Ok, here's a policy issue that could have broad implicatios for all of us U.S.ians.

As many already know, there is a move afoot to totally eliminate the inheritance tax, even though it only applies to estates in the multi-million $$$ range.

While some also want to abolish the capital gains tax, there are others who want to extend it to ALL capital gains, ie to end the exclusions on final liquidation of assets.  Should this policy be imposed, most who inherite stocks and bonds and real property would be exemt from taxation until they sold, and realized a profit, on those assets while multiple hiers who liquidated inherited assets would pay the capital gains tax on their portion of the proceeds.  Which do you think is better social policy?

I've thrid to present the question in neutral terms and I'll answer my own question in a seperate post.  If anyone thinks the way I posed the question is slanted, I'd like to hear that too.

A few very weathy individuals, including Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and George Soros, have opposed the elimination of the inheritance tax, believing that to do so would further exaserbate the current and growing disparity in the distribution of wealth and create a new "aristocracy of birth".  I agree with this view.  During the reform movement of the 1840's, several "radicles" advocated a 100% inheritance tax, ie NO INHERITANCE of property of value, the proceeds to be used to finance public education for all.  In contemporary terms, the fact that Bill Gates made billions shouldn't give his kids his billions to get ahead.  Let them use the advantages that those billions provided them as the grew to make their own way in the world.

Given the current inheritance tax rates, my 4 kids will pay no taxes on my estate, but should all capital gains be taxed, each of their portions of my +/- $100,000 home would be taxable as a capital gain, since they would have to liquidate the asset to collect anything.  Meanwhile, the hiers to the Gates, or Buffet, or Soros estate could hold the financial instruments in which that vast wealth is expressed, pay no capital gains or any other tax, and live off the interest and dividends.

Estate taxes effect estate of $2 milion and up, IIRC. I wouldn't agree with eliminating it totally nor imposing a 100% inheretence tax.  I think one is just as silly as the other.  However, many wealthy interests would favor eliminating completely.
I'm with Kevin Phillips on this one.  Eliminating the estate tax would dry up an important revenue stream.  More importantly, vast fortunes of untold billions are a threat to a republican (that's small R) form of government.  Fifth generation multi-billionaires would have no concept of what it means to work for a living.  They would be utterly out of touch with how everybody else lives there lives.  Hence, they wouldn't see any incentive to restraining their self-promoting interests.  Money would completely override elected government.
We can see some of this occurring now, and the estate tax is still in place.

Some members of the billionaire class who favor a strong estate tax: Bill Gates, Sr., Warren Buffet, and George Soros.

I wouldn't agree with a 100% inheritance tax at all.  I don't think it is right for the government to take money away from heirs and keep it.  The money didn't belong to the govt in the first place.  The person who died earned that money and the govt shouldn't have the right to take it when they die.  It just doesn't seem right to me.

As for Capital Gains/inheritance tax issue...I would have to do more research and think about it.  Tough question.

I understand that someone would want to leave their kids the "fruits of their labor" so they won't have to struggle as much. Basically what I am talking about are the little "Mom and Pop" stores, and small farms/businesses, and basically what DC was talking about, their home. I don't think that the family-run business should have to go under because the head of that family dies the business can't afford the taxes or lose the family homestead because of taxes. However, it is very different when you are talking about multimillionaires. For one thing, I personally don't think that ANYONE needs that amount and couldn't possibly spend that in their lifetime, but that is not the topic here. I do think that there should be an inheirence tax on assests that exceed a certain amount. But that amount is, I have no idea.




Cat

I believe wealth taxes, including the Estate Tax, are needed to control plutocratic influence.  One's gut feeling is that it isn't fair for the government to take a person's hard earned money when he dies, which makes sense.  That's why I agree with keeping the qualification high for the Estate Tax, into the millions.

If there's a "family farm" or "small business" situation, a tax lawyer can make provisions to keep the property in the hands of the family.  The frequency with which these kinds of estates qualify for the Estate Tax has bee exaggerated by the opponents of the tax.  It can happen, though.

I understand that someone would want to leave their kids the "fruits of their labor" so they won't have to struggle as much. Basically what I am talking about are the little "Mom and Pop" stores, and small farms/businesses, and basically what DC was talking about, their home. I don't think that the family-run business should have to go under because the head of that family dies the business can't afford the taxes or lose the family homestead because of taxes. However, it is very different when you are talking about multimillionaires. For one thing, I personally don't think that ANYONE needs that amount and couldn't possibly spend that in their lifetime, but that is not the topic here. I do think that there should be an inheirence tax on assests that exceed a certain amount. But that amount is, I have no idea.




Cat


What does it mean to leave your progeny "the fruits of your labor"?  My labor peovided my kids with the education each wanted (a Ph.D. in biology, a B.A. in Sociology, a training in ballet, and an aprenticship in pottery).  Some of them have asked for, and recieved, additional help in the form of cash advances on their inheritance.  That is all one thing, but inheriting billions, or even millions, seems to me to give the lie to equal opportunity.  inheriting a few grand is one thing, but inheriting billions seems to me to lead to aristocracy.  Some of those billions, subejtect to a tax, could be used to fund the education of youths who might even be more brillient than those lucky enough to be born into billionaire families.

What does it mean to leave your progeny "the fruits of your labor"?  My labor peovided my kids with the education each wanted (a Ph.D. in biology, a B.A. in Sociology, a training in ballet, and an aprenticship in pottery).  Some of them have asked for, and recieved, additional help in the form of cash advances on their inheritance.  That is all one thing, but inheriting billions, or even millions, seems to me to give the lie to equal opportunity.  inheriting a few grand is one thing, but inheriting billions seems to me to lead to aristocracy.  Some of those billions, subejtect to a tax, could be used to fund the education of youths who might even be more brillient than those lucky enough to be born into billionaire families.

Aristocracy for the rich, meritocracy for the many.  That's the unspoken mandate the conservative movement is pursuing.  The mandate is in place already.  There is no equality of opportunity.  The repeal of the estate tax will widen the gap between the super-rich and ther rest to the point where a democratic republic cannot be sustained.  No hidden conspiracy here, certain billionaire families have made this intention clear via their actions, and made it clear for decades.  This includes family names ranging from Walton to Bush to Hunt.
Compare Andrew Carnegie's change of heart, from tycoon to philanthropist, with J.P. Morgan's statement "I owe the public nothing."  The latter attitude is at the core of the conservative movement of today.

What does it mean to leave your progeny "the fruits of your labor"?  My labor peovided my kids with the education each wanted (a Ph.D. in biology, a B.A. in Sociology, a training in ballet, and an aprenticship in pottery).  Some of them have asked for, and recieved, additional help in the form of cash advances on their inheritance.  That is all one thing, but inheriting billions, or even millions, seems to me to give the lie to equal opportunity.  inheriting a few grand is one thing, but inheriting billions seems to me to lead to aristocracy.  Some of those billions, subejtect to a tax, could be used to fund the education of youths who might even be more brillient than those lucky enough to be born into billionaire families.



That's what I meant. Maybe I didn't phrase it as well as I could have.



Cat

Okay, this is a subject that is hitting close to home right now as hubby's (step)grandma just died, leaving an estate valued at over 2 million (at least).  Noone, except her tax lawyer/lawyer/accountants know exactly what there is to it (and we're not even sure they know of all the money stashed in safe deposit boxes, kleenex boxes, envelopes hidden in various places in the house, etc), but we know the total value is over 2 million in just checking/savings accounts, the house, vehicle, jewelry, municipal bonds, etc.  Granted, we are not going to see much of that as we assume the bulk of the estate is going to her (blood) granddaughters and her son (his step-dad).  We're talking about a couple who had a 6th grade (gma) & a 9th grade (gpa--previously deceased) education who made all of this money due to hard work.  AND, although the "blood" descendents have never "wanted" for anything, they were expected to work to receive ANYTHING from them.  In my FIL's case, with all the bull he had to put up with his entire life from this woman, I don't think he should have to pay a dime to the govt.  I don't see why anyone should.  Let me just say, though, much of the "estate/inheritance tax" can be avoided by putting all assets in a living trust (which is what she did).

I agree.  $2 million divided by 12 or 24 is not that big a number, though I wouldn't turn my nose up at it!  The kind of estate tax I'm talking about would kick in at $2 million, or $4 million, but not at a very high percentage.  In the tens of millions and up, money becomes less about the means of exchange and more about political influence.

I wouldn't agree with a 100% inheritance tax at all.  I don't think it is right for the government to take money away from heirs and keep it.  The money didn't belong to the govt in the first place.  The person who died earned that money and the govt shouldn't have the right to take it when they die.  It just doesn't seem right to me.

As for Capital Gains/inheritance tax issue...I would have to do more research and think about it.  Tough question.
I agree!

Okay, this is a subject that is hitting close to home right now as hubby's (step)grandma just died, leaving an estate valued at over 2 million (at least).  Noone, except her tax lawyer/lawyer/accountants know exactly what there is to it (and we're not even sure they know of all the money stashed in safe deposit boxes, kleenex boxes, envelopes hidden in various places in the house, etc), but we know the total value is over 2 million in just checking/savings accounts, the house, vehicle, jewelry, municipal bonds, etc.  Granted, we are not going to see much of that as we assume the bulk of the estate is going to her (blood) granddaughters and her son (his step-dad).  We're talking about a couple who had a 6th grade (gma) & a 9th grade (gpa--previously deceased) education who made all of this money due to hard work.  AND, although the "blood" descendents have never "wanted" for anything, they were expected to work to receive ANYTHING from them.  In my FIL's case, with all the bull he had to put up with his entire life from this woman, I don't think he should have to pay a dime to the govt.  I don't see why anyone should.  Let me just say, though, much of the "estate/inheritance tax" can be avoided by putting all assets in a living trust (which is what she did).


While in my last post I mentioned some mid-19th Century reformers who advocated a 100% inheritance tax (Thomas Skidmore was one) and an argument could be made for such a tax, I am not advocating such a drastic measure.  But lets say that this legacy is taxed at 10%.  That still leave $1,800,000 to be divided between the hiers, and much of that, under current law, could be avoided. 

But the real point is what Max had to say - the inheritance of huge fortunes could easilly destroy democracy.

Man, I don't even know where to start.  You either believe in the right to own property or you don't.  You either believe that a person's property is theirs to do with as they choose or you don't.  The right to get filthy stinking rich if you can is what makes capitalism go.  What gives someone else the right to say that you have enough money, or that you can't pass it along to your kids?  I don't care how much we're talking about; it's just nobody else's business.

Income is income.  And if you are the heir to a fortune (no matter how big or small), then that is considered a source of income.  That's the way the govt. looks at it, therefore it should be taxed.  Not that I LIKE paying taxes, but we have to, and there's nothing we can do about it. :P 

And I agree with Claude - it shouldn't be anyone business.

Man, I don't even know where to start.  You either believe in the right to own property or you don't.  You either believe that a person's property is theirs to do with as they choose or you don't.  The right to get filthy stinking rich if you can is what makes capitalism go.  What gives someone else the right to say that you have enough money, or that you can't pass it along to your kids?  I don't care how much we're talking about; it's just nobody else's business.

Well, I wouldn't pose it as an either or question.  One can believe in private property rights without believing in the right of 1% of the population to control 99% of the wealth.  The extreme individualism is a seductive philosophy because, on the surface, it's quite simple.  You work as hard as you can and what ever you earn is yours.  The problem emerges from the surface as soon as you start talking about accumulated property, both capital and real.

If untaxed fortunes amplify in wealth over many generation, so does the political power of the fortune holders.  If you believe in a free market, you need to put measures in place to prevent this.  The harder it is for individuals to buy land and start businesses, the less competitive the market becomes.

Did you know that our government has actually been supporting the accumulation of wealth and property into fewer hands?  Look at the connection between agricultural subsidies and gigant corporate farms.  The number of farm-owning families today is perhaps 10% of what it was fifty years ago.

State governments even subsidizes the most profitable businesses.  For instance, did you know that Wal-Mart receives billions and billions of dollars in developmental subsidies from many states, while the budgets for social programs are being drastically cut?

You and I have the same number of votes as each of the Walton heirs.  One apiece.  Yet, our governments look after the interests of the Walton family long before they look after the interests of your family or mine.  This is the result of power accumulated by the Waltons as their wealth expands by many factors.

Do we want a democracy or a buck-o-cracy?

Well, I wouldn't pose it as an either or question.  One can believe in private property rights without believing in the right of 1% of the population to control 99% of the wealth.



Everyone has the right to their money (whether earned or inherited)  Just because someone is filthy rich doesn't give him less right to his money.  Everyone should have equal right to keep their own money.

I'm not going to argue the income tax thing because to tell you the truth I don't pay attention to any but my own.  But, the filthy rich do pay more in sales tax.  They buy more expensive vehicles (luxury taxes on top of sales tax), bigger houses.  Plus they have more disposable income to go out to dinner, go to movies or just buy stuff.  I can guarantee you I don't pay near what my aunt (who is rich) pays in sales tax just because I don't have the money to buy.  Sales tax is something that can't be avoided.  I guess what I am getting at is that if the filthy rich get to keep their money that is more that they can spend giving sales taxes to the area.

Ok, done rambling. ;)

Everyone has the right to their money (whether earned or inherited)  Just because someone is filthy rich doesn't give him less right to his money.  Everyone should have equal right to keep their own money.

I'm not going to argue the income tax thing because to tell you the truth I don't pay attention to any but my own.  But, the filthy rich do pay more in sales tax.  They buy more expensive vehicles (luxury taxes on top of sales tax), bigger houses.  Plus they have more disposable income to go out to dinner, go to movies or just buy stuff.  I can guarantee you I don't pay near what my aunt (who is rich) pays in sales tax just because I don't have the money to buy.  Sales tax is something that can't be avoided.  I guess what I am getting at is that if the filthy rich get to keep their money that is more that they can spend giving sales taxes to the area.

Ok, done rambling. ;)

What about the value of democracy versus the power of accumulated wealth?  That's my point.

My opinion on it is that just because someone is rich doesn't give them an extra vote.  I understand that the wealthy can have a bigger influence on elected officials, but we all have one vote.  What needs to happen is the people out there who don't vote for whatever reason need to get off their duffs and vote...especially when a politician does something that irks them.

I see alot of it here.  People whine that the repubs have too much control over our state (Utah, go figure ;)), but they don't vote to voice their displeasure at the way things are run. 

My opinion on it is that just because someone is rich doesn't give them an extra vote.  I understand that the wealthy can have a bigger influence on elected officials, but we all have one vote.  What needs to happen is the people out there who don't vote for whatever reason need to get off their duffs and vote...especially when a politician does something that irks them.

I see alot of it here.  People whine that the repubs have too much control over our state (Utah, go figure ;)), but they don't vote to voice their displeasure at the way things are run. 

Vote versus Influence.  This argument would make more sense if we imposed public funding on political campaigns.  No hard money, no soft money, no pac money, no corporate money, no union money, no funny money. All qualified candidates get an equal purse from a taxpayer-supported general fund.  That way the campaigns would be about ideas, rather than special interests.  As it stands you, the voter, elects the candidate, and the big-money special interests set the agenda.
>:(

Well, I wouldn't pose it as an either or question.  One can believe in private property rights without believing in the right of 1% of the population to control 99% of the wealth.  The extreme individualism is a seductive philosophy because, on the surface, it's quite simple.  You work as hard as you can and what ever you earn is yours.  The problem emerges from the surface as soon as you start talking about accumulated property, both capital and real.

If untaxed fortunes amplify in wealth over many generation, so does the political power of the fortune holders.  If you believe in a free market, you need to put measures in place to prevent this.  The harder it is for individuals to buy land and start businesses, the less competitive the market becomes.

Did you know that our government has actually been supporting the accumulation of wealth and property into fewer hands?  Look at the connection between agricultural subsidies and gigant corporate farms.  The number of farm-owning families today is perhaps 10% of what it was fifty years ago.

State governments even subsidizes the most profitable businesses.  For instance, did you know that Wal-Mart receives billions and billions of dollars in developmental subsidies from many states, while the budgets for social programs are being drastically cut?

You and I have the same number of votes as each of the Walton heirs.  One apiece.  Yet, our governments look after the interests of the Walton family long before they look after the interests of your family or mine.  This is the result of power accumulated by the Waltons as their wealth expands by many factors.

Do we want a democracy or a buck-o-cracy?


I don't expect the government to look after my interests; that's my job.  I don't expect it to look after the Waltons' interests either.  But because people accept the notion that government is there to look after SOMEBODY'S interests--as opposed to simply protecting rights--we have this standoff, with everyone wanting what they want and government is considered an acceptable way to take it, whether it's theirs to take or not.  The big businesses aren't doing anything anybody else isn't doing; they're just bigger and better at it.  It sucks, but until people are willing to accept that government isn't there to solve problems and make things better for "society" (whoever that is), nothing will change.

I don't expect the government to look after my interests; that's my job.  I don't expect it to look after the Waltons' interests either.  But because people accept the notion that government is there to look after SOMEBODY'S interests--as opposed to simply protecting rights--we have this standoff, with everyone wanting what they want and government is considered an acceptable way to take it, whether it's theirs to take or not.  The big businesses aren't doing anything anybody else isn't doing; they're just bigger and better at it.  It sucks, but until people are willing to accept that government isn't there to solve problems and make things better for "society" (whoever that is), nothing will change.

Governments have always been there to look after people's interests.  It just depends on who's.  Our forefathers told the king, "No taxation without representation," and fought a revolution.  The king was looking after his interests, not theirs.  When our republic was founded the interests of only 4% of the population were represented.  The unstated goal of the Reagan administration was to return the "interests-looked-after" percentage as far back to 4 as possible.  The more citizens you can convince of the notion that "government isn't here to look after your interests," the fewer the number and more elite the interests government does look after will be.

It's like telling your little brother, "you don't like chocolate cake do you? Chocolate cake sucks!"
Reagan's people looooved the government's chocolate cake, and wanted it all for themeselves!
So, I'm afraid I flat out disagree with your analysis!
:)

Vote versus Influence.  This argument would make more sense if we imposed public funding on political campaigns.  No hard money, no soft money, no pac money, no corporate money, no union money, no funny money. All qualified candidates get an equal purse from a taxpayer-supported general fund.  That way the campaigns would be about ideas, rather than special interests.  As it stands you, the voter, elects the candidate, and the big-money special interests set the agenda.
>:(


I agree...there does need to be some serious campaign finance reform.

Governments have always been there to look after people's interests.  It just depends on who's.  Our forefathers told the king, "No taxation without representation," and fought a revolution.  The king was looking after his interests, not theirs.  When our republic was founded the interests of only 4% of the population were represented.  The unstated goal of the Reagan administration was to return the "interests-looked-after" percentage as far back to 4 as possible.  The more citizens you can convince of the notion that "government isn't here to look after your interests," the fewer the number and more elite the interests government does look after will be.

It's like telling your little brother, "you don't like chocolate cake do you? Chocolate cake sucks!"
Reagan's people looooved the government's chocolate cake, and wanted it all for themeselves!
So, I'm afraid I flat out disagree with your analysis!
:)

Fine.  Free chocolate cake for everyone.  Hope the cake fairy doesn't mind.

Fine.  Free chocolate cake for everyone.  Hope the cake fairy doesn't mind.

What do you mean by that?

Man, I don't even know where to start.  You either believe in the right to own property or you don't.  You either believe that a person's property is theirs to do with as they choose or you don't.  The right to get filthy stinking rich if you can is what makes capitalism go.  What gives someone else the right to say that you have enough money, or that you can't pass it along to your kids?  I don't care how much we're talking about; it's just nobody else's business.


I'm sorry, but I have to disagree - in part.  The problem is, its not that simple.  Given your argument, how do you justify "sin taxes"?  Why should I have to pay both federal and state taxes on a bottle of rum and not on a pair of shoes?  Why should I have to pay taxes on my home, my income, gasoline etc?  Obviously, without taxes there would be no public schools, colleges or universities, no roads, no cops, (in many places) no fire fighters or rescue squads, in fact, the entire infrastructure would not exist.  Clearly, taxes are a necessary evil.  The question here has to do with tax policy.  If I make 50 million, send my kids to the best schools, provide them with all the extra lessons they want, supply them with abundant reading material, finance their travel...  In other words, give them every advantage, why shouldn't they earn their own 50 mil - if thats what they want to do?  Tax policy is social policy as well as fiscal policy, and it seems to me that the most painless tax is one paid by the dead.

My opinion on it is that just because someone is rich doesn't give them an extra vote.  I understand that the wealthy can have a bigger influence on elected officials, but we all have one vote.  What needs to happen is the people out there who don't vote for whatever reason need to get off their duffs and vote...especially when a politician does something that irks them.

I see alot of it here.  People whine that the repubs have too much control over our state (Utah, go figure ;)), but they don't vote to voice their displeasure at the way things are run. 


Sorry Dag, but I can't buy this.

During the 1980's Ait Traffic Controllers strike I tried to call our president, a public official elected to serve the people.  I was  tolds that the president dosn't accept calls from private citizens.  But do you think that Lee Iacoca (pres of Chrysler at the time) couldn't get through, or David Rockefeller etc?  I called the number in the phone book.  I'll bet you $$$ to donuts that the big boys have the number of the pres's appointment secretary.

I agree that poor folks need to vote, but to make that happen, politicians need to make a difference in their lives.

Alexander Hamilton said, at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1789, "all societies are made up of the rich and well-born and the mass of the people.  Give to the first class a perminant share of government.  We U.S.ians have  certainly done that, with a passion, and to a great extent through tax policy.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree - in part.  The problem is, its not that simple.  Given your argument, how do you justify "sin taxes"?  Why should I have to pay both federal and state taxes on a bottle of rum and not on a pair of shoes?  Why should I have to pay taxes on my home, my income, gasoline etc?  Obviously, without taxes there would be no public schools, colleges or universities, no roads, no cops, (in many places) no fire fighters or rescue squads, in fact, the entire infrastructure would not exist.  Clearly, taxes are a necessary evil.  The question here has to do with tax policy.  If I make 50 million, send my kids to the best schools, provide them with all the extra lessons they want, supply them with abundant reading material, finance their travel...  In other words, give them every advantage, why shouldn't they earn their own 50 mil - if thats what they want to do?  Tax policy is social policy as well as fiscal policy, and it seems to me that the most painless tax is one paid by the dead.

The reason I try not to refer to the "conservative" movement is I don't consider the movement identified with conservatism to be conservative.  I prefer to call it "right-wing."  Conservatives in my book are civic-minded.  When you say "every man for himself, devil take the hindmost," as the prevalent "conservative" attitude has been since Reagan, you have forsaken civics.  When you make the blankent statement that "taxes are evil, government is evil," you have forsaken civics.  The civic spirit says we're all in this together.  The right-wing spirit, as defined by Margaret Thatcher, says "There's no such thing as society, there's only individuals and their families."  Yes she actually said that.
DC, when you say there would be no universities, you mean there would be no public univerisities.  The University of Massachusetts is falling apart at the seams because of drastic underfunding.  We have a an far right-wing governor who could care less.  The decimation of UMass acutally began under a democrat, Michael Dukakis.  This is what happens when a liberal state buys a conservative myth, Reaganomics.  Cut income tax rates and corporate tax rates, and this will spur more investment, "grow" the economy, and create even higher revenues.  Didn't happen.  The right-wing will argue that we didn't cut taxes enough to spur economic growth.  Exactly, you're sick because you didn't take enough arsenic!  Feh!

What do you mean by that?

It means I'm an evil ba$tard who hates poor people, worships the rich, and believes everything my Heritage Foundation puppetmasters tell me.  ;)

Seriously, I agree with you about government subsidies for the rich.  They're wrong, and they shouldn't exist.  But that doesn't mean that the subsidies you happen to like are any better.  I know it's naive to think there will ever be a day when government isn't controlled by some special interest or another, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be the goal.  I still fail to see the difference between your argument and the tired old Robin Hood propaganda that's devastated every economy it's inspired.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree - in part.  The problem is, its not that simple.  Given your argument, how do you justify "sin taxes"?  Why should I have to pay both federal and state taxes on a bottle of rum and not on a pair of shoes?  Why should I have to pay taxes on my home, my income, gasoline etc?  Obviously, without taxes there would be no public schools, colleges or universities, no roads, no cops, (in many places) no fire fighters or rescue squads, in fact, the entire infrastructure would not exist.  Clearly, taxes are a necessary evil.  The question here has to do with tax policy.  If I make 50 million, send my kids to the best schools, provide them with all the extra lessons they want, supply them with abundant reading material, finance their travel...  In other words, give them every advantage, why shouldn't they earn their own 50 mil - if thats what they want to do?  Tax policy is social policy as well as fiscal policy, and it seems to me that the most painless tax is one paid by the dead.

I couldn't disagree more.  For one thing, I would never try to justify "sin taxes".  Like most taxes, they're evil without the "necessary" part.  As are most federal spending programs, which exist primarily to feed ever-growing bureaucracies.  The DEA is a good example.  They've wasted billions, harrassed and incarcerated countless hordes of innocent people, and enabled vast numbers of disadvantaged youth to forgo education or legitimate employment in favor of lucrative careers as drug-dealing gang members.  This is a necessary evil?  They'll spend and spend whatever money they're allowed to take; it's what they do. 

And I'm sorry, but if you've worked hard all your life to provide your children--or grandchildren, or great-grandchildren--with advantages you never had, would you really call it "painless" if you knew that after you died someone was just going to take it from them?  For that matter, why the hell would you bother working so hard if you knew all your money was just going to fund some bloated federal bureaucracy?  The reason capitalism works is because you get to keep your money.  That is how wealth is created, and it won't get created if someone's just gonna take it away.  My God, I can't believe there are still communists left; I thought everyone knew this stuff by now.

The reason I try not to refer to the "conservative" movement is I don't consider the movement identified with conservatism to be conservative.  I prefer to call it "right-wing."  Conservatives in my book are civic-minded.  When you say "every man for himself, devil take the hindmost," as the prevalent "conservative" attitude has been since Reagan, you have forsaken civics.  When you make the blankent statement that "taxes are evil, government is evil," you have forsaken civics.  The civic spirit says we're all in this together.  The right-wing spirit, as defined by Margaret Thatcher, says "There's no such thing as society, there's only individuals and their families."  Yes she actually said that.

This here is the core of our problem.  What is wrong with what Thatcher said?  What we call "society" really is just a collection of individuals who live in the same general geographic area.  It's an abstraction.  When you talk about "society's problems", you really are talking about the collective problems of these individuals--and the individuals and their problems are what actually exist in reality.  "Society" is just a convenient word apparently invented in order to justify all manner of atrocities in the name of the "good of society"--screw the individuals, they're not important.

I'm not saying we're not in this together.  I'm just saying that because of its coercive nature, government is the wrong way to be in it together.

Sorry Dag, but I can't buy this.

During the 1980's Ait Traffic Controllers strike I tried to call our president, a public official elected to serve the people.  I was  tolds that the president dosn't accept calls from private citizens.  But do you think that Lee Iacoca (pres of Chrysler at the time) couldn't get through, or David Rockefeller etc?  I called the number in the phone book.  I'll bet you $$$ to donuts that the big boys have the number of the pres's appointment secretary.



Well I was talking about voicing displeasure in the voting booth.  I think that if we could get those that either don't care or think their vote doesn't cout to vote then the politicians would sit up and take notice. I firmly believe that America is mostly moderate, but the loud ones are the only ones that get noticed and usually they are extreme on both sides.  (pompous windbag Rush Limbaugh comes to mind...also people like Barbara Streisand, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins etc)  I firmly believe that if we could get most of america to vote things might get done in the government.  Right now it seems to be one side trying to stop the other just because they are of the opposite political party.  (and I mean both ways...both parties are guilty of this)

Doesn't the president have an office staff that you can call and complain to, like the Congress etc?  You would think that he would. 

This here is the core of our problem.  What is wrong with what Thatcher said?  What we call "society" really is just a collection of individuals who live in the same general geographic area.  It's an abstraction.  When you talk about "society's problems", you really are talking about the collective problems of these individuals--and the individuals and their problems are what actually exist in reality.  "Society" is just a convenient word apparently invented in order to justify all manner of atrocities in the name of the "good of society"--screw the individuals, they're not important.

I'm not saying we're not in this together.  I'm just saying that because of its coercive nature, government is the wrong way to be in it together.

Thatcher was indeed saying we're not in this together.  She was saying there is NOT a "collective" reality.  She's too smart to think she was right and be sane!  Her statement was a convenient justification to advocate the British government abandon its social responsibilities.
I disagree that society is just an "astraction."  All societies have their own tangible dynamics distinguishable from the individual and the family

Claude Prez wrote:
Claude Prez wrote:
And I'm sorry, but if you've worked hard all your life to provide your children--or grandchildren, or great-grandchildren--with advantages you never had, would you really call it "painless" if you knew that after you died someone was just going to take it from them?  For that matter, why the hell would you bother working so hard if you knew all your money was just going to fund some bloated federal bureaucracy?  The reason capitalism works is because you get to keep your money.  That is how wealth is created, and it won't get created if someone's just gonna take it away.  My God, I can't believe there are still communists left; I thought everyone knew this stuff by now.
Capitalism only works in a regulated economy in which the government works to prevent the wildly lopsided distribution of wealth we see now.  If too few people control too much of the wealth, competition is impossible, and markets cannot be called "free."  We understood this over a century ago when we began to split up the industrial monopolies.  If Rockefeller controlled all the oil and all the railroads, Rockefeller could set the entire national agenda.  Eventually, you wouldn't be able to sell a stick of chewing gum with Rockefeller getting his cut.
That's an extreme example, of course, but the tendency toward monopoly, hence oligarchy and plutocracy is the reason capitalism must be regulated.  That means, among other things, capital gains and estate taxes.
My position is completely anti-communist!  In communism, as it's been realized, an autocratic government controls everything.  In the oligarchy you would get by unregulate capital, a few gigantic corporations would control everything.  There's not much philosophical difference.  Furthermore, if we prevent a scenario in which the top percentile controls 90 plus percent of the wealth, the communist philosophy won't be able get much momentum in the first place.

All societies have their own tangible dynamics distinguishable from the individual and the family


A dynamic is tangible?  Will you send me one?

Again, I just don't see how it's better to have a small group of self-interested politicians calling the shots than a small group of self-interested industrialists, just because you don't care for the businesses.  At least a business has a semblance of accountability possible--if McDonald's and Wal-Mart don't make their customers happy, people can go elsewhere.  When the FDA, the USDA, or HUD irritate me, I'm still stuck with 'em.  Because although they're unnecessary, wasteful, and destructive to the lives of the individuals who are affected by their decisions, people apparently think the sun wouldn't rise if we didn't pray daily to the gods in Washington.  Separation between church and state?  The state IS a church.

A dynamic is tangible?  Will you send me one?
They're tangible because you can observe them, measure them, and experience them.  You can't literally touch them, but the adjective need not be literal.

Again, I just don't see how it's better to have a small group of self-interested politicians calling the shots than a small group of self-interested industrialists, just because you don't care for the businesses.  At least a business has a semblance of accountability possible--if McDonald's and Wal-Mart don't make their customers happy, people can go elsewhere.  When the FDA, the USDA, or HUD irritate me, I'm still stuck with 'em.  Because although they're unnecessary, wasteful, and destructive to the lives of the individuals who are affected by their decisions, people apparently think the sun wouldn't rise if we didn't pray daily to the gods in Washington.  Separation between church and state?  The state IS a church.

And when there's a business monopoly, you're stuck with IT just the same.  Back to Rockefeller and Standard Oil.  If the government hadn't split up Rockefeller's monopoly, every gas station today would be a Standard.  If Standard wanted to charge $5.00 a gallon, TOUGH!
No entity other than the U.S. government is sued more often than Wal-Mart.  The reason why there are GIANT class-action suits pending agains Wal-Mart is because the business is so powerful, they are immune to accountability.

They're tangible because you can observe them, measure them, and experience them.  You can't literally touch them, but the adjective need not be literal.

I would say that you can observe and experience relationships between individuals, because they are specific.  I'd honestly like to know what sort of "societal dynamic" you can actually see, that isn't in reality a collection of individual relationships.



And when there's a business monopoly, you're stuck with IT just the same.  Back to Rockefeller and Standard Oil.  If the government hadn't split up Rockefeller's monopoly, every gas station today would be a Standard.  If Standard wanted to charge $5.00 a gallon, TOUGH!
No entity other than the U.S. government is sued more often than Wal-Mart.  The reason why there are GIANT class-action suits pending agains Wal-Mart is because the business is so powerful, they are immune to accountability.

Well, I didn't technically know the US government is sued more often than any other entity.  Wonder why that is?  I'm not saying I adore big business.  Maybe if more people advocated less government--not just programs they don't like, but all intrusive, wasteful programs--the Wal-Marts and the other businesses you deem too successful wouldn't be able to get away with using government unfairly to protect their interests.  But because we have an arbitrary "best interest of society" argument, you can make a case for literally any idiotic government program.  The limiting principle that is the basis of our Constitution is the principle of individual rights.  There really is a good reason for that.

Well I was talking about voicing displeasure in the voting booth.  I think that if we could get those that either don't care or think their vote doesn't cout to vote then the politicians would sit up and take notice. I firmly believe that America is mostly moderate, but the loud ones are the only ones that get noticed and usually they are extreme on both sides.  (pompous windbag Rush Limbaugh comes to mind...also people like Barbara Streisand, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins etc)  I firmly believe that if we could get most of america to vote things might get done in the government.  Right now it seems to be one side trying to stop the other just because they are of the opposite political party.  (and I mean both ways...both parties are guilty of this)

Doesn't the president have an office staff that you can call and complain to, like the Congress etc?  You would think that he would.   


In theory, I agree that people could change the direction of public policy if they voted, in theory.

The problem is, IMHO thjat most of the time even those who DO vote, vote against their class interests. If they didn't, we would have a viable "labor party" representing working people, unlike the Democrates who like to pose as a labor party but aren't.

As to your last question, I can't answer.  The person I spoke to did not offer to redirect my call or offer another number I could call.  I guess Ronny wasn't interested.  I guess now there are web sites etc one can access, but why bother?

Well I was talking about voicing displeasure in the voting booth.  I think that if we could get those that either don't care or think their vote doesn't cout to vote then the politicians would sit up and take notice. I firmly believe that America is mostly moderate, but the loud ones are the only ones that get noticed and usually they are extreme on both sides.  (pompous windbag Rush Limbaugh comes to mind...also people like Barbara Streisand, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins etc)  I firmly believe that if we could get most of america to vote things might get done in the government.  Right now it seems to be one side trying to stop the other just because they are of the opposite political party.  (and I mean both ways...both parties are guilty of this)

Doesn't the president have an office staff that you can call and complain to, like the Congress etc?  You would think that he would.   

(edited by DC)...What we call "society" really is just a collection of individuals who live in the same general geographic area.  It's an abstraction.  When you talk about "society's problems", you really are talking about the collective problems of these individuals--and the individuals and their problems are what actually exist in reality.  "Society" is just a convenient word apparently invented in order to justify all manner of atrocities in the name of the "good of society"--screw the individuals, they're not important.

I'm not saying we're not in this together.  I'm just saying that because of its coercive nature, government is the wrong way to be in it together.


Every social science would repudiate this view.  Anthropologists, Sociologists, Paleontologists, Sociobiologists, Ethologists and historians all agree that homo sapians are social beings.  Our closest relations (chimpanzees and Bonobos) are social beings, and the fossil record makes it clear that our direct ancestors (homo erectus) were social beings.  They lived in mutualy supportive groups to ensure their survival.  They hunted together, they gathered together, and they defended themselves together.  They existed as SOCIAL animals, NOT as individuals.  Society, then, is not an abstraction, but what makes human life possible.  Without it, the lions, tigers and bears would long ago have driven us to extinction.  This "individualism" stuff, while it has some merit in contemporary society, is, in this form, an example of Social Darwinism - a perversion of the great insights of that genius.

In addition, I would suggest that this view is a version of extreme anarchy.  Certainly governments have been, and some are, repressive of the indeniable individual spirit.  But if govenment is our collective response to the challenges we face as SOCIETIES, then how can it be our enemy?  Every human group has ways to regulate it's affairs, some informal, by consensus, some by formal vote.  Get together with your pals , and decide to go hiking, canoeing, drinking (just don't drive),. whatever, and that is probably a consensus desission.  Elect a president and we have a formal vote.  "Government" is how we regulate our social relationships.  To deny the validity of government is to deny a large part of what makes up human.

This here is the core of our problem.  What is wrong with what Thatcher said?  What we call "society" really is just a collection of individuals who live in the same general geographic area.  It's an abstraction.  When you talk about "society's problems", you really are talking about the collective problems of these individuals--and the individuals and their problems are what actually exist in reality.  "Society" is just a convenient word apparently invented in order to justify all manner of atrocities in the name of the "good of society"--screw the individuals, they're not important.

I'm not saying we're not in this together.  I'm just saying that because of its coercive nature, government is the wrong way to be in it together.

Well, I didn't technically know the US government is sued more often than any other entity. 


Actually, you need to read more carefully.  What he said was that Wal-Mart was sued MORE that the US government.  A small point, maybe, but one might hope that posteres, in expressing their views, would be careful to accurately reflect the ideas they are commenting on.

My God, I can't believe there are still communists left; I thought everyone knew this stuff by now.


First, and I'm not sure why I bother to say this, but I am not now, nor have I ever been a Communist, and, frankly, I have refrained from identify you as a person with the ideas you have expressed, I'm not characterizing you as you have charcterized me.

I have characterized your IDEAS as suggesting an affinity with Social Darwinism and Anarchy, but never called you either.  It is my experiance that often people advocate ideas that seem to them sound without knowing the "heratige" of what they are espousing.  By making this reference you cheapen what has been, so far, a discussion of ideas regarding social policy into an unnecessary and unproductive polemic.  I respect your right to disagree with me on this, or any other issue, but I take umberage at your characterizing my views and reducing what should be a debate regarding facts and resulting opinions regarding public policy into a pointless polemic involving name calling.

PS to Hairspray:  Please don't delete this thread!  Give Claude_pez a chance to respond.

Every social science would repudiate this view.  Anthropologists, Sociologists, Paleontologists, Sociobiologists, Ethologists and historians all agree that homo sapians are social beings.  Our closest relations (chimpanzees and Bonobos) are social beings, and the fossil record makes it clear that our direct ancestors (homo erectus) were social beings.  They lived in mutualy supportive groups to ensure their survival.  They hunted together, they gathered together, and they defended themselves together.  They existed as SOCIAL animals, NOT as individuals.  Society, then, is not an abstraction, but what makes human life possible.  Without it, the lions, tigers and bears would long ago have driven us to extinction.  This "individualism" stuff, while it has some merit in contemporary society, is, in this form, an example of Social Darwinism - a perversion of the great insights of that genius.

In addition, I would suggest that this view is a version of extreme anarchy.  Certainly governments have been, and some are, repressive of the indeniable individual spirit.  But if govenment is our collective response to the challenges we face as SOCIETIES, then how can it be our enemy?  Every human group has ways to regulate it's affairs, some informal, by consensus, some by formal vote.  Get together with your pals , and decide to go hiking, canoeing, drinking (just don't drive),. whatever, and that is probably a consensus desission.  Elect a president and we have a formal vote.  "Government" is how we regulate our social relationships.  To deny the validity of government is to deny a large part of what makes up human.


The differences between a consensus decision among a small group of pals and a federal law dictating behavior for everyone are huge.  First, if you don't like the consensus decision among your friends, you're free to go do something else.  There is no coercion involved.  If you don't like a federal law, you're still required to abide by it.  What you seem to be saying is that anything is okay as long as a majority of people agree it's okay.  I don't deny the validity of government to protect individual rights.  I do deny the validity of government to trample individual rights in the name of "social good".

Actually, you need to read more carefully.  What he said was that Wal-Mart was sued MORE that the US government.  A small point, maybe, but one might hope that posteres, in expressing their views, would be careful to accurately reflect the ideas they are commenting on.



No entity other than the U.S. government is sued more often than Wal-Mart. 

First, and I'm not sure why I bother to say this, but I am not now, nor have I ever been a Communist, and, frankly, I have refrained from identify you as a person with the ideas you have expressed, I'm not characterizing you as you have charcterized me.

I have characterized your IDEAS as suggesting an affinity with Social Darwinism and Anarchy, but never called you either.  It is my experiance that often people advocate ideas that seem to them sound without knowing the "heratige" of what they are espousing.  By making this reference you cheapen what has been, so far, a discussion of ideas regarding social policy into an unnecessary and unproductive polemic.  I respect your right to disagree with me on this, or any other issue, but I take umberage at your characterizing my views and reducing what should be a debate regarding facts and resulting opinions regarding public policy into a pointless polemic involving name calling.

PS to Hairspray:  Please don't delete this thread!  Give Claude_pez a chance to respond.

I apologize.  Maybe it was the Che Guevara avatar.  Boy, do I feel silly.

I'll have to find my source again, but it is the U.S. government that is sued more often than Wal-Mart.  The point is, that's a heck of a lot to be sued!  When you consider the enormity of the U.S. government and the spectrum of departments and agencies it comprises, to have a retail chain sued second most often implies a great abuse of power by that company. 
Does the U.S. government abuse its power? Absolutely.
Does this fact mitigate Wal-Mart's second-fiddle in the law suits dept. status? Absolutely not!

The differences between a consensus decision among a small group of pals and a federal law dictating behavior for everyone are huge.  First, if you don't like the consensus decision among your friends, you're free to go do something else.  There is no coercion involved.  If you don't like a federal law, you're still required to abide by it.  What you seem to be saying is that anything is okay as long as a majority of people agree it's okay.  I don't deny the validity of government to protect individual rights.  I do deny the validity of government to trample individual rights in the name of "social good".


Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, we no longer live in small groups, but even when we did, individual rights were often sacrificed for the social good.  The differences are those of proportion.  If you don't think coersion is involved in small group decsisions you should discuss "peep pressure" with any psyhcologist.  And what federal laws do you object to?  How exactly, has the gov't "trampled" individual rights in the name of the social good"?  Are you refering to the right of workerws to form a union, the right of any person to sit at a lunch counter, or more fundamentally, to vote?  Or are you refering to the "right" of industrialists to spew pollution into the air and water, or to fire people for excersising the right to assemble and speak their minds?  Just what federal laws do you find infringe on your, or anyone elses personal rights?

Sometimes what you call "the social good" represents the rights of the majority against the interests of the minority.  In short, your analysis, IMHO, is devoid of the class and power dimension in that it makes a series of assumptions that are unsupportable by imperical facts regarding the nature of contempotary SOCIETY.  To paraphrase H.L.Menken, "the role of the press, and the government is to afflict the comfortable and to confort the oppressed".

I apologize.  Maybe it was the Che Guevara avatar.  Boy, do I feel silly.


Your apology is noted, as Capitain Peliew said to Lt. Hornblower.

Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately, we no longer live in small groups, but even when we did, individual rights were often sacrificed for the social good.  The differences are those of proportion.  If you don't think coersion is involved in small group decsisions you should discuss "peep pressure" with any psyhcologist.  And what federal laws do you object to?  How exactly, has the gov't "trampled" individual rights in the name of the social good"?  Are you refering to the right of workerws to form a union, the right of any person to sit at a lunch counter, or more fundamentally, to vote?  Or are you refering to the "right" of industrialists to spew pollution into the air and water, or to fire people for excersising the right to assemble and speak their minds?  Just what federal laws do you find infringe on your, or anyone elses personal rights?

Sometimes what you call "the social good" represents the rights of the majority against the interests of the minority.  In short, your analysis, IMHO, is devoid of the class and power dimension in that it makes a series of assumptions that are unsupportable by imperical facts regarding the nature of contempotary SOCIETY.  To paraphrase H.L.Menken, "the role of the press, and the government is to afflict the comfortable and to confort the oppressed".

To equate peer pressure with government coercion is absurd.  The thing about laws is that they are compulsory.  If you disobey them, you risk being locked up.  This is true of everything government does.  If you refuse to pay your taxes to support a program you oppose, they can still force you to obey.  If you choose to do things that affect no one but yourself, yet your neighbors have decided should be illegal, they can lock you up for it.  The consequences of not bowing to peer pressure may be unpleasant but don't usually involve an eventual gun to your head.

At this point it would be easier for me to name the federal laws I don't object to rather than the ones I do, but for the sake of brevity I'll focus on the ones you seem to care about most.  I have no objection to workers forming a union to negotiate better terms with an employer.  I do, however, object to the government protecting the jobs of workers who do so.  If you believe in property rights, then you believe that those jobs belong to the company, not the worker, for the same reason that the job of mowing my lawn belongs to me, the property owner.  If I choose to offer the kid across the street ten bucks to mow it for me, that's my right.  If one week he says he needs fifteen dollars instead of ten, nobody has any right to tell me I can't just mow it myself, or find someone else to do it at a price I'll agree to.  It's my property.  For the same reason, if I open a lunch counter and for some idiotic reason don't want somebody to sit there, guess what?  It's my property and my decision.  I'm not saying it would be a good decision, but the right to decide what to do with your property is what gives it its value.  When government tells you what you may or may not do with your own property--even if it's something morally repugnant--they are trampling on your individual rights.  I would object to any law that restricted the right of an adult citizen to vote in a public election, because that doesn't involve somebody's private property.  Environmental damage is very difficult to quantify.  If an industrialist is causing demonstrable damage to someone else's property in any way, he should be held responsible.  But I'm not talking about the pseudoscientific propaganda that you're probably referring to.  As far as firing people for exercising their right to assemble and speak their minds--like I said, the job belongs to the owner, not the worker.

I'm not even sure what you're talking about in your last paragraph.  Devoid of the class and power dimension?  Imperical facts regarding the nature of contemporary society?  What I think you're trying to say--correct me if I'm wrong--is that someone needs to look out for the "little" guy.  I agree, but I don't think it should be the government.  I think it should be--first and foremost--the little guy.  I do know we're social beings, blah blah blah, but as any decent parent knows, if you want your kid to clean his room, don't tell him you'll do it for him if he "can't".

Here are my positions:

Inheritance Tax - It should be abolished.  The deceased person already paid a myriad of taxes on his/her earnings.  Once they die, their estate should then have to "settle up" on any capital gains that are represented by the estate assets.  After that, the heirs take all, with no tax levied upon them, since Uncle Sam already took his pound of flesh out of the deceased.

Capital Gains Tax - Should NOT be abolished.  Why should we abolish it?  It is income.  Tax it.  My only room for argument here is what should the tax rate be.

(related issue)Double Taxation - Where there IS a problem in the tax code is the double taxation that takes place.  For a company that earns a profit, it pays taxes on that profit to the government.  Fair enough.  But when it then distributes its earnings to the owners via dividends, the owners are taxed again!  But they own the company already, which paid its taxes on its income (for a big company, 46% tax rate).  Taxing dividends seems wrong to me.

But... if a company declines to issue dividends, then the stock price goes up and there is a capital gain (when I sell the stock), and I have expressed my opinion that Cap gains should be taxed.  So I have a little theretical work to do here.

To equate peer pressure with government coercion is absurd.  The thing about laws is that they are compulsory.  If you disobey them, you risk being locked up.  This is true of everything government does.  If you refuse to pay your taxes to support a program you oppose, they can still force you to obey.  If you choose to do things that affect no one but yourself, yet your neighbors have decided should be illegal, they can lock you up for it.  The consequences of not bowing to peer pressure may be unpleasant but don't usually involve an eventual gun to your head.
There have been many people jailed for tax resistance because they refuse to support military activities and defense spending.  I've got a funny feeling you would have a lower opinion of these people than you would someone who refuses to pay taxes in protest of social spending.

At this point it would be easier for me to name the federal laws I don't object to rather than the ones I do, but for the sake of brevity I'll focus on the ones you seem to care about most. On the other hand, there are federal laws you never think about that keep you safe and sound.  The reason you're not doubled over in pain and vomiting right now may be due to federal food safety regulations, the kind of excess bureaucracy Libertarians would dump on day one.
I have no objection to workers forming a union to negotiate better terms with an employer.
I'm sorry, but per your next statement, I believe you do.
I do, however, object to the government protecting the jobs of workers who do so.  If you believe in property rights, then you believe that those jobs belong to the company, not the worker, for the same reason that the job of mowing my lawn belongs to me, the property owner.  If I choose to offer the kid across the street ten bucks to mow it for me, that's my right. I believe the workers control the means of production.  As long as "owners" and "management" are motivated by greed, the workers must seize the right to collective bargaining.  Capital proved for a century it has no interest in the well-being of workers.  The government, elected by a mandate from the people, has a vested interest in the health, safety, and security of our citizens.  Therefore, it is vital that government forbid the permanent replacement of striking workers.  You  may have a different ideology about government, that's OK.  I'm just telling you mine.  I also believe your lawn mowing analogy doesn't cut the mustard.  The principle sounds the same, but it's rather comical imagine a picket line of 12 year olds blocking your lawn from scab mowers!
I open a lunch counter and for some idiotic reason don't want somebody to sit there, guess what?  It's my property and my decision.  I'm not saying it would be a good decision, but the right to decide what to do with your property is what gives it its value.  When government tells you what you may or may not do with your own property--even if it's something morally repugnant--they are trampling on your individual rights.
Did you pick the "lunch counter" business for a reason?  Oh boy!  What if you and the other restaurateurs in town decided you're not going to serve a certain group--let's say African Americans, because you don't like them?  Let's say you and all the property owners in the town say you won't sell or rent to African American businesses because...you just don't like them?  It's your right, it's your private property.  However, would you find a town in which African Americans are forbidden to dine in any eating establishments, and are red-zoned out of opening their own establishments, a morally palatable place to live?
 I would object to any law that restricted the right of an adult citizen to vote in a public election, because that doesn't involve somebody's private property.  In the above senario you would, because allowing African Americans to vote may threaten the status quo of your treasured "private property rights."  I don't mean to be inlammatory by using African Americans as a specific example, but 40 years ago they did earn themselves the right to eat at your lunchcounter when they defeated the Jim Crow laws in a bloody struggle.  I don't like seeing these matters taken back to eggheaded abstraction. Environmental damage is very difficult to quantify. Not it's not.
  If an industrialist is causing demonstrable damage to someone else's property in any way, he should be held responsible.  But I'm not talking about the pseudoscientific propaganda that you're probably referring to.  Love Canal, my friend, the offender Hooker Chemical got dissolved into a larger company that bought it out, and through a series of deft structural maneuvres, those responsible got off scot free.  The citizens who owned lots nearby the dump, who suffered horrible health effects got the shaft.  Not all property rights are equal.  In our system, as is, money makes might and might makes right. If you're able to buy off politicians, and hire dirty legal counsel at top dollar, you can weasel your way out of anything.  The movie A Civil Action had a happier ending than most citizen vs. corporation cases do.  BTW, all data that does NOT favor the case of a corporate defendent is "pseudoscience." 
As far as firing people for exercising their right to assemble and speak their minds--like I said, the job belongs to the owner, not the worker.
That's the constant struggle between labor and capital.  Labor needs to get tough again.  The company "owns" the jobs, does it?  Ownership of a job means nothing if the company can't find more workers to exploit.  Scabs used to get their skulls cracked when they tried to cross the picket lines.  Those were the good old days!

I'm not even sure what you're talking about in your last paragraph.  Devoid of the class and power dimension?  Imperical facts regarding the nature of contemporary society?  What I think you're trying to say--correct me if I'm wrong--is that someone needs to look out for the "little" guy.  I agree, but I don't think it should be the government.  I think it should be--first and foremost--the little guy.  I do know we're social beings, blah blah blah, but as any decent parent knows, if you want your kid to clean his room, don't tell him you'll do it for him if he "can't".

I don't mean this hyperbolically, I mean it quite literally, unless you are a Fascist (not saying you are, I'm saying unless you are), you won't have a problem with the "little guy" forcing his collective will onto the government, and making the government act in the "little guy's" interest.  The government must look out for the little guy if private interests won't.  You have already made it clear you don't think the little guy, the worker, has any right to force private interests to look out for him.the government too look out for the little guy, so IT doesn't have to.  Mind you, Wal-Mart doesn't want to pay sufficient corporate taxes to the states to enable the states to provide comprehensive Medicaid coverage to the employeers Wal-Mart won't help.  So the little guy gets screwed both ways.

Maxwell makes such a compelling case for the altruism and solidarity of labour unions that it is quite interesting that labour union membership in the USA is at a low 9%.

It is not that new unions can not be formed... this is happening all the time.  But the fact remains that most union representation votes go nowhere.  And, recently, there have been several high-profile cases of workers voting to decertify their own union because it held the interests of other people higher than their local's interests.

Back in the days when companies indeed did "crack skulls" there was a MUCH more successful rate of labour organisation than there is today.  And that is because people realize that Unions are a business, and that Union Management is there to preserve their own interest.  The workers come in second place.

Maxwell makes such a compelling case for the altruism and solidarity of labour unions that it is quite interesting that labour union membership in the USA is at a low 9%.

It is not that new unions can not be formed... this is happening all the time.  But the fact remains that most union representation votes go nowhere.  And, recently, there have been several high-profile cases of workers voting to decertify their own union because it held the interests of other people higher than their local's interests.

Back in the days when companies indeed did "crack skulls" there was a MUCH more successful rate of labour organisation than there is today.  And that is because people realize that Unions are a business, and that Union Management is there to preserve their own interest.  The workers come in second place.

I don't have a rosy view of organized labor.  I just didn't incorporate that side of it into my post.  I like to keep them at least a semi-reasonable length!
Issues would be much easier to hash out if conservatives didn't take a utopian view of corporate greed.  Every time a Murdoch or a Mellon-Scaife type gets ahold of a newspaper, management fires real journalists and replaces them with business people.  FOX News dedicates hours every day, and even more time on weekends, to the benediction of Big Business.  It's the Church of the Money God.
Where once the young journalist worked his way from print to broadcast, covering town meetings, obituaries, street crime, and human interest, we now see a different beast.  We now have cub reporters entering broadcast journalism knowing nothing but their own good-looks, charm, and privileged Connecticut backgrounds.  They slobber sheepishly at the glory of the Stock Exchange and wonder puzzled, "what's up with all these losers who aren't rich"? 
That's the Murdoch, Mellon-Scaife, Moonie, "National Review" world of businessman's boosterism in lieu of journalism.  It's a cancer on truth in media, and it's retarding our national dialogue!!!

There have been many people jailed for tax resistance because they refuse to support military activities and defense spending.  I've got a funny feeling you would have a lower opinion of these people than you would someone who refuses to pay taxes in protest of social spending.

You can have all the funny feelings you want.  Although national defense is one of the few legitimate purposes of government, I'd hardly call what we're currently doing "national defense".  I might have a low opinion of someone dumb enough to call attention to themselves with open resistance, rather than simply cheating on their taxes like everyone else, but I can relate to the feeling that our military should stick to its purpose.


On the other hand, there are federal laws you never think about that keep you safe and sound.  The reason you're not doubled over in pain and vomiting right now may be due to federal food safety regulations, the kind of excess bureaucracy Libertarians would dump on day one.

Or it may be due to the fact that I've encountered so much government-worshipping before, it no longer makes me as sick as it used to.



I believe the workers control the means of production.  As long as "owners" and "management" are motivated by greed, the workers must seize the right to collective bargaining.  Capital proved for a century it has no interest in the well-being of workers.  The government, elected by a mandate from the people, has a vested interest in the health, safety, and security of our citizens.  Therefore, it is vital that government forbid the permanent replacement of striking workers.  You  may have a different ideology about government, that's OK.  I'm just telling you mine.  I also believe your lawn mowing analogy doesn't cut the mustard.  The principle sounds the same, but it's rather comical imagine a picket line of 12 year olds blocking your lawn from scab mowers!


A worker controls his labor.  That's it.  And each worker is just as motivated by self-interest as every owner.  I can't force you to believe that I support the right to form a union, but why wouldn't I?  I can see how a collective bargaining position could be useful, especially to the lazier workers who want to ride the coattails of their harder-working "brothers".  But you still haven't explained WHY someone else's "need" is a legitimate reason for government to interfere in the property rights of another.  And my lawn mowing analogy is a good one, because the principle IS the same.  Property rights are property rights.  If someone else's need is reason enough to take those rights away, there's nothing stopping them from just taking yours--as you know, "need" can be pretty abundant.  It's the most fundamental right there is, and respect for it is crucial to economic prosperity. 


Did you pick the "lunch counter" business for a reason?  Oh boy!  What if you and the other restaurateurs in town decided you're not going to serve a certain group--let's say African Americans, because you don't like them?  Let's say you and all the property owners in the town say you won't sell or rent to African American businesses because...you just don't like them?  It's your right, it's your private property.  However, would you find a town in which African Americans are forbidden to dine in any eating establishments, and are red-zoned out of opening their own establishments, a morally palatable place to live?


I chose the lunch counter business because Don Carlos brought it up.  It should be obvious, but as I said, I find it morally repugnant that some people would choose to discriminate for foolish reasons.  But if I brought in the government to correct everything I disliked, there would be laws against ugly cars, rap music, and other people's children.


  In the above senario you would, because allowing African Americans to vote may threaten the status quo of your treasured "private property rights."  I don't mean to be inlammatory by using African Americans as a specific example, but 40 years ago they did earn themselves the right to eat at your lunchcounter when they defeated the Jim Crow laws in a bloody struggle.  I don't like seeing these matters taken back to eggheaded abstraction.


The civil rights movement was clearly the example Don Carlos was alluding to; I don't find it inflammatory at all.  It's difficult to argue against laws that actually have done a lot of good on the one hand.  On the other, it clearly is a violation of property rights to tell someone who they may or may not choose to allow in their establishment.


Not it's not.

Yes it is.


  Love Canal, my friend, the offender Hooker Chemical got dissolved into a larger company that bought it out, and through a series of deft structural maneuvres, those responsible got off scot free.  The citizens who owned lots nearby the dump, who suffered horrible health effects got the shaft.  Not all property rights are equal.  In our system, as is, money makes might and might makes right. If you're able to buy off politicians, and hire dirty legal counsel at top dollar, you can weasel your way out of anything.  The movie A Civil Action had a happier ending than most citizen vs. corporation cases do.  BTW, all data that does NOT favor the case of a corporate defendent is "pseudoscience." 


"Might makes right" is exactly the sort of thing I've been arguing against.  I'm just not blind to the fact that nefarious industrialists aren't the only ones willing to use government for their own purposes, and corporate defendants aren't the only ones who manipulate data in their favor.


That's the constant struggle between labor and capital.  Labor needs to get tough again.  The company "owns" the jobs, does it?  Ownership of a job means nothing if the company can't find more workers to exploit.  Scabs used to get their skulls cracked when they tried to cross the picket lines.  Those were the good old days!


If the company can't find more workers to exploit, then they would be stupid not to respond favorably to the demands of striking workers.  But why is it that those workers who've been enculcated in their jobs are the only ones you seem to care about?


I don't mean this hyperbolically, I mean it quite literally, unless you are a Fascist (not saying you are, I'm saying unless you are), you won't have a problem with the "little guy" forcing his collective will onto the government, and making the government act in the "little guy's" interest.  The government must look out for the little guy if private interests won't.  You have already made it clear you don't think the little guy, the worker, has any right to force private interests to look out for him.the government too look out for the little guy, so IT doesn't have to.  Mind you, Wal-Mart doesn't want to pay sufficient corporate taxes to the states to enable the states to provide comprehensive Medicaid coverage to the employeers Wal-Mart won't help.  So the little guy gets screwed both ways.


I don't even know how to respond to this, except that it makes it clear you're really not paying attention.  I've never said that large companies don't use government to their advantage, and I've never defended them for it.  It's ironic your bringing up the word fascism, though.  I've been meaning to apologize for calling you a communist, when that's the name for someone who believes government should own the means of production.  Someone who just thinks they should control it, would, of course, be a fascist.

Or it may be due to the fact that I've encountered so much government-worshipping before, it no longer makes me as sick as it used to.
Clever rejoinder, but you understand the need for health & safety regulations.

A worker controls his labor.  That's it.  And each worker is just as motivated by self-interest as every owner.  I can't force you to believe that I support the right to form a union, but why wouldn't I?  I can see how a collective bargaining position could be useful, especially to the lazier workers who want to ride the coattails of their harder-working "brothers".  But you still haven't explained WHY someone else's "need" is a legitimate reason for government to interfere in the property rights of another.  And my lawn mowing analogy is a good one, because the principle IS the same.  Property rights are property rights.  If someone else's need is reason enough to take those rights away, there's nothing stopping them from just taking yours--as you know, "need" can be pretty abundant.  It's the most fundamental right there is, and respect for it is crucial to economic prosperity. 
Sometimes the demands of workers will become excessive.  Sometimes unions will be corrupt.  However, the benefits of organized labor outweigh for workers these risks.  There is no elegent solution once in place that shall run in perpetual motion.  Labor and management will always have to negotiate.  A labor-friendly government can help in this arbitration.  Againl, it's far from perfect.  Management generally believes it shouldn't have to negotiate with any unions at any time.  Since Ronald Reagan fired the PATCO strikers and established the government as the Big Friend to management, management has won the struggle.  Good for capital, bad for labor.  There are exceptions.  Some companies acted to benefit labor of their own accord, as LyricBoy pointed out his company did in the '80s.  Unfortunately, Wal-Mart is a more illustrative example.

I chose the lunch counter business because Don Carlos brought it up.  It should be obvious, but as I said, I find it morally repugnant that some people would choose to discriminate for foolish reasons.  But if I brought in the government to correct everything I disliked, there would be laws against ugly cars, rap music, and other people's children.
No law says a business has to serve unruly or disruptive individuals.  That's not what Civil Rights were about.  The laws forbid discrimination based on immutable characteristics such as race, age, and sex.  Age, of course, refers to those who have reached the age of majority (18), and, in the case alcohol, the age of 21.  Sex poses all kinds of legal challenges, such as men only golf clubs, women only health clubs, and the current "ladies night" case in NJ.

The civil rights movement was clearly the example Don Carlos was alluding to; I don't find it inflammatory at all.  It's difficult to argue against laws that actually have done a lot of good on the one hand.  On the other, it clearly is a violation of property rights to tell someone who they may or may not choose to allow in their establishment.
So you believe, ideally, an establishment owner should be able to refuse people of any race or ethnic group he didn't like?

Yes it is.
Environmental damage is sometimes hard to assess.  However, what usually makes it hard to assess is limited investigatory power by plaintiffs, and defendents taking subterfuge in a maze of legal mumbo jumbo. 
Company X ran a gold mine for 40 years.  There is now cyanide in the ground water.  How did it get there, Company X, or the cyanide fairy?

"Might makes right" is exactly the sort of thing I've been arguing against.  I'm just not blind to the fact that nefarious industrialists aren't the only ones willing to use government for their own purposes, and corporate defendants aren't the only ones who manipulate data in their favor.
I didn't imply they were.  However, corporate defendents tend to have a heck of a lot more money at their disposal with which to manipulate the system than do defendants.

If the company can't find more workers to exploit, then they would be stupid not to respond favorably to the demands of striking workers.  But why is it that those workers who've been enculcated in their jobs are the only ones you seem to care about?
Huh?

I don't even know how to respond to this, except that it makes it clear you're really not paying attention.  I've never said that large companies don't use government to their advantage, and I've never defended them for it.  It's ironic your bringing up the word fascism, though.  I've been meaning to apologize for calling you a communist, when that's the name for someone who believes government should own the means of production.  Someone who just thinks they should control it, would, of course, be a fascist.
I took pains to make sure I didn't call you a fascist.  I'm sure you don't wish to be one.  However, our current right-wing government is slouching toward fascism. 
If the government doesn't both protect and regulate unions, organized labor deteriorates.  If a union gets too rich and corrupt, it may no longer act in the interests of it's members.  The bigger problem is in the lack of protection for striking workers.  If management is allowed to replace striking workers with scabs, and then permanent replacements, workers have two choices.  Submit to management, or take the law into their own hands.
I don't claim to be an expert on labor law, however, labor regulations developed in the last 25 years present huge obstacles to collectivization.  The fact that fewer than 10% of private sector workers are unionized has less to do with unions being out of the workers' interests, and more to do with management structures that cut off unionization efforts at the knees, and right-wing media propaganda that constantly demonizes labor unions.
There are some unions as well that management establishes in order to short circuit the effort on the part of workers.  A regional supermarket chain up here, Stop & Shop, has one of these shill unions that has only the power to require workers to join, and the power to collect dues.  Employment and Stop & Shop is still under the "employment at will" contract of all the rest of the retail sector!

To equate peer pressure with government coercion is absurd.  The thing about laws is that they are compulsory.  If you disobey them, you risk being locked up.  This is true of everything government does.  If you refuse to pay your taxes to support a program you oppose, they can still force you to obey.  If you choose to do things that affect no one but yourself, yet your neighbors have decided should be illegal, they can lock you up for it.  The consequences of not bowing to peer pressure may be unpleasant but don't usually involve an eventual gun to your head.

At this point it would be easier for me to name the federal laws I don't object to rather than the ones I do, but for the sake of brevity I'll focus on the ones you seem to care about most.  I have no objection to workers forming a union to negotiate better terms with an employer.  I do, however, object to the government protecting the jobs of workers who do so.  If you believe in property rights, then you believe that those jobs belong to the company, not the worker, for the same reason that the job of mowing my lawn belongs to me, the property owner.  If I choose to offer the kid across the street ten bucks to mow it for me, that's my right.  If one week he says he needs fifteen dollars instead of ten, nobody has any right to tell me I can't just mow it myself, or find someone else to do it at a price I'll agree to.  It's my property.  For the same reason, if I open a lunch counter and for some idiotic reason don't want somebody to sit there, guess what?  It's my property and my decision.  I'm not saying it would be a good decision, but the right to decide what to do with your property is what gives it its value.  When government tells you what you may or may not do with your own property--even if it's something morally repugnant--they are trampling on your individual rights.  I would object to any law that restricted the right of an adult citizen to vote in a public election, because that doesn't involve somebody's private property.  Environmental damage is very difficult to quantify.  If an industrialist is causing demonstrable damage to someone else's property in any way, he should be held responsible.  But I'm not talking about the pseudoscientific propaganda that you're probably referring to.  As far as firing people for exercising their right to assemble and speak their minds--like I said, the job belongs to the owner, not the worker.

I'm not even sure what you're talking about in your last paragraph.  Devoid of the class and power dimension?  Imperical facts regarding the nature of contemporary society?  What I think you're trying to say--correct me if I'm wrong--is that someone needs to look out for the "little" guy.  I agree, but I don't think it should be the government.  I think it should be--first and foremost--the little guy.  I do know we're social beings, blah blah blah, but as any decent parent knows, if you want your kid to clean his room, don't tell him you'll do it for him if he "can't".


Clearly, the differences seperating us, the practical, moral, philosophical differences, are so great as to make any further discussion with you pointless.  You live in the world of Ann Rand (Sp) and Atlas Shrugged, which I reject. 

AS Teddy Roosevely said, the role of government is to be the honest broker between contending interests.

And Blah blah blah back to you regarding your anarchistic Social Darwinism.  What bunk.

Let's play nice.

Hay Max, I just read through your responses to Claudpres and agree with you on just about every point,  but as I said above, the guy is so far off the right wing wall that is is pointless to debate with him.  He reminds me of religious fanatics and libertarians I have met.  Recognizing him in debate is,  it seems to me, a total waste of energy.  Keep on trucken dude.

Clearly, the differences seperating us, the practical, moral, philosophical differences, are so great as to make any further discussion with you pointless.  You live in the world of Ann Rand (Sp) and Atlas Shrugged, which I reject. 

AS Teddy Roosevely said, the role of government is to be the honest broker between contending interests.

And Blah blah blah back to you regarding your anarchistic Social Darwinism.  What bunk.

Oh, you mean Ayn Rand.  Rhymes with mine.  Founder of the "Objectivist" school of philosophy.  She left Russia as a child with her aristocratic family at the time of the Boleshevik Revolution.  Mind you, she isn't taken seriously in the world of philosophy itself.  I tried to read some of stuff, but I didn't have the stomach for it.  She was a friendly witness for the House Un-American Activities Committee in the late '40s.  Disgusting.  There's still an "Ayn Rand Society," which is basically a more cerebral version of the John Birch Society.  Ayn Randers tend to have the same demeanor as John Birchers, twitchy and paranoid.
http://www.aynrandsociety.org/

I wouldn't assume Claude Prez knows or likes Ayn Rand.  That his POV is similar reflects more the extremist bent Conservatism has taken and popularized since Reagan.

You mention TDR, who is quite relevant to today.  TDR was responding to the excesses of the McKinley Administration, the way we need some one to respond to the excesses of Bush.  Bush has TDR's gung-ho jingoistic attitude, but not skepticism, horse sense, and passion for environmental stewardship.

Yeah, I think I will bow out of this now, before someone calls me a big fat poopie-head or something.  I can tell you're both very intelligent guys who care deeply about society (whatever that is) and sincerely just want to make the world a better place, which I do admire and agree with.  I just think that inflicting more government on it is the wrong answer, just like more religion is the wrong answer.  The right answer is individual rights/ responsibility.  Peace my brothers.

Well, I was right, a majority of the estate went to hubby's sisters and his dad so we don't have to worry about either. :P


Oh well, I was hoping you would become rich so that I could hit you up for a loan  ;)
Just kidding.

Sorry you didn't strike it rich, but so it goes.  Hope you didn't need the money.

All that is personal, but to get back to the thread, and just a philosophical question, without any personal vindictive implied, did you /and ot yours earn any of that $$$ ?  If not, did you have a right to it?  And how about those who got it?

My mom died a few years ago, and I inherited 1/8 of her house, which I gave to my dad who inherited 75% of it - his half and half my mom's share.  My sister gave him her 1/8 as well.  And in this case both my sis and I could say that we helped to pay for that house.  Dad's security and happiness ios more important to both of us than a few grand, and I, for one, woiuld prefer to make my own way.  Mom and Dad have already given me enough.

I guess I get confused by those who are constantly arguing for "personal responsibility" but willing to see the irresponsible (like - "A Night in" - Paris Hilton) inherit billions.  Even billionairs are concerned.

I guess I get confused by those who are constantly arguing for "personal responsibility" but willing to see the irresponsible (like - "A Night in" - Paris Hilton) inherit billions.  Even billionairs are concerned.

"Personal responsibility" was a PR gimmick for Welfare Reform.  It doesn't apply to rich people and corporations.

No, we didn't need the money, and we actually got more than I was expecting.  I have a feeling hubby's mom & dad will give us some of what they got, though.  If not us, then the kids.

It depends on what you mean by "earn"...let me elaborate...hubby's mom was married and had him.  She got divorced, met his step-dad (whom he considers his dad as his bio one is a con), they got married and had twin girls.  Gpa never had a problem with my MIL or hubby, but gma sure as heck did.  She called my MIL "damaged goods" and my hubby "a bastard child".  So, if "putting up with cruelty for 30+ years" is worth anything, then yes, hubby sure as heck DID (not to mention the $$ he saved her over the years in moving costs when he would go down for 4 weekends in a row to help her move), as did his mom, who got more crap from her than I would give my worst enemy (not to mention a couple of slaps she received over the years at the hand of gma) even less than us---not a darn thing.  The only thing I've ever done is bear the only great-grandchildren she would ever know.  Granted, it's not blood, but we're still family (at least in his "dad's" eyes).  Hubby's dad has mentioned multiple times that the boys have trusts set up for their college educations, but I'm not sure of that.  Every time his mom starts to talk about it, she gets so mad she can't talk so I haven't pushed the issue.  I'll let hubby find that one out.


You said that you did get something (I really hate to keep this focused on your personal experience) and it seems like you should have, for both emotional reasons and because you contributed.  I'm not opposed to inheritance, just to the creation of an aristocracy of wealth.  I hope to leave my kids a little when I go, but mostly, the family memorobilia that I have.  I've given them the ability to make their way in life, and hope to live long enough to use up most of my assets in my retirement - for my own enjoyment.  That's different from passing on billions, and the power they bring.