that the former is immune or that the latter is certain to perish? Of course not. But the chances are likely better for the former. And, more importantly, it is the former, not the latter, that would rebuild the foundations for tommorrow. And the same exists today. What would happen if the Chinese were somehow able to impact several nuclear missles at strategic places around the US? Who would pick up of the pieces?

The losses in the stock markets come to mind.

On the Wheel O’ Chance, the Stock Market rates far Reliance on continued Welfare.

At any rate, I make no judgments on character or morality as regards to wealth, power, and “drive.”

Given your often condescending attitude towards us, I have reason to doubt that.

All that matters is doing the most good for the most people while doing the least harm.

I am sure that those who perished in the Gulags “For the Greater Good” would agree, if any of them were still alive.

I used to think that Objectivism (or something a bit like it- see Ayn Rand) was the best way to do that.

But I never have, because I detected the flaws in Randian idealism (which I honestly find more similar to Nietzsche’s romanticism about power unchained by morality than anything else_

Now I swing more towards Marxist (NOT Communist) thought. I’d like no one to go hungry, sleep without a roof over their head, or live in fear. If the route to those things is higher marginal tax rates, so be it.

Perhaps, but do you realize that- regardless of how unfair it is- the producers and the dependents are not equal in terms of productivity and effects? Do you approve of “bleeding” the rich to death rather than merely taxing them for funds? Where do we draw the lines between the Individual’s rights and the good of the whole?

These are all questions I would sincerely like to here the answer to.

I’ve seen enough of life at the bottom, and enough of life at the top to give me compassion and understanding.

As have I.

I know that while one is at the top one can afford to pay more in taxes. If anyone wants to know my arbitrary definition of what the “top” is, I’d say that $200K+ a year is certainly the top.

Hardly, and you do realize that is probably over half of the populace, right?

Below that, it depends. In the good times, I expect the rich to get richer.

Well, it depends. The uber-rich Soros would probably wither away if “good times” continued for so long (cuts into hedge fund opportunities, you know?), while movies made a killing during the Depression. The Market is quite fluid, and it also depends on leaving the rich intact enough after taxation to use their capital to get richer.

IN bad times, I expect the rich to cough up more to cushion the blow to those at the bottom. The reason is because they can, and should.

OK, I can see some reason to this. But in really bad, the-Chinese-are-landing-in-Sacramento-Run-For-Your-Lives times, is it unjust to expect the poor to pull their weight (perhaps not only monetarily, but in labor and other means?) with the rest of us?

We are all here together, bound by a common thread of humanity and existence. That should be reason enough.

Perhaps it SHOULD be, but it often isn’t. The sad fact is that the freedoms you and I enjoy are the product of toil, blood, and death. Is it unjust to realize this, and expect that we all pull, even the poor?

I agree that further thought is required. It probably is for you, as well. That’s the nature of philosophy- it’s a journey with an unknown destination which takes place entirely whthin the self.

True, but what is the harm in drawing a paycheck to live and prosper in between philosophizing?

I know many comfortable people. They all got lucky in some way. In my weaker moments I am jealous, but not covetous. That is, I want that for myself but I wouldn’t think of taking it from them. They pay more taxes than I do, as they should. Nothing wrong with that.

Yes, but do you realize that you also OWE them for subsiding your choice of living?

I would assert that it can be very hard for some people to get comfortable.

That depends on your definition of “Comfortable.”

People who are not secure in their positions tend to be more on guard. That’s why there are so many stories being posted detailing why those who are comfortable deserve to hoard their winnings.

Perhaps, but some part of that may be in the fact that your comments warrant a response, and you yourself have chosen to emphasize poverty as the key point in your “conversion,” which (if you have studied debate) is a point that others must counter.

I’m not sure what is meant by “false choice.”

I get the impression he was referring to your apparent implications that there is a choice between material wealth and spiritual/philosophical wealth (ie “You can only have one”).

If you mean a Darwinian survival of the fittest, then I fully stand behind that as the model for most conservative economic thought.

It is the model for a heck lot more than merely “most Conservative economic thought.”

If you mean that I am being too broad in painting those who strive after material wealth with the brush of greed, then perhaps.

Well, at least you can accept that…

What I am trying to bring to attention is how the American Dream is a load of manure.

Hardly. It certainly is unfair, but it is real, as the stories of Carnegie and others tell us. In addition, is it not preferable to something like the Indian Caste system (where there is almost- if not absolutely- no chance of improvement)?

It pits us against one another in a contest few are equipped to win.

It depends on what you mean by “few” and what you mean by “win.” In addition, how can you know you are equipped to win if you never even try?

Those who merely get comfortable tend to buy into this notion of how society should be ordered, i.e. wealth = happiness and poor = failures.

And I must concede that is not necessarily true, but forgive me is that is sadly how societies- and human nature itself- are actually ordered, even “Marxist” societies. The American Dream- for all its flaws- at least allows the slim chance of one to climb to the top.

It’s a load of crap that we are fed since before we can talk.

That “Load of cr@p” is the only thing keeping you alive and in coupons, so I would think twice before slinging mud.

Implicit in that world-view is a lack of compassion for those who do not fit the ideals of that world-view.

And now here you are painting us all with the Randian brush. Not all capitalists or those who work are Randian “Save Yourself First” enthusiasts. In addition, forgive me if we actually believe that becoming dependent on the government- an organ almost completely outside one’s control- is wise. But we will still subsidize your right to live as such. Forgive us if we actually expect you to pitch in.

Turtler on April 11, 2009 at 1:02 AM

If that’s your conclusion, then you really don’t understand what Rand was trying to say. She never advocated a dog-eat-dog philosophy but was trying to explain rational self interest.

…Which often was taken by many Objectivists to the point of “Dog Eat Dog.”

Too many people don’t understand that and many of them are capitalists without a firm philosophical foundation.

Ok, I can buy that.

My happiness is the most important thing to me and I’m not going to be a happy person by alienating everyone I come in contact with, so it is in my self interest to treat people how I would like to be treated myself and this will benefit me in the long run.

But what happens when you reach a point where morality and self-interest part ways? What happens if you are going to try and dodge the Draft- say, because you don’t see the reason to bleed and possibly die for “Moochers” like the Viscount- even as the shelling goes on overhead? What happenes if you are a young Jewish kid in the Concentration Camps who is offered the chance to become a Kapo- meaning that your own life is temporarily saved in exchange for your help in taking OTHER’S Lives.

What do you do than?

And secondly, you claim that I “really don’t understand” what Rand is saying.

Perhaps, though a re-reading of Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead doesn’t seem to clear that up much.

However, this brings me to my next point. Perhaps it would be wrong to tar Rand and the Objectivists like that.

However, if that is the case, I would ask that you please tell many of the SELF-PROCLAIMED OBJECTIVISTS out there.

Don’t believe me? Go to half of the Objectivist sites on the web and you will see the type of Dog-Eat-Dog tripe that- more than anything else- is responsible for Rand’s reputation as advocating Dog-Eat-Dog (rightfully or wrongfully).

The problem with that is- like I said- there are situations where morality and self-interest do not concur, and the question becomes what do you do now?

Ponder that.

Turtler on April 11, 2009 at 11:21 AM

What am I fighting for? If I were a German in Nazi Germany, then yeah, I would dodge the draft and join the resistance. I would fight for freedom and liberty and all the things that make this country worth fighting and dying for but if this country turned into Nazi Germany, I would fight for it to return to it’s ideals, but I wouldn’t fight on behalf of a totalitarian regime. I think you are a bit broad in your definition of morality with that one.

A. Fair Point.

B. You and I both know that this was not what I was referring.

C. Rand herself affirmed that, while any nation has the right to crush “Oppressors” (which I agree with), she proclaimed that none have the DUTY to do so. And I suppose it would be OK for Yugoslavia to keep killing itself in the battle between the 1. Russian Satellite/Tito Wannabe, 2. The Islamist “Window” into Europe, and 3. The Militarist, Nationalist Tinpot regime because, hey, it’s more trouble to get involved than to stay out?

How on earth can you say you understand Rand and come up with that example?

Um, I was specifically thinking of GEORGE SOROS when I came up with that example, and it was meant to show that “Self-Interest” can be twisted in all sorts of directions. Yes, I know that Soros isn’t an objectivist and would probably be offended by the comparison (though he has no right to be, and it is Rand and her disciples- however kookey they may turn out to be- who ought to be offended). Like I said, what happens if you are forced to choose between morality and self-interest? Looking out for yourself is all well and good, but at some point in time you have to make a descision to either stick your neck out or to not.

Her whole life was a crusade against the very philosophy that leads to regimes such as nazi Germany and the USSR.

You know that, I know that (I have, after all, read her Bio), but tell your fellows. Physician, Heal Thyself.

No real objectivist would ever do this straw-man scenario you’ve cooked up because a rational person would know that throwing their lot in with these types of people would be a temporary reprieve at best and against everything they believe to the core of their being at the most basic level.

True, but I was pointing out the question of where does one cease to have a “choice” to take action and one acquires and OBLIGATION to act. You haven’t answered that question, and you also haven’t addressed the fact that I didn’t really cook up EITHER of those questions. I lifted them almost verbatem from an “Objectivist” forum.

I’m not going to be a Nazi to survive.

Fine by me, and I didn’t think you would.

But your rage would be better directed against those giving your philosophy a bad name. If you want to critique other people, first start cleaning your own house.

That is all.

Turtler on April 11, 2009 at 2:53 PM