Libertarianism

[pErvinalia]

actually expending time doing something. Inheriting wealth isn't work. And shifting money to the bank account of some lobbyist or politician isn't work.

Ah, this is the slender reed upon which Marx based his entire laborious and tautological theory; that only "real work" is a "legitimate" way to create or acquire wealth. Inheriting wealth may not be physical labor on the part of the person who receives it, but the wealth itself is the product of the labor of the deceased, and once the heir has it, putting that capital to work to generate more wealth is indeed "work" by any rational measure because it generates wealth, which is the only legitimate and appropriate measure of "work," if such a measure is even needed.

I addressed this earlier to Cormac. I accept that investment is "work" of sorts. But I made the qualifier that there is a difference between productive investment and power games and economic bullying. (and causing more harm than good, like many financial instruments).

Marxist thought, however, explicitly rejects interest and rents as "labor" for no better reason than Marx doesn't like the fact that the wealthy don't have to labor on the production line. His entire philosophy, and your entire argument, are built on this foundation of philosophical sand.

Well, given i'm not a marxist, that's quite a leap you are making there. If one is a capitalist, as I am, then you have to accept the idea of capital and profit motive as a legitimate force.

The question we're addressing is not the value of labor or the "fairness" of one form of wealth generation over another, but rather how we each pay for our share of the costs of providing a "healthful, stable, lawful" society. What does it matter how each member of the society pays his or her proportionate share of those costs? The only reason that you and Marx have any complaint about "shifting money to the bank account of some lobbyist or politician" is because neither you nor Marx is wealthy enough to do so yourselves and have the effect on public policy that you desire.

At present you are right, but in the past I have had far greater than average wealth. I've lived on both sides of the divide. I have no desire to play childish bullying games. I believe in a more pure form of democracy where peoples' votes, not their wallets matter to public policy.

In other words, your entire philosophy is nothing more than an expression of greed, avarice, jealousy, envy and class-based hatred, nothing more.

Physician, heal thyself! LOL.

By the way, "shifting money to the bank account of some lobbyist or politician" is absolutely no different than shifting money to the bank account of your car mechanic. You pay, they perform some work on your behalf for that payment. There is zero moral difference.

The moral difference is whether the work that the recipient does is ultimately of benefit (or at least not negative) to society.

[pErvinalia]

I said "inheritance and power games" are not real work. Fighting for cystic fibrosis sufferers is not a "power game".

Fuzzy thinking there, rEv. Of course it is, it's a power game to garner money to fight cystic fibrosis and benefit those who have it. Every single person or group that petitions government for redress of grievances (or just for largess from the public treasury) is a "special interest group" because each of them has a special interest in getting government to benefit them or their cause to a greater degree than some other group or cause.

You might, for example, contribute money to a PAC or corporation (oooh the EVIL) which advocates for higher taxes, or less pollution, or greater wealth equality. All you're doing is hiring someone else to speak for you in the halls of government because you cannot do so yourself, directly. What's wrong with that?

I just don't accept, and I don't think anyone can rationally accept, that there is no moral difference between different lobbying activities. I'm not an objective moralist, so I need to be careful how I state such things, but reasonable moral assessments can be made I think.

Regarding your second part about inheritance - well, it depends on how much it was taxed in his life. You have to look at the overall tax burden to compare different distributions of taxation. Anyway, regarding why he possibly shouldn't be able to transfer it unencumbered - because the money might be better spent being reinvested in society. Paris Hilton might miss out on a couple of hundred mil, but she won't have to trip over so many poor beggars on her journey between her front doorstep and her limo.

Why must we look at the "overall tax burden?" If the plumber, or Paris Hilton, pays the required taxes each year on the money they have or earn, that's all they are required to do. When they die, all that capital has been fully taxed when earned. Why should it be taxed again?

Why shouldn't it? Both are arbitrary assessments.

You're just expressing class-based envy and jealousy here. You demean Paris Hilton because she has lots of money and you don't, and so you want more of her money. That's the sum total of your philosophy, and that of Marx as well. That makes you a Marxist, plain and simple.

This is just the lazy way free marketeerers dismiss arguments against them. I can equally say that your approach is class-based hatred. And indeed it is, as you've clearly stated in the past. In the case of me, it is easy to dismiss your empty claim, as I see a big difference between the Paris Hilton's of the world and the Bill Gates's of the world. It's got little to do with wealth alone.

Someone else is better at generating wealth than you are, and someone else has more wealth than you do, so you feel entitled to tell them how much wealth they may retain while you redistribute the rest for your personal economic benefit.

Your psychological make up is obviously so different from some others in society that you apparently just can't see how some people actually do care about others less fortunate than them. And that says more about you than me, I'm afraid.

That's the philosophy of the thief.

It's the philosophy of a socially-oriented individual who cares about people who are less fortunate than him.

[pErvinalia]

Forbes say 6% of Americans are on it, couldnt find the figures for the UK but apparently 20% of the population earn less than the minimum wage + £1 /$1.50

Regardless the minimum wage should be sufficient to ensure that if a person works 40 hours on it they can afford to rent a single room that isn't a health hazard within commuting distance, pay the utility bills, pay for transport to get to work, pay for sufficient food to survive on and least some form of entertainment ( a basic tv).

If that isn't possible (which it isnt without tax subsidies) then is the employer reallly running a profitable free market business?

Yes, because, again, not all jobs are meant to support a person or a family. And, economics doesn't work the way you suggest. Whether it's worth it for a store owner to hire some kid to break up boxes out back and take the trash out, or do it himself, depends on the cost per hour of that employee. If he can hire the kid for $7.50 an hour, then no big deal. If he has to pay him $20 an hour, then fuck that noise. It's not dependent on the expenses of the kid doing the menial task.

Similarly, a product costs what it costs to produce, right? That includes fixed and variable costs. So, before the business person can make a dime of profit, he has to know the "cost of goods sold." So, the cost of goods sold might be, say, $10 in fixed and $10 in variable costs, totally $20 right now. The company may look to make a margin of, say 20% , and so, he wants to sell it for $24 each. So, let's say that the minimum wage is raised to something you would think would support a family reasonably, and that goes from say $7.50 an hour to $20 an hour, and now the variable costs go up to $30 each unit. So, the product now costs $40 to make, and to make a profit he has to price it at something over $40.

There is no telling that demand for his product can bear that cost. It might, but it might not. Double the price of anything, and you will -- you WILL - reduce demand almost all the time. Very few products have such a strong price inelasticity that demand will be the same whether the price goes up or not. Price going up almost always pushes demand down. If it's a product people can do without, then you put him out of business.

That's the problem with this nonsense that every job must be a breadwinner job. When families have two earners going, sometimes one person just wants a cake job that earns some extra money but you can leave the job at work and not get much stress out of the deal. Bagging groceries at the supermarket is one of those things.

Jonno is talking about the ability for one person to support themselves with one job. Not families necessarily. The minimum wage, and even worse, the maximum dole payment, are not enough to support a single person (well, the minimum wage here isn't too bad; but in other places especially the US it is). The maximum dole payment here is well below the poverty line.

Now, even if you want to dismiss this concern away with the thing about supermarket shelf packing is meant for kids and retirees, the problem is the dole office doesn't treat them as such. If you as a single, hopeful self-sufficient person, doesn't apply for that supermarket packing job, then the dole office cuts your dole.

[pErvinalia]

Yes, because, again, not all jobs are meant to support a person or a family. And, economics doesn't work the way you suggest. Whether it's worth it for a store owner to hire some kid to break up boxes out back and take the trash out, or do it himself, depends on the cost per hour of that employee. If he can hire the kid for $7.50 an hour, then no big deal. If he has to pay him $20 an hour, then fuck that noise. It's not dependent on the expenses of the kid doing the menial task.

All full time jobs for adults are meant to support at least one individual, the UK does have age related minimum wage, its a lot less for 16 year old who shouldnt expect to be able to rent a room (and won't get any help of the tax payer unless they have a baby or exceptional circumstances) compared to someone who is 21 who will. There is also a 1st year apprentice rate where you are meant to provided relavent training by law

Does society benefit from any business that can only only make a profit but getting the state to top up the wages of its staff. Not sure how you would describe that system but its not free market economics (or socialism)

[pErvinalia]

the UK does have age related minimum wage, its a lot less for 16 year old who shouldnt expect to be able to rent a room (and won't get any help of the tax payer unless they have a baby or exceptional circumstances) compared to someone who is 21 who will. There is also a 1st year apprentice rate where you are meant to provided relavent training by law

Does society benefit from any business that can only only make a profit but getting the state to top up the wages of its staff. Not sure how you would describe that system but its not free market economics (or socialism)

Not paying breadwinner wages to every employee doesn't mean the state has to "top up" the wages.

But that's what the state has to do, and does, with both the dole and so called "middle-class welfare". If they didn't, those people would suffer greatly and you'd have mass civil unrest.

People who need breadwinner money should go do breadwinner jobs. Paying people wages that aren't worth the job they're doing doesn't benefit society either, as it incentivizes slacking. Why bother getting a job that is stressful and difficult, when you can make breadwinner money 9-6, with an hour for lunch?

Who cares? Most people aspire to more than a simple breadwinner wage. And THEY will be the ones who go for the more challenging jobs. But for those who just want to simply meet their existence costs as a step perhaps to something bigger in the future (or not), then they need those jobs available to them.

[pErvinalia]

Certainly from my personal experience the more I've earned the less stressful my job has become (I've being paid for my skills more than the amount of work I do)

Yep. I find working as a computer programmer getting paid high wages is way less stressful than when I worked as a shop assistant for minimum wages.

[pErvinalia]

I see these people every day, now the right wants to force them to work or starve. I'm just a bit more caring and realisitic

If they can work, and there is something for them to do, shouldn't they work for the money they're given?

and yet a few posts later you ask:

actually expending time doing something. Inheriting wealth isn't work. And shifting money to the bank account of some lobbyist or politician isn't work.

What is the purpose of the distinction between work and not work? Why do you draw that line, and why is it important?

This is one of the wierd things about libertarianism and even much capitalism. The work ETHIC, and the idea that people SHOULD work if they're consuming wealth is so vital when it comes to the poor, but mysteriously disappears when it comes to the rich.

I'm not at all convinced by claims about how important it is to have everybody working. You say "if there is something for them to do", but the fact is that most market economy countries simply don't have enough jobs to go around now. Partly that's because of technology. Partly it's because of people like Mrs Thatcher, in her wisdom, effectively disbanding the entire sector of our economy that used to pay the wages of manual workers, and turning us into a service economy that outsources that sector to the developing world.

But really, when you think about, who cares? We have an unprecedentedly high standard of living in long-term historical terms. The onward march of society, industry and technology has meant that we can secure a decent living for the majority of households that are based around useful work, even while we pay at least a subsistance rate to those that aren't. There are good reasons why we should continue to do that last part, including basic humanity not wanting to see people starve; allowing children to overcome poverty they're born into via decent education etc; and jonno's more pragmatic point about the dangers of an underclass who can either be fed by society, or be likely to reject it altogether.

A lot of people suffer moral panic at just accepting that a certain section of society don't work, but this is purely emotional not rational. When people are really intellectually or emotionally useless for the modern world the way jonno describes - or even sometimes when there aren't enough jobs available that they could do effectively in a technocratic and service economy - it will in many cases just not be worth the cost of training them, finding them work, paying them an actual full-time living wage plus sick pay, pension contributions etc, to have them produce very little.

The wage part is the key. What people seem to forget is that we don't pay unemployed people on benefits anywhere near what we consider even the barest minimum living wage. And that's fine because we don't consider that they deserve such a wage. Most people accept that for an economy to realistically function, anyone willing to work within that economy needs to earn enough to pay for food, clothing, a home, transport to work, the necessities of life etc, plus enough to live with some degree of dignity, pleasure, participation in society and to find a way to economic self improvement if they're willing. We may disagree about how to achieve that aim, but the aim itself is pretty much universal. Axiomatic even.

But we don't pay people on benefits enough to do that (at least in this country). We pay them enough to just stay alive. So when considering the value of getting them into work, you need to consider the differential between the benefit rate and a proper living wage (including training costs, employment costs etc.), and then consider whether what you would get out of them would justify paying that differential. In many cases it probably wouldn't. I hasten to add that this is an economic argument not a humanitarian one. People look at the dole bill and think "OMG, what terrible waste!" But it may be, in reality, that it's actually the least wasteful way to realistically run a capitalist society. Forcing useless people to work just to calm your moral panic might actually be much more wasteful.

Well said.

[pErvinalia]

But we don't pay people on benefits enough to do that (at least in this country). We pay them enough to just stay alive.

Well, think through what happens if you set up a system to pay people not only a living wage, but a wage sufficient to cover all current expenses, have nice vacations and spending money for the week, and put money into retirement, and paid medical and all that,and they can do that without having a job. Why get a job? Fuck it, right? Stay home and do what you enjoy -- take up hobbies. Write. Read. Play golf. Whatever. Who the hell would do anything that requires risk or stress? Who would build a business - who would start a restaurant requiring her to be up at dawn, work all day, then toil on through the night planning, doing books and all that?

This is on of the greatest fallacies of conservatives. That money is the only meaningful incentive out there. Sure, there would be a fraction of people who would do nothing, but would you? Seriously? I know I wouldn't. And pretty much everyone I know wouldn't. It's a giant fallacy. Either that, or you are exaggerating for rhetorical effect.

So when considering the value of getting them into work, you need to consider the differential between the benefit rate and a proper living wage (including training costs, employment costs etc.), and then consider whether what you would get out of them would justify paying that differential.

They don't work for you and me, or the State, if they're in the private sector job market. The only one that makes that analysis is the employer hiring the person to a job the employer thinks he or she needs done.

In many cases it probably wouldn't. I hasten to add that this is an economic argument not a humanitarian one. People look at the dole bill and think "OMG, what terrible waste!" But it may be, in reality, that it's actually the least wasteful way to realistically run a capitalist society. Forcing useless people to work just to calm your moral panic might actually be much more wasteful.

That is only if you conflate the money and capital of the private economy with government money and capital, as if what a private business spends or does is somehow a cog in the wheel of the Every Employer, the State. Odd that so many people view it that way. Tax money is not the same money as ABC Corp's money. If ABC Corp needs an employee and wants to hire that person it is no business of yours, mine or the State that they do so. By your logic, corporations should fill out requisitions for employees to a State agency which will then analyze the stated need and determine if it is justifiable in light of overall government policy and the needs of society.

Geez you do wild exaggeration for rhetorical effect well, don't you?

[pErvinalia]

See, that's another thing that folks critical of capitalism fail to see. They often confuse it with a meritocracy. Capitalism is not a meritocracy and does not promise that only the best will rise to the top.

Have a word to seth about that, will ya?

[pErvinalia]

Well, since I pay a lot of taxes, I care. If some asshole is physically and mentally able to get a job and can get a job, then he should get that job rather than be paid State money. I don't really care if he chooses not to get the job, but if he does affirmatively decide not to take the job, preferring to stay home and watch t.v. on the taxpayer dime, then the dole should be cut off.

Thats a moral argument its just not a pragmatic one, I am quite prepared to pay anyone a very basic amount money for life even if they never even try to get a days work.
Do I resent it, yes of course but the alternative isnt we cut of their dole and they suddenly get a job , its they starve or come around and mug me.

Yep. This sums up two of the most common conservative fallacies - "moral hazard" and "money is the only important incentive".

[pErvinalia]

Someone packing potato crisps for a living is engaged in a far less stressful pursuit than a doctor or the President. It's not the control that is the stressor or destressor -- it's the responsibility. When you have a job that comes with high demands on your intellect, requires you to actually produce and achieve, that is what causes stress. Packing crisps and emptying bins is mindless work which if you fuck up will do zero damage to anyone. All you do is show up and go home. Any monkey can do those jobs. Packing crisps pays not much because anyone can do it. Picking up garbage or bins pays a bit more because of the higher physical demand -- not "because of" the higher physical demand but because of the smaller supply of workers available to fill the job.

Don't think you appreciate how stressful mindless work is, responsibilty is more than countered by control. You do get jobs where you are expected to have responsibility but have little control and these really are appalling jobs Doctors are somewhere in the middle as in the end of the day they will always fail their patients when they die. Have you ever done such a mind numbing job as working in factory line (working in a shop is generally a few steps above factory work as you can actually interact with the customer , you have at least some control).

If I have the choice between working where I am for the minimum wage or working in a factory I would stay where I am any day of the week

I do, as I have done that sort of work in my life. Stress in a job comes from not being able to leave it at work, having lives and livelihoods in your hands, etc. Nobody is full control of their environment. The chip-packer, however, doesn't need to be "in control" because all he's doing is putting chips in boxes.

I have, indeed, worked on a mind numbing factory line, putting small devices into a mounting bracket, one...after the other...after the other all day long.... I've also done data entry and other repetitive work. There was no stress in those jobs because you don't have to think, and if you screw up it's no big deal. The only thing you can do wrong is "not work" or "goof off." That's not stress.

Sure, I would stay where I am any day of the week too, even though I have far more stress than a factory assembly line worker, because I make more money. However, if I were to be asked to do this same job for the same wage as I would make packing those small devices into the mounting brackets, I'd do that job, because I'd be done in 8 hours, get paid for overtime, have no responsibility and still make the same money.

You really can't be serious in this argument. It's unfathomable. A guy putting crisps in boxes has a more stressful job or more difficult job than doctors, lawyers and Presidents? The fact that you even make the argument is astounding. Who has the most demanding job? A professional video game player?

I think you are both right and you are both wrong. It probably comes down to how comfortable you are in your own head. Clearly Jonno has some issues going by what he bleats out these days, and I too can't stand my own company. By that, I mean, doing an unthinking job for me is hell, as my mind goes into overdrive and sends me loopy. I am much less stressed doing a job that actually puts my mind to work. But other people are different and enjoy having their mind freed up for other thoughts. You're both right and both wrong.

[pErvinalia]

Well, since I pay a lot of taxes, I care. If some asshole is physically and mentally able to get a job and can get a job, then he should get that job rather than be paid State money. I don't really care if he chooses not to get the job, but if he does affirmatively decide not to take the job, preferring to stay home and watch t.v. on the taxpayer dime, then the dole should be cut off.

Thats a moral argument its just not a pragmatic one, I am quite prepared to pay anyone a very basic amount money for life even if they never even try to get a days work.
Do I resent it, yes of course but the alternative isnt we cut of their dole and they suddenly get a job , its they starve or come around and mug me.

It's a sad fact of life in most Western countries millions of people are just surplus to requirement as a civilization we need to accept this. Maybe in the past they would have travelled to new lands voluntary or just deported but thats not an option anymore

It's not a moral argument, as I don't assess right and wrongness of anyone's behavior. For all I care, he can stay home and wank all day. It's not my business. It is my business, as a taxpayer, that he gets some of the money I and others who pay taxes have earned and been forced to shell out for him. That's not moral. That's just the desire not to foot the bill for someone else's choices.

What? Of course that is a moral call. What do you think "morals" are? It's about issues of "right" and "wrong".

Poverty does not cause crime. Just because someone is poor doesn't mean they're more likely to become a mugger. People who are employed, actually, commit more crime than the unemployed.

Per head?

And, they're not going to starve in the US or the UK because there is plenty of food everywhere. If they are able-bodied and able-minded, they'll go get some money, lawfully mostly, to buy food.

As I understand it, the black market is quite big in the US. Is that right? Generally, the better the welfare and the higher the minimum wage, the smaller the black market in employment is.

[Seth]

You still haven't justified why Person A should be compelled to labor on behalf of Person B. Person A has a responsibility to labor on behalf of himself and perhaps those he has taken financial and social responsibility for in order to pay his fair share of the costs of providing a healthy, stable and lawful society. But again, what is your rational justification for causing Person A to pay more than Person B for the direct benefit of Person B. And why is Person B not required to labor on his own behalf to pay for his fair share of the costs of providing him with a healthy, stable and lawful society?

Well, person B generally IS required to labour on his his own behalf if he is physically able to. I don't know of anywhere where you can get unlimited dole money without searching for work and taking work skills programs, and indeed being forceably enrolled in a work for the dole programme like is happening in neoliberal economies everywhere now. There will always be a small percentage of people who can't work, either through physical disability or effective mental disability from an abusive upbringing, and the odd lazy person. There's no need to punish other honest people who are going through hard times. As we keep mentioning to you, that is the cost of living in a stable and civilised society. It's an understanding that not everyone can be happily employed and mentally and physically healthy at all times throughout their lives.

Evasion, obfuscation and pettifoggery! Answer the question...for once. What is your rational moral justification for forcing Person A to labor against his will on behalf of Person B.

You seem to believe that Person A, simply because he's better at laboring and is compensated at a higher rate, somehow owes MORE than his fair share of the costs of government.

No. As explained, we happen to disagree what "fair share" means. Your assessment is just as arbitrary as my assessment. Although, evidence clearly shows that as wealth inequality grows, so does social dysfunction.

So, how do you determine what a "fair share" is in your preferred system?

The other point of disagreement is that Person A necessarily is "better at laboring" just because he is richer. They might be in some cases, but that isn't a given.

Pettifoggery. If he's making more money than Person B, his value to the marketplace for labor is higher. Why should Person A have to sacrifice his labor to Person B merely because his labor is more valuable in the marketplace than Person B's? That's like saying that because Apple makes more money selling computers than IBM does, Apple must be required to fork over part of its profits to IBM.
On what moral theory or basis would Person A owe Person B the fruits of his labor?

What is your rational argument that supports this claim? Why is the better, more efficient, more effective laborer who creates more wealth per unit of work obliged to pay a larger share of the costs of government than Person B, who is less industrious and less valuable as a worker?

I don't accept your premises.

As usual you're evading the issue, as you always do because you CANNOT provide a rational moral analysis of why Person A must be compelled to labor on behalf of Person B.

And that's why Marxists like you always evade the essential moral argument of Marxist collectivism.

You assume a priori that "fairness" (however Marxism defines that rather loose and mutable term on any given day as applied to any given person) automatically answers all questions about enslaving one person to the service of another. It doesn't. You have NEVER, EVER been able to construct any sort of rational moral argument for the basic premise of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Ever.

I doubt you ever will because you know full well there IS NO moral argument to be made in support of Marxist collectivist slavery of the "upper classes," much less the common Marxist practice of simply exterminating the "upper classes" (read: "anyone who has more than me") and expropriating what was once theirs. Stalin and Mao did rather a lot of that, and you're in the same class as they are because you have no moral foundation for your philosophy other than avarice, greed, jealousy and envy of those who are better off than you are.

[Seth]

actually expending time doing something. Inheriting wealth isn't work. And shifting money to the bank account of some lobbyist or politician isn't work.

Ah, this is the slender reed upon which Marx based his entire laborious and tautological theory; that only "real work" is a "legitimate" way to create or acquire wealth. Inheriting wealth may not be physical labor on the part of the person who receives it, but the wealth itself is the product of the labor of the deceased, and once the heir has it, putting that capital to work to generate more wealth is indeed "work" by any rational measure because it generates wealth, which is the only legitimate and appropriate measure of "work," if such a measure is even needed.

I addressed this earlier to Cormac. I accept that investment is "work" of sorts. But I made the qualifier that there is a difference between productive investment and power games and economic bullying. (and causing more harm than good, like many financial instruments).

Sorry, but that's a vague and useless value judgment on your part because you don't get to decide what's good for someone else, or society for that matter, and just because you think it's "economic bullying" doesn't mean it is.

Marxist thought, however, explicitly rejects interest and rents as "labor" for no better reason than Marx doesn't like the fact that the wealthy don't have to labor on the production line. His entire philosophy, and your entire argument, are built on this foundation of philosophical sand.

Well, given i'm not a marxist, that's quite a leap you are making there. If one is a capitalist, as I am, then you have to accept the idea of capital and profit motive as a legitimate force.

You walk like a Marxist, you quack like a Marxist, and you smell like a Marxist. I say you're a Marxist.

The question we're addressing is not the value of labor or the "fairness" of one form of wealth generation over another, but rather how we each pay for our share of the costs of providing a "healthful, stable, lawful" society. What does it matter how each member of the society pays his or her proportionate share of those costs? The only reason that you and Marx have any complaint about "shifting money to the bank account of some lobbyist or politician" is because neither you nor Marx is wealthy enough to do so yourselves and have the effect on public policy that you desire.

At present you are right, but in the past I have had far greater than average wealth. I've lived on both sides of the divide. I have no desire to play childish bullying games. I believe in a more pure form of democracy where peoples' votes, not their wallets matter to public policy.

You do realize that money is equal to speech don't you? I paid the NRA rather a lot of money to speak on my behalf regarding gun rights. Other people pay other lobbyists money to speak on their behalf. This is perfectly normal and desirable because we can't have our legislators spending all their time listening to 300 million individuals. People's votes do matter, but what they base those votes on is free speech by all and sundry, from which they may choose a message that resonates with them. Just because you don't have enough money to mount a multi-million dollar ad campaign to stump for your favorite cause doesn't mean that it's wrong for others to give money to organizations who will do so in their interests.

In other words, your entire philosophy is nothing more than an expression of greed, avarice, jealousy, envy and class-based hatred, nothing more.

Physician, heal thyself! LOL.

Typical evasive pettifoggery.

By the way, "shifting money to the bank account of some lobbyist or politician" is absolutely no different than shifting money to the bank account of your car mechanic. You pay, they perform some work on your behalf for that payment. There is zero moral difference.

The moral difference is whether the work that the recipient does is ultimately of benefit (or at least not negative) to society.

Why? And what the fuck does that mean anyway? Who decides what's "ultimately of benefit" and who gave them the authority to make that decision? I get to make decisions about what's beneficial to ME through the expenditure of my labor and capital. If that's not beneficial to someone else, well, that's just too bad because that's not my problem unless I choose to make it so.

[Seth]

I said "inheritance and power games" are not real work. Fighting for cystic fibrosis sufferers is not a "power game".

Fuzzy thinking there, rEv. Of course it is, it's a power game to garner money to fight cystic fibrosis and benefit those who have it. Every single person or group that petitions government for redress of grievances (or just for largess from the public treasury) is a "special interest group" because each of them has a special interest in getting government to benefit them or their cause to a greater degree than some other group or cause.

You might, for example, contribute money to a PAC or corporation (oooh the EVIL) which advocates for higher taxes, or less pollution, or greater wealth equality. All you're doing is hiring someone else to speak for you in the halls of government because you cannot do so yourself, directly. What's wrong with that?

I just don't accept, and I don't think anyone can rationally accept, that there is no moral difference between different lobbying activities. I'm not an objective moralist, so I need to be careful how I state such things, but reasonable moral assessments can be made I think.

It's all free speech. Just because you don't like the message doesn't mean there's a moral difference.

Regarding your second part about inheritance - well, it depends on how much it was taxed in his life. You have to look at the overall tax burden to compare different distributions of taxation. Anyway, regarding why he possibly shouldn't be able to transfer it unencumbered - because the money might be better spent being reinvested in society. Paris Hilton might miss out on a couple of hundred mil, but she won't have to trip over so many poor beggars on her journey between her front doorstep and her limo.

Why must we look at the "overall tax burden?" If the plumber, or Paris Hilton, pays the required taxes each year on the money they have or earn, that's all they are required to do. When they die, all that capital has been fully taxed when earned. Why should it be taxed again?

Why shouldn't it? Both are arbitrary assessments.

Evasion. You said "because the money might be better spent being reinvested in society." Who gave you license to make such a determination? What moral argument do you make that government is better equipped to decide where anyone's money is spent than they are? It's self evident that government is NOT better equipped to do so, otherwise we would not be borrowing 45 cents of every dollar the government spends from our grandchildren.

You're just expressing class-based envy and jealousy here. You demean Paris Hilton because she has lots of money and you don't, and so you want more of her money. That's the sum total of your philosophy, and that of Marx as well. That makes you a Marxist, plain and simple.

This is just the lazy way free marketeerers dismiss arguments against them. I can equally say that your approach is class-based hatred. And indeed it is, as you've clearly stated in the past. In the case of me, it is easy to dismiss your empty claim, as I see a big difference between the Paris Hilton's of the world and the Bill Gates's of the world. It's got little to do with wealth alone.

Who cares what you think? You're just envious of other people's wealth and lifestyle. That's no rational or moral basis for public policy decisionmaking. It's their money, they can do with it what they like, and just because you think you could make better use of it doesn't give you any moral suasion to take it from them.

Someone else is better at generating wealth than you are, and someone else has more wealth than you do, so you feel entitled to tell them how much wealth they may retain while you redistribute the rest for your personal economic benefit.

Your psychological make up is obviously so different from some others in society that you apparently just can't see how some people actually do care about others less fortunate than them. And that says more about you than me, I'm afraid.

Screw you. And you're wrong, it is YOU who has a malformed, infantile personality disorder typical of liberals. People who actually care about others give to others voluntarily out of an adult and mature sense of charity, altruism and enlightened self-interest. Immature, insane liberals such as yourself insist that THEIR metric of "caring" must be forced on other people against their will, and that they (the deranged and personality-stunted liberals) are best equipped to decide who must give what to whom in order to assuage the liberal guilt of being better off than someone else. It's pure insanity and liberals ought to be hospitalized until they grow up.

Your basic argument is that people must be FORCED by government to be "charitable" by taxing them, which is nothing more than enslaving them to the service of people they don't know and may not care about, much less accepted financial responsibility for.

That's the philosophy of the thief.

It's the philosophy of a socially-oriented individual who cares about people who are less fortunate than him.

[/quote]

It's the philosophy of the THIEF, nothing more. You may donate whatever of your labor and property you feel compelled to donate to those who are less fortunate. You've always been free to do so. But that's NOT what you're advocating for. You're advocating for stealing OTHER PEOPLE'S labor and property to fulfill YOUR perceived need for "social justice," even though those people may have already given what they are able to give voluntarily to someone else.

That's pure, unadulterated thievery. Their labor and property are not yours to dispose of as you see fit, and the same applies to government. Their labor is theirs and THEY get to decide who is worthy of receiving it as a charitable gift, not you, and not anyone else.