Good question, let's see a greater discussion of it. I don't see it in that article.
Superficially, the more money going to taxes is less money that can be spent on private investment. And of course, sometimes when the taxes are high enough people just plain leave.
These are just idle, get-the-conversation-going ideas, not demonstrations that tax rate X is definitely a bad idea where economic questions are concerned. I imagine someone can make the move "Who cares if it leads to less jobs? There's a wealth disparity, that's immoral, tax the wealthy until they're middle class and redistribute the rest."
"I imagine someone can make the move "Who cares if it leads to less jobs? There's a wealth disparity, that's immoral, tax the wealthy until they're middle class and redistribute the rest.""
Which is *precisely* where "liberals" are coming from.
Thus, VR's (*) seemingly innocent and uploaded question is wrong-headed, for the issue is one of morality (and moral vision), rather than merely of technocratic policy wonkery. The technocratic policy wonkery is not the proper question until the moral issue is dealt with; until then, it is a distraction ... which serves to give aid and comfort to "liberalism's" hatred of *other* persons having wealth.
(*) which ultimately comes from "conservative" policy wonks who wanted to avoid the moral dimension of questions of taxation.
But would the moral arguments, if correct, prove too much? If consistently followed, wouldn't they support a flat tax, as opposed to the Bush rate as opposed to the Clinton rate?
If one/you are consistent (*) with "liberal" morality -- which, of course, is a false pseudo-morality -- then 100% of everyone's income and wealth (which are two different things) belongs to the government. Which is to say, it actually belongs to the handful of persons who run the government, to do with as they wish.
"But would the moral arguments, if correct, prove too much? If consistently followed, wouldn't they support a flat tax ..."
This is a problem, how?
(*) and, you (you VR) are not consistent when *your* taxes, for you simultaneously hold that that guy over there *ought* to pay more taxes, but that it's "unfair" that you get caught in the same net.
"You are claiming, I take it, that conservative politicians don't always give the right reasons for supporting conservative views."
In much the same way that "liberals" (as that term in currently used in contrast to its historical meaning) are really soft leftists, most so-called conservatives, especially when they're politicians, are really just soft "liberals".
"Liberals" operate from the same, or most of the same, erroneous assumptions about the world and human beings as hard-core leftists do. However, "liberals" don't (yet) accept all of the conclusions which logically follow from those assumptions, and so they make unprincipled exceptions to the conclusions they (currently) do not want to accept.
In similar wise, most self-identifying conservatives operate from the same, or most of the same, erroneous assumptions about the world and human beings as soft-core leftists (that is, "liberals") do. The main difference between most self-identifying conservatives and most "liberals" is that the "conservatives" reject, in an unprincipled manner, more of the conclusions which logically follow from their starting assumptions.
You were claiming that the discussion has to be shifted from a discussion of what is pragmatically advantageous to what is morally right, which is going to result in a conclusion that is contrary to both what Boehner and company are advocating on the one hand, and what Obama and company are advocating. That may be why conservative political leaders are using a consequentialist argument about jobs as opposed to a moral argument that redistributionist tax policies are unethical. Of course, a strict anti-redistributionism would undercut their support for oil subsidies.
Crude: "I imagine someone can make the move "Who cares if it leads to less jobs? There's a wealth disparity, that's immoral, tax the wealthy until they're middle class and redistribute the rest.""
Ilion: "Which is *precisely* where "liberals" are coming from."
Speaking as a liberal, I disagree. A wealth disparity is immoral only when it results in people who do not have food, shelter, clothing, education, or health care.
Speaking as a liberal, I disagree. A wealth disparity is immoral only when it results in people who do not have food, shelter, clothing, education, or health care.
But wealth disparities aren't "causes". If I earn 2 billion dollars this year, that fact alone did not cause some person to be unable to afford health care.
And here's one thing I'm really curious of: Do people have any duties when receiving charitable assistance? Any at all? For instance, there's a number of single mothers, drug-users, etc. Should they be told in any way, "You made some real stupid choices. Knock it the hell off."?
CEOs seem to accept a Rortian account of income entitlement: I'm entitled to whatever my peers (and fellow citizens) will allow me to get away with paying myself. I wonder if Jesus would think that's a just account of income entitlement.
Anonymouse, Jesus would say (in modern parlance), “Unless you are an *owner* of the company, it’s none of your damned business how much its officers are paid.”
Or, to put it another way: "Anonymouse seem to accept a Rortian account of income entitlement: I'm entitled to whatever my peers (and fellow citizens) will allow me to get away with earning in the US economy (that is, tens of thousands of dollars), even as millions of Africans try to get by on one or two dollars per day. I wonder if Jesus would think that's a just account of income entitlement."
Anonymouse, like most "liberals," you are a hypocrite. And hypocrites are at the top of the list of the God-damned. You ought to fix that problem while you have the time.
Bilbo: "Speaking as a liberal, I disagree. A wealth disparity is immoral only when it results in people who do not have food, shelter, clothing, education, or health care."
Bilbo, like all "liberals," you *choose* to believe idiotic and contrary-to-reality things. And then, to make it far worse, you seek to use government compulsion unto physical violence and violent death to impose your flawed vision of reality onto me.
As Crude pointed out, the fact that Bill Gates is worth billions and has yearly income in the multi-millions does not cause one single child to go hungry -- quite the opposite, in fact, by his intentional endeavors Mr Gates (for all that he's *also* a thoughtless "liberal") causes the generation of vast amounts of wealth for untold numbers of his fellow human beings.
I agree that they are not necessarily causes. It's logically possible for extreme wealth disparities and for everybody's needs to be met.
"If I earn 2 billion dollars this year, that fact alone did not cause some person to be unable to afford health care."
Perhaps not.
"And here's one thing I'm really curious of: Do people have any duties when receiving charitable assistance?"
Yes. The Biblical view of charity was that you were given the means of earning your needs. Farmers were told not to harvest all their crops so that the poor could come and reap the leftovers. The farmers weren't told to harvest all the crops and then give some to the poor who sat around and did nothing.
In the year of Jubilee, the land was returned to the family so that they could then work the land and produce enough to live.
In the New Testament, Paul tells us that those who don't work, don't eat.
So yes, the poor have responsibilities, also.
But can we agree that if there are rich and their are poor, then the rich have a responsibility to help the poor?
Or do you think that it's every man for himself, as apparently Ilion thinks.
I agree that they are not necessarily causes. It's logically possible for extreme wealth disparities and for everybody's needs to be met.
That's not what I'm saying. Let's say there's an extreme wealth disparity, and everyone's needs are met on Friday. Come Monday, not everyone's needs are met.
Are you honestly saying that whatever happened in the interim was "caused" by the wealthy, or the wealth disparity itself? That seems wrongheaded.
But can we agree that if there are rich and their are poor, then the rich have a responsibility to help the poor?
Are we talking in terms of Christianity? Sure. But I think it's complicated, and I think you obviously realize that since you were able to say "yes, the poor have duties" without blinking.
For one, I don't think 'helping the poor' automatically means government involvement, and in fact I think there's a tremendous moral danger in believing this - in part because it makes charity mechanical. A person who has charity offered to them by a person - an actual individual, giving of themselves willingly and without legal force - will actually see charity as charity. In fact, so will the person offering it. Codify it into law, and things change. Now it's not charity, it's force, politics, and more. The appreciation vanishes because the charity is gone.
For another, there's rarely any talk about duties from anyone but the rich (and "rich" often means "middle class" too.) "The poor" are just treated as the platonic form of people who need help, help, help. I remember when Bill Cosby went off on what he saw as the duties of lower income blacks, and the response was a pretty damn hostile one.
Let me put it this way: I think being poor should not be comfortable, particularly for those who are in the situations they are due to bad decisions, past or present. You say "food, shelter, clothing, education and health care". I say, "healthy but dull food, small unaccommodating shelter, ugly clothing, K12 + autodidact education, and limited health care".
Dave Johnson doesn't know anything about economics. If he did, he'd realize that taxes on the wealthy: 1) Reduce incentives. 2) Reduce overall consumer demand. 3) Prevent present and future investment and expansion, which is the main source of jobs.
He's a business man that probably took one economics class in college and now thinks he's legit.
But it seems to me as if the investment and expansion is offshored much of the time. The tax revenue thus saved by the wealthy doesn't have to be invested at all, and doesn't have to be invested in America.
Is there a way to link tax breaks to the creation of American jobs?
And for the record, that wasn't a slight. Buchanan's a protectionist and cops to it openly, and tying tax breaks to keeping industries in the US is something he'd agree to. Walk down that path, and you're not walking down a clearly liberal path. Certainly not a libertarian one, I admit.
I am not sure every issue is conformable to right/left or liberal/conservative analysis. We have certain positions that are typical of Republicans and others typical of Democrats. However, I think a lot of these positions are a function of whose bread is being buttered by whom, and is largely a product of historical accident. Abortion, for example, of an issue that has gotten into the liberal-conservative debate mostly by historical accident.
It may seem that way, but I think it's not the case. I think approval/demand for (and, in truth, outright worship of) abortion, for example, is all-but-inevitably a "liberal" and leftist position. The "need" for abortion "rights" is implicit in the "liberal" notion/definition of freedom or liberty, which is, in turn, a function of the "liberal" (*) obsession with radical autonomy, by which personal autonomy is the highest good and over-arching moral imperative (**).
(*) and, perhaps, descends from what some call classical liberalism (with is to say, in the American context, the conservative-libertarian spectrum). By way of illustration of this possibility, the Australian ‘traditionalist’ blogger Mark Richardson uses the terms ‘left-liberalism’ and ‘right-liberalism’ to denote, respectively, (American-style) “liberalism/progressivism” and libertarianism (and most American conservatism); for he sees, and makes a good case for, both political constellations as equally descended from the radical autonomy theory of John Stewart Mill and company.
If his analysis is correct, then one begins to understand why “the conservative movement” (such as it is) so frequently buckles to the slightest pressure from organized “liberalism” (the organization/backbone of which comes from the leftists -- and those people are utterly committed to politics and the acquisition of power, that being their religion and all they have left in life). That is, on this analysis, most so-called conservatives assume the same underlying philosophy and anthropology as “liberals” do; they just reject, in an unprincipled manner, more of the inevitable conclusions of those assumptions. Thus, when “liberals,” in a group consensus, decide to stop rejecting (in an unprincipled manner, for they also do it) some logically inevitable conclusion of those shared assumptions, most so-called conservatives are wholly unable to offer a principled opposition to the latest “liberal” demands. And so, after a bit of huffing and puffing, most so-called conservative acquiesce to the “liberal” demand, and that becomes the new set-point in the on-going “culture wars.”
(**) at the same time, since they are being steered by the leftists, most “liberals” radically reject certain concepts which follow from the autonomy of human persons: for instance, until it catches up to them personally, most “liberals” reject the notion that the fruit of one’s labor belongs to oneself, rather than to “society” (meaning the government) – in the name of their twisted notion of what liberty is, the “liberals” will turn us all into slaves to the leftists.
B.Prokop, paraphrasing O.W.Holmes: "I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization."
Taxation, which is to say, governmental confiscation of the fruit of one's labor, which confiscation is all-but indistinguishable from, and frequently less honorable than, a mafia protection racket, does not “buy” nor cause civilization: (unorganized) society causes civilization. When it stays within its proper bounds – but no human government does this forever – government certainly may protect civilization.
You know, no one is stopping you-all from paying all your income as taxes. What we object to is your (hypocritical) demand that someone else be a tax-slave.
No hypocrisy here. Each year I voluntarily pay approximately three thousand dollars more in federal and state income taxes than I am legally obligated to, by not claiming certain deductions. I do this because I sincerely believe we are way undertaxed.
It is far too easy to throw around insults when you have no idea who you're talking to.
VR: “… That may be why conservative political leaders are using a consequentialist argument about jobs as opposed to a moral argument that redistributionist tax policies are unethical. Of course, a strict anti-redistributionism would undercut their support for oil subsidies.”
I suspect that you’re merely reciting “liberal” talking points, or using a “liberal” tendentious redefinition of “subsidy,” when you assert that the (so-called) conservative politicians support or advocate oil subsidies -- which talking points are, of course, and all-but inevitably, contradicted (*) by other “liberal” talking points on the same issue of energy-for-the-masses.
But, let us assume that the (so-called) conservative politicians really do support or advocate oil subsidies – in contrast to the (generally) “liberal” demand for ever-increasing subsidies for all manner of “green” energy supplies, everyone of which consumes more energy that it can contribute to the national economy. And, let us assume that, miraculously, everyone were to see and agree that the issue of taxation is at root a moral question: do we, or do we not, by natural right, individually own the fruit of our labor?. That answering this question in a “conservative” manner shows one that all demands for subsidizing one’s own life-choices and spending habits is the demand that one’s fellow citizens be made one’s slave -- and thus, that one’s demand is fundamentally immoral -- is a problem, how?
(*) “liberals” both advocate, and work to make reality, that energy be made more expensive … and then they bitch and howl (especially when the GOP holds the Oval Office) over the price of gasoline. As in most things they hold dear, “liberals” believe in magick: that both ‘A’ and ‘not-A’ may be true or may be had simultaneously, and that it’s the fault of those mean old conservatives, with their linear dead-white man thinking, that a choice must always be made, one or the other.
B.Prokop: “It is far too easy to throw around insults when you have no idea who you're talking to.”
B.Prokop, I have not insulted you yet. But I can, and quite easily, if that is what you wish.
Ilíon: “You know, no one is stopping you-all from paying all your income as taxes. What we object to is your (hypocritical) demand that someone else be a tax-slave.”
B.Prokop: “No hypocrisy here. Each year I voluntarily pay approximately three thousand dollars more in federal and state income taxes than I am legally obligated to, by not claiming certain deductions. I do this because I sincerely believe we are way undertaxed.”
But, you are not satisfied to voluntarily and individually pay a measly $3000 more in taxes than you, personally, are (currently) legally obligated to pay (*). You are not satisfied to say to yourself, “You know, I have earned more that I can reasonably use in my own life, so why don’t I donate some of it to the public fisc?” No, no, no … that’s not good enough for you, for you also take it upon yourself to determine that *I* have earned more income than I need – you demand that *I* be made your slave.
So, perhaps, as an wannabe-enslaver, you’re worse than a hypocrite. I know, that does take some doing.
(*) Which is surely a first in the annals of “liberalism;” aren’t you the folk who always seem to “forget” about taxes come April 15?
VR: "Obama is, of course, regarded as a major disappointment to the hard left."
Is he, really? And who could trust the truth of *anything* those people say?
Obama is weakening America, both internally and in our dealings with other states; his policies (and his antics, and worse, the antics of his supporters in doing their best to protect him from critical evaluation) may even be ther proverbial straw that breaks America's back.
If one is a hard-core leftist, why would one be disappointed by him?
On the other hand, a core part of the leftist persona and mindset is to be radically dissatisfied by everything which is -- to seek always to destroy what-is-now -- while constantly dreaming of the (physical/material) Utopia which will satisfy one's spiritual hunger.
"Spoken like a true liberal. And by liberal I mean Pat freaking Buchanan, haha."
Even aside from his odious desire to throw Israel under the bus, his protectionism should cause any sane man to reject him as a political leader or thinker. Sure, he *can* be, and frequently is, right on all sorts of things ... but why bother with him, when there are so many other far-more sensible persons bloviating?
VR: "But it seems to me as if the investment and expansion is offshored much of the time. The tax revenue thus saved by the wealthy doesn't have to be invested at all, and doesn't have to be invested in America."
Morally: once again, does one, or does one not, own the fruit of one's own labor? or does it belong to "the government?"
Pragmatically: it doesn't matter, for the world is really one economy -- "America" doesn't trade with South Korea, some individual Americans trade with some individual South Koreans.
Protectionism, in all its guises, is but the attempt to enslave, through the back door, one's fellow subjects (who are, amusingly, still called citizens). It is the attempt to: 1) use governmental force and compulsion, unto violent death, to make one's fellow subjects subsidize one's own life; 2) present oneself as being moral in doing so;
Even aside from his odious desire to throw Israel under the bus, his protectionism should cause any sane man to reject him as a political leader or thinker.
Well, what's wrong with his protectionism? It's not some crazy new idea. According to Pat, America was built on the practice. And apparently, China has been as well.
Ilion, I'm real curious of this one: What's your stance on illegal immigration? Or immigration, period? Would denying a business the right to import as much labor as it wants from wherever it wishes be more slavery? Would refusing immigrants partly on the grounds of what it would do to the job market be immoral?
Mr Prokop I do think your stance is noble but as my fellow countryman the late Kerry Packer used to say, "Pay your tax, but don't tip them. They're not doing that good a job."
Crude: "That's not what I'm saying. Let's say there's an extreme wealth disparity, and everyone's needs are met on Friday. Come Monday, not everyone's needs are met. Are you honestly saying that whatever happened in the interim was "caused" by the wealthy, or the wealth disparity itself? That seems wrongheaded."
I don't think there's enough information to tell what the cause was, Crude. Do you?
Bilbo: "But can we agree that if there are rich and their are poor, then the rich have a responsibility to help the poor?"
Crude: "Are we talking in terms of Christianity? Sure."
Do you think non-Christians are not obligated to help the poor?
"For one, I don't think 'helping the poor' automatically means government involvement, and in fact I think there's a tremendous moral danger in believing this - in part because it makes charity mechanical. A person who has charity offered to them by a person - an actual individual, giving of themselves willingly and without legal force - will actually see charity as charity. In fact, so will the person offering it. Codify it into law, and things change. Now it's not charity, it's force, politics, and more. The appreciation vanishes because the charity is gone."
I agree. I think the best form of charity would be one-on-one. However, if there are not enough rich people being charitable, or the numbers they are trying to help are too great, it would seem that some sort of institutional organization, private or government, would be needed.
"For another, there's rarely any talk about duties from anyone but the rich (and "rich" often means "middle class" too.) "The poor" are just treated as the platonic form of people who need help, help, help. I remember when Bill Cosby went off on what he saw as the duties of lower income blacks, and the response was a pretty damn hostile one."
I already agreed that the poor have responsibilities, also.
"Let me put it this way: I think being poor should not be comfortable, particularly for those who are in the situations they are due to bad decisions, past or present."
What if their situations were not due to bad decisions, past or present?
" I say, "healthy but dull food,"
sounds reasonable
"small unaccommodating shelter,ugly clothing,"
even if their situations were not due to bad decisions?
"K12 + autodidact education,"
I would think the better the education, the better their chances of getting out of poverty, wouldn't you?
"and limited health care".
Define "limited."
"That's not 'every man for himself'."
Congratulations on being a step or two above Ilion, (which isn't very difficult on this issue, is it?)
I don't think there's enough information to tell what the cause was, Crude. Do you?
You can't tell just from that information that the wealthy or the wealth disparity was the cause, because wealth disparities aren't 'causes' in that sense.
Do you think non-Christians are not obligated to help the poor?
Given what? Christianity?
I agree. I think the best form of charity would be one-on-one. However, if there are not enough rich people being charitable, or the numbers they are trying to help are too great, it would seem that some sort of institutional organization, private or government, would be needed.
Even if that were the case - I doubt it, at least in the US, in terms of raw material capability - I think private organizations are leaps and bounds better than governmental ones for similar reasons. The government is the worst option.
But at least we agree on the 'best' type of charity.
I already agreed that the poor have responsibilities, also.
You did, and I praised you for that. But I think it's clearly a problem in these discussions, and the popular handling of them.
What if their situations were not due to bad decisions, past or present?
I'd need examples, and I think bad decisions make up the bulk of the problem, certainly in the US.
I would think the better the education, the better their chances of getting out of poverty, wouldn't you?
Not at all - there are diminishing returns, and it's becoming clear that a post-K-12 formal education is largely a waste. Make use of the libraries and the internet.
And "getting them out of poverty" is a massive undertaking, and a foolish government policy. Supply what I've said, and the onus is on them to get themselves out of poverty.
Define "limited."
Limited. Budgeted. "Enough so that charity would still be required, particularly in the case of major illness and otherwise." "Health care for the poor should be worse than for the middle class, before private charity is factored in."
I'm no economist, but I'm thinking if one were to come upon this conversation, he'd take issue with the assumption that wealth disparities do not cause poverty. A large economy like ours only works with a sizeable middle class with a good deal of disposable income. If the middle class shrinks because their wages become stagnant and their jobs get outsourced to cheaper labor sources elsewhere, there's less disposable income. If there's less disposable income, there's of a demand for goods and services, which in turn creates a lack of jobs. Very wealthy people do create jobs by investing, but I don't believe the create anything like the number of jobs created by the normal consuming habits of middle-class Americans. So if a wealth disparity is created by the business owners freezing wages, or by a radical shift in the tax burden away from progressive taxation, then that absolutely could create poverty. If there was an infinite money supply that could somehow magically keep its worth despite there being an endless supply of it, then sure, wealth disparity and poverty could be totally unrelated. But I don't think that's the world we live in.
So if a wealth disparity is created by the business owners freezing wages, or by a radical shift in the tax burden away from progressive taxation, then that absolutely could create poverty.
Yeah, but that doesn't seem like the 'wealth disparity' doing it. It's the business decisions you're mentioning. The mere fact that that guy over there has 2 billion and that guy over there has 1 dollar doesn't add up to "well, clearly the wealth disparity is the cause here".
Do universities cause poverty? I mean, you can find a number of people who are saddled with horrible college debt. I'm not a fan of student loans or universities, but I don't think "a university education causes poverty" would be the right way to put it.
Crude: "Ilion, I'm real curious of this one: What's your stance on illegal immigration? Or immigration, period?"
Well, I wouldn't even be here if not for all the unregulated immigration of Europeans to these shores 300-400 years ago, and the subsequent displacement and/or destruction of the societies which already existed here. So, clearly, I'm all for open borders and the subsequent destruction of the society which has developed here over the past 400 years. :o
But, seriously -- do human societies have any rights comparable to the rights of individuals or do they no rights; are societies even real?
Do human societies have the right to have expectations and make demands? Do human societies have the right to define what they are and what they are not; do they have the right to change or to not change as they see fit? Do human societies have the right to define what behavior they will and will not accept or countenance? Do human societies have the right to accept or reject outsiders into their fold, for any reason they wish (or even for no reason but that they wish not)? Do human societies have the right to try to perpetuate themselves? Do human societies have the right to reject that which works counter to their own perpetuation?
When a human society is a territorial-based people, in contrast to, say, a chess club, and specifically, when it is not subject to any other people-group, does it own the government which rules its territory, or does that government own it? Does any government have the right to, in Bertholt Brecht's phrasing, "elect a new people"?
Crude: "Would denying a business the right to import as much labor as it wants from wherever it wishes be more slavery?"
Does a business -- a "person" by legal fiction -- have greater rights than the society -- an abstraction of actual persons -- by which its fictional existence is defined and protected?
Crude: "Would refusing immigrants partly on the grounds of what it would do to the job market be immoral?"
Do human persons have greater moral responsibilities to their own families and to their own societies, and the individuals thereof, than they do to individuals who are not members of their families nor their societies? Do human persons have a moral obligation to make themselves poor (or, risk making themselves poor) merely because, someone, somewhere lives in poverty? Do human persons have a moral obligation to import strangers into their society -- and risk the dissolution of that society -- merely becasue those outsiders "want a better life"?
Crude: "Well, what's wrong with his protectionism?"
Should this not be obvious whom what I have already said: it's immoral. Protectionism is but another form of demand for subsidation of one's life at the involuntary expense of one's fellows.
Ultimately, a demand for commercial protection is the demand that governmental compulsion, unto violent death, be used to compel one's fellow "citizens" to buy the product one is offering, regardless of what they wish to buy.
Crude: "It's not some crazy new idea. According to Pat, America was built on the practice."
Then he would be wrong ... or dishonest. America was built on work and investment (initially, foreign), on the generaton of wealth and the creation of material value. America was built by offering other human beings (both fellow Americans and foreigners) goods and services they wanted to buy at prices they were willing to freely pay.
But yes, the desire to live off one's fellows, the desire to shelter oneself from the need convince others to trade their labor for one's own, is not a new idea.
Crude: "And apparently, China has been as well."
China also murders its subjects. Still, it's not protection that is going to make China rich.
I'm going to break one of my post-lenten resolutions, and respond to Ilion's questions, one by one:
But, seriously -- do human societies have any rights comparable to the rights of individuals? YES
Are societies even real? YES
Do human societies have the right to have expectations and make demands? YES
Do human societies have the right to define what they are and what they are not? YES
Do they have the right to change or to not change as they see fit? (Not sure what this question means)
Do human societies have the right to define what behavior they will and will not accept or countenance? YES
Do human societies have the right to accept or reject outsiders into their fold, for any reason they wish (or even for no reason but that they wish not)? NO
Do human societies have the right to try to perpetuate themselves? YES
Do human societies have the right to reject that which works counter to their own perpetuation? SOMETIMES
When a human society is a territorial-based people, in contrast to, say, a chess club, and specifically, when it is not subject to any other people-group, does it own the government which rules its territory, or does that government own it? IT OWNS THE GOVT
Does any government have the right to, in Bertholt Brecht's phrasing, "elect a new people"? NO
Does a business have greater rights than the society? NO
Do human persons have greater moral responsibilities to their own families and to their own societies, and the individuals thereof, than they do to individuals who are not members of their families nor their societies? YES
Do human persons have a moral obligation to make themselves poor (or, risk making themselves poor) merely because, someone, somewhere lives in poverty? YES
Do human persons have a moral obligation to import strangers into their society -- and risk the dissolution of that society -- merely because those outsiders "want a better life"? SOMETIMES (This one needs to be answered on a case by case basis.)
Ultimately, a demand for commercial protection is the demand that governmental compulsion, unto violent death, be used to compel one's fellow "citizens" to buy the product one is offering, regardless of what they wish to buy.
And a demand to halt illegal immigration or set and enforce legal immigration limits is a similar demand, regardless of who citizens wish to hire. Which I'm fine with.
Really, I understand exactly what it means to get the government involved. But I think safeguarding the economic and industrial interests of the state isn't as clear a case of immorality as you're making it out to be. But if your view it's "It's immoral, period, end of discussion", then that's that.
I do not know whether or not "Ilion" is a Christian, but be that as it may, the philosophy he espouses is straight from Hell. It is, in fact, that place's governing constitution. Let me explain:
I am forever amazed by how much my entire subsequent life has been influenced by the relatively short time I spent in the Army (1975-1979). I truly believe that I learned and grew more in those four years than in any other comparable length of time. From insignificant mannerisms (how I stand, what I do with my hands while walking, the fact that I always start off on the left foot) to fundamental ways I view the world, I keep finding bits and pieces of my Army experience down there in my subconscious, nudging (or pushing) me in one direction or another.
One really good example is foxholes. One of the first things we learned in Basic Training at good old Fort Ord, California, was the correct (that is, the Army’s) way to dig one. And if you have some picture in your mind taken from a host of cheesy WWII movies (hole in the ground, head and rifle sticking out) – get rid of it now. What we were taught was the DuPuy foxhole, named after the Marine general who invented it. DuPuy had studied the carnage of Vietnam (remember, I enlisted only about 3 months after the fall of Saigon), and realized that everyone had been doing it all wrong ever since, well… ever since ever. The problem with firing out of a hole in the ground was that an advancing foe could fire right back at you. Thus the high casualty rate on both sides in a defensive battle.
What DuPuy came up with was a system of mutually supporting two-man foxholes. “Buddy Teams” of two soldiers would each dig their own pit, piling all the excavated dirt directly in front of the hole, completely blocking one’s view straight ahead. When you were finished, you could fire diagonally to the left or to the right, but immediately in front of you was this great earthen berm, higher than your head. The end result was that, in a line of these DuPuy “Defensive Fire Pits” (to use the official term), each buddy team was responsible for protecting the team to either side of them, while their own defense was left in turn to those teams. To work, the system required complete trust between the teams. You yourself could do absolutely nothing to protect yourself, and concentrated all your attention and efforts on defending your neighbors.
Think about this for a moment. There is a really profound principle at work here. One that I think goes to the very core and fundament of our being - of the universe itself. It is the indispensable principle behind How We Must Live. As the poet Charles Williams so beautifully put it:
This abides – that the everlasting house the soul discovers is always another’s; we must lose our own ends; we must always live in the habitation of our lovers, my friend’s shelter for me, mine for him.
The consequence of ignoring this is not just selfishness. It is not just missed opportunity or a life sadly lacking in color or meaning – it is a violation of the very nature of reality. To attempt to live for one’s self is an exercise in futility – you will fail.
One of my favorite passages in the New Testament occurs near the end of Mark. Christ has been crucified, and various passersby taunt him, asking why He doesn’t “save yourself and come down from the cross”. They conclude with the scoffing remark, “He saved others, himself he cannot save”.
Wow. Read that again. What was meant as a contemptuous dismissal, as a cynical comment on apparent failure, turns out to be the very key to The Meaning of Life itself. We cannot save ourselves – we must rely on others. And it is up to us to save them in turn. This is what it means to be a Human Being. When we fall short of this principle, we fall short of, and even deny altogether, our very Humanity.
Crude: Yeah, but that doesn't seem like the 'wealth disparity' doing it. It's the business decisions you're mentioning. The mere fact that that guy over there has 2 billion and that guy over there has 1 dollar doesn't add up to "well, clearly the wealth disparity is the cause here".
Me: It doesn't matter what caused the disparity, the very fact of the disparity would create poverty.
Take two nations, each with an equal GDP. In one nation, the top 1% owns 90% of the wealth, in the other country, the top 1% owns 30% of the wealth. All things being equal, there will be more poverty in the first nation than in the second as an inevitable result of such a wealth disparity. The reason is simple: neither the rich nor the poor spend enough to keep a large modern economy afloat. A modern economy depends on a large middle class. There is such a thing as a money supply, and it is not infinite. Only if it was infinite could wealth disparity not contribute to poverty. Since there is a finite supply of money and wealth, the more one person has, the less that is available for others.
What duties do the poor have? I think I can best answer that question by quoting this parable from Dostoevsky:
Once upon a time there was a peasant woman and a very wicked woman she was. And she died and did not leave a single good deed behind. The devils caught her and plunged her into the lake of fire. So her guardian angel stood and wondered what good deed of hers he could remember to tell to God; 'She once pulled up an onion in her garden,' said he, 'and gave it to a beggar woman.' And God answered: 'You take that onion then, hold it out to her in the lake, and let her take hold and be pulled out. And if you can pull her out of the lake, let her come to Paradise, but if the onion breaks, then the woman must stay where she is.' The angel ran to the woman and held out the onion to her. 'Come,' said he, 'catch hold and I'll pull you out.' he began cautiously pulling her out. He had just about pulled her right out, when the other sinners in the lake, seeing how she was being drawn out, began catching hold of her so as to be pulled out with her. But she was a very wicked woman and she began kicking them. 'I'm to be pulled out, not you. It's my onion, not yours.' As soon as she said that, the onion broke. And the woman fell into the lake and she is burning there to this day. So the angel wept and went away.
It doesn't matter what caused the disparity, the very fact of the disparity would create poverty.
No, I'm pretty sure 'what caused the disparity' actually does matter. To use an extreme example, if a wealthy person gives a poor person 50k, and the poor person promptly consumes it in a week on cocaine and gambling, going on about how the wealth disparity is to blame for the poverty is foolish.
The reason is simple: neither the rich nor the poor spend enough to keep a large modern economy afloat.
And your example dictates that how? It wouldn't be the disparity itself, it would be actions on the part of the rich and poor alike.
At the end of the day, you're going to have to deal with the more direct causes of problems other than simply alluding to the "wealth disparity". And frankly, so long as the four necessities I mentioned are met, the government's duty to the poor ends in my eyes. From that point on it's charity.
Dostoevsky's nice, but I'd rather a more direct answer - because as I told Bilbo, this seems like a question a lot of people refuse to answer or dwell on.
What are the duties of the poor? Do they have any aside from "try not to kill anyone"?
I had sworn off such IM-style posting, but this is too serious a matter. Thus Christ:
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we [do such things]?' And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
I do not see Christ putting "conditions" on our charity. The beggar woman (the poor) in Dostoevsky's story takes an onion from us, and in return provides us a pathway out of Hell. A fair trade, I'd say.
Crude, I can't really think of a simpler way to describe this. The reality is, the rich do not create jobs. Demand creates jobs. Where there is great demand for a product, jobs will be created. In order for there to be great demand for a product, there has to be a lot of people making enough money to buy the product. If the society has a handful of rich people and oceans of rich people, there will never be a demand for a large number of products. Your ascribing this not to the disparity but to the behavior of the rich and poor omits the fact that the disparity causes the behavior. People with very little money buy very little not because of their mindset but because they don't have the money. Rich people buy a great deal, but even if they make as much money as a thousand poor people combined, they won't consume as much as that thousand people would, nor would they support as many industries. And that's a rational decision on their part. We can assume every one of those thousand middle class persons would have a TV, a car, etc, but very few rich people own 1000 cars or 1000 television sets. So it's better for the economy at large if instead of that money being consolidated into the hands of one person that it's spread over that 1000. That will allow for the creation of more jobs, and thus will eliminate more poverty.
Look, if you were right, if wealth disparity had no causal relation to poverty, then wealth disparity wouldn't be a good predictor of poverty. But it is. Every society with a large wealth disparity has higher levels of poverty than societies with a more equitable wealth disparity. This is the history of the world. From the time of Moses to today, there have always been societies with a few super rich people and oceans of poor people. In those societies, the poor can never advance, because neither they nor the rich put enough money into the economy to create enough jobs to create a middle class.
Do you see what I mean about the "duties"? I ask Bob, and his reply is basically an unqualified "nothing". No responsibility. No commitment. Not even gratitude. 'The poor get money and assistance without question or standard, because Bibleverse. We're done here.' One gets the impression it's insulting to even bring this up this question.
Sorry, I don't think it's that easy. Nor do I think it's wise or even moral to avoid such a question, even in the context of Christianity. The poor do have duties, and the duty to the poor goes far beyond throwing money their way and talking about how moral it is to do so.
The reality is, the rich do not create jobs. Demand creates jobs.
You realize that people can also create demand, right? Including the wealthy? And when there's demand, the wealthy can and in many cases certainly do fill it - by creating jobs?
Your ascribing this not to the disparity but to the behavior of the rich and poor omits the fact that the disparity causes the behavior.
You're thinking of the wealthy as nothing but consumers, when they are also often providers of jobs. You are ignoring the fact that the man with the wealth can spread the wealth around by investment, and what investment really adds up to at the end of the day.
I won't deny that if you have a miser situation - someone who has all the wealth and does nothing with it - you could have a problem. But that just backs up what I said: It's not the disparity, it's the action.
Look, if you were right, if wealth disparity had no causal relation to poverty, then wealth disparity wouldn't be a good predictor of poverty. But it is.
Correlation ain't causation. I'm saying you have to look at the actual causes, the actual issues in the particular society. Trying to put it all on the back of the disparity is more an ideological move than anything else, and talking about 'the rich' without appreciating the role wealthy people play in terms of investment and job creation is crazy.
I never said the poor have no duties. In fact, I specifically asserted the contrary.
But that has no bearing on OUR duty to the poor. Our requirement as human beings to the poor is in no way contingent upon their response.
And yes, I am completely unashamed about arguing from scripture. I see nothing wrong with doing so. I only pray (literally) that, when I do so, my interpretation is correct.
One thing I am fairly certain of however, is that on That Great and Awful Day, the Maker of all things visible and invisible, and the Judge of the living and the dead, is NOT going to ask me what were the "duties of the poor". He's going to ask me what I did for the least of my fellow human beings.
Crude: You can't tell just from that information that the wealthy or the wealth disparity was the cause, because wealth disparities aren't 'causes' in that sense.
They can be. For example, on Friday everyone's needs are met, but by Monday only one person can afford to meet their needs, because only one person had enough money to last the weekend (even though all of them were equally frugal). The disparity is why no one else could meet their needs on Monday.
By the way, I think Anonymous explained excellently why wealth disparity causes poverty.
Bilbo: "Do you think non-Christians are not obligated to help the poor?"
Crude: Given what? Christianity?
Given Bob's excellent explanation of what it means to be human.
Even if that were the case - I doubt it, at least in the US, in terms of raw material capability - I think private organizations are leaps and bounds better than governmental ones for similar reasons. The government is the worst option.
Perhaps. It depends on what is needed. Do we need higher tariffs to protect our shrinking manufacturing base? The government is the best option for that.
Not at all - there are diminishing returns, and it's becoming clear that a post-K-12 formal education is largely a waste. Make use of the libraries and the internet.
You mean there's no sense in becoming a doctor?
Limited. Budgeted. "Enough so that charity would still be required, particularly in the case of major illness and otherwise." "Health care for the poor should be worse than for the middle class, before private charity is factored in."
Why? Isn't a healthy person more likely to succeed in making a living than a sick person?
Do you see what I mean about the "duties"?
Yes, and I think Paul's, "Those who don't work, don't eat," pretty much sums it up.
I never said the poor have no duties. In fact, I specifically asserted the contrary.
You answered me with a Dostoevsky parable, I asked you for a direct answer, you gave me another parable. You listed none, zero, nyet, no "duties" the poor have, unless you think that the poor literally are the saviors of our souls and have a duty to do that.
Bilbo says "those who don't work, don't eat". What say you, Bob?
Matt 19:24 "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
So a society of a few rich andmany poor is ideal, right? If everyone was comfortable it would be harder for them to enter heaven. Poverty is a blessing in many ways.
B. Prokop said: "Our requirement as human beings to the poor is in no way contingent upon their response."
This is plain nutty. If throwing welfare benefits at some guy is just going to make him fat and lazy, then of course you don't do it. You make him feel some fear over his situation, which will hopefully goad him into working.
Your attempt to infer it from Matt 25 is also crazy. You are simply taken the behaviour enjoined as to be followed without exception. But that is always a bad hermeneetic.
They can be. For example, on Friday everyone's needs are met, but by Monday only one person can afford to meet their needs, because only one person had enough money to last the weekend (even though all of them were equally frugal). The disparity is why no one else could meet their needs on Monday.
And maybe they were frugal on Friday but a spendthrift last week. And maybe they were spendthrifts that day.
You have to take a look at the actual causes, because simply assigning it to 'wealth disparity' doesn't wash.
Perhaps. It depends on what is needed. Do we need higher tariffs to protect our shrinking manufacturing base? The government is the best option for that.
I was speaking in terms of charity - law enforcement is another question. And even there, I think personally persuading people, even businessmen, to freely spend their money in adequate ways is superior to any law. I just recognize, pragmatically and very hesitantly, that there are cases where some limited intervention can be justified.
You mean there's no sense in becoming a doctor?
You mean there's sense in becoming an english major?
(Sorry, english majors, but if it makes you feel any better, I'll leave a nice tip after my meal's over.)
Why? Isn't a healthy person more likely to succeed in making a living than a sick person?
Better keep yourself healthy then if you can, eh?
Yes, and I think Paul's, "Those who don't work, don't eat," pretty much sums it up.
Then you too have a disagreement. And Bob's highlighted my problem with the modern conversation on this topic. Some kind of fetishism of the poor.
Great stuff on your experience in the Army, B Prokop. You might like Wayne Martin's take on things as in this video here.
Anonymous also has made some very interesting points about disparities in wealth in a finite economy. Considering one extreme, where all wealth and power belongs to one individual, the welfare of the populace will depend almost completely on his character. Is there a lesson there? I think so.
Crude: "Well, what's wrong with his protectionism?"
Ilíon: "Ultimately, a demand for commercial protection is the demand that governmental compulsion, unto violent death, be used to compel one's fellow "citizens" to buy the product one is offering, regardless of what they wish to buy."
Crude: "And a demand to halt illegal immigration or set and enforce legal immigration limits is a similar demand, regardless of who citizens wish to hire."
Really?
So, there is no substantive difference between -- "No, you may not (or, you do not have the moral right to) use the fruit of your own labor/efforts to hire foreigners in the own lands -- and take upon yourself the risk so entailed -- to do the work that, for whatever reason, you are not willing to pay your fellow-citizens to do," on the one hand,
and -- "No, you may not (or, you do not have the moral right to) import foreigners into the midst of our society -- and impose upon us the risk so entailed -- to do the work that, for whatever reason, you are not willing to pay your fellow-citizens to do," on the other?
How curious!
The (moral) businessman or entrepreneur who invests in a foreign land, rather than hiring his fellow citizens to do the work he wishes done, does not do an injustice to his fellow citizens. For, among other things, he does not *owe* anyone a job. Further, at his own risk, he generally does a benefit to those foreigners he hires -- unlike the oh-so-caring "liberals" whose "help," in the long term, is always indistinguishable from deliberate malice.
The (immoral) businessman wanting more employees, or the rich "liberal" wanting servants, who imports foreigners rather than hiring his or her fellow citizens to do the work he or he wishes done, does indeed commit injustice against his or her fellow citizens, on multiple levels, including: 1) the foreigners, even in low numbers, are a disruption to the society; and, they may well turn out to be worse than a mere "disruption;" 2) this businessman or rich "liberal" *dumps* the social costs of those foreigners onto his or her fellow citizens; 2a) then, when he or she is done with the foreigners and "lets them go," the society is stuck with even more monetary costs due to their presence; 3) this (immoral) businessman or rich "liberal" is not taking upon himself or herself the costs and risks (for instance, a dicey legal system) of hiring the foreigners in their own lands, but rather, wants to continue to enjoy the benefits of *this* society (for instance, law and order), while pushing all the cost of his or her choice onto this society.
a seriously foolinh person: "I do not know whether or not "Ilion" is a Christian, but be that as it may, the philosophy he espouses is straight from Hell ..."
This amusing response is even better than I could have hoped for. Now, if only I can make the time to give it the adequate mocking it deserves.
63 comments:
Man, right at a glance.
"The very people" who "hire people" shouldn't have to pay taxes
In response to Boehner talking about a tax *raise*. Not the mere existence of taxes.
Not every person who believes that investment creates jobs is the "hero" from some crazy Ayn Rand fantasy.
But I guess the real issue is whether returning to Clinton-era tax rates for the wealthy will cost American jobs. Any good reason to believe this?
Good question, let's see a greater discussion of it. I don't see it in that article.
Superficially, the more money going to taxes is less money that can be spent on private investment. And of course, sometimes when the taxes are high enough people just plain leave.
These are just idle, get-the-conversation-going ideas, not demonstrations that tax rate X is definitely a bad idea where economic questions are concerned. I imagine someone can make the move "Who cares if it leads to less jobs? There's a wealth disparity, that's immoral, tax the wealthy until they're middle class and redistribute the rest."
"I imagine someone can make the move "Who cares if it leads to less jobs? There's a wealth disparity, that's immoral, tax the wealthy until they're middle class and redistribute the rest.""
Which is *precisely* where "liberals" are coming from.
Thus, VR's (*) seemingly innocent and uploaded question is wrong-headed, for the issue is one of morality (and moral vision), rather than merely of technocratic policy wonkery. The technocratic policy wonkery is not the proper question until the moral issue is dealt with; until then, it is a distraction ... which serves to give aid and comfort to "liberalism's" hatred of *other* persons having wealth.
(*) which ultimately comes from "conservative" policy wonks who wanted to avoid the moral dimension of questions of taxation.
But would the moral arguments, if correct, prove too much? If consistently followed, wouldn't they support a flat tax, as opposed to the Bush rate as opposed to the Clinton rate?
If one/you are consistent (*) with "liberal" morality -- which, of course, is a false pseudo-morality -- then 100% of everyone's income and wealth (which are two different things) belongs to the government. Which is to say, it actually belongs to the handful of persons who run the government, to do with as they wish.
"But would the moral arguments, if correct, prove too much? If consistently followed, wouldn't they support a flat tax ..."
This is a problem, how?
(*) and, you (you VR) are not consistent when *your* taxes, for you simultaneously hold that that guy over there *ought* to pay more taxes, but that it's "unfair" that you get caught in the same net.
"You are claiming, I take it, that conservative politicians don't always give the right reasons for supporting conservative views."
In much the same way that "liberals" (as that term in currently used in contrast to its historical meaning) are really soft leftists, most so-called conservatives, especially when they're politicians, are really just soft "liberals".
"Liberals" operate from the same, or most of the same, erroneous assumptions about the world and human beings as hard-core leftists do. However, "liberals" don't (yet) accept all of the conclusions which logically follow from those assumptions, and so they make unprincipled exceptions to the conclusions they (currently) do not want to accept.
In similar wise, most self-identifying conservatives operate from the same, or most of the same, erroneous assumptions about the world and human beings as soft-core leftists (that is, "liberals") do. The main difference between most self-identifying conservatives and most "liberals" is that the "conservatives" reject, in an unprincipled manner, more of the conclusions which logically follow from their starting assumptions.
You were claiming that the discussion has to be shifted from a discussion of what is pragmatically advantageous to what is morally right, which is going to result in a conclusion that is contrary to both what Boehner and company are advocating on the one hand, and what Obama and company are advocating. That may be why conservative political leaders are using a consequentialist argument about jobs as opposed to a moral argument that redistributionist tax policies are unethical. Of course, a strict anti-redistributionism would undercut their support for oil subsidies.
Obama is, of course, regarded as a major disappointment to the hard left.
Crude: "I imagine someone can make the move "Who cares if it leads to less jobs? There's a wealth disparity, that's immoral, tax the wealthy until they're middle class and redistribute the rest.""
Ilion: "Which is *precisely* where "liberals" are coming from."
Speaking as a liberal, I disagree. A wealth disparity is immoral only when it results in people who do not have food, shelter, clothing, education, or health care.
Speaking as a liberal, I disagree. A wealth disparity is immoral only when it results in people who do not have food, shelter, clothing, education, or health care.
But wealth disparities aren't "causes". If I earn 2 billion dollars this year, that fact alone did not cause some person to be unable to afford health care.
And here's one thing I'm really curious of: Do people have any duties when receiving charitable assistance? Any at all? For instance, there's a number of single mothers, drug-users, etc. Should they be told in any way, "You made some real stupid choices. Knock it the hell off."?
CEOs seem to accept a Rortian account of income entitlement: I'm entitled to whatever my peers (and fellow citizens) will allow me to get away with paying myself. I wonder if Jesus would think that's a just account of income entitlement.
Anonymouse,
Jesus would say (in modern parlance), “Unless you are an *owner* of the company, it’s none of your damned business how much its officers are paid.”
Or, to put it another way:
"Anonymouse seem to accept a Rortian account of income entitlement: I'm entitled to whatever my peers (and fellow citizens) will allow me to get away with earning in the US economy (that is, tens of thousands of dollars), even as millions of Africans try to get by on one or two dollars per day. I wonder if Jesus would think that's a just account of income entitlement."
Anonymouse, like most "liberals," you are a hypocrite. And hypocrites are at the top of the list of the God-damned. You ought to fix that problem while you have the time.
Bilbo: "Speaking as a liberal, I disagree. A wealth disparity is immoral only when it results in people who do not have food, shelter, clothing, education, or health care."
Bilbo, like all "liberals," you *choose* to believe idiotic and contrary-to-reality things. And then, to make it far worse, you seek to use government compulsion unto physical violence and violent death to impose your flawed vision of reality onto me.
As Crude pointed out, the fact that Bill Gates is worth billions and has yearly income in the multi-millions does not cause one single child to go hungry -- quite the opposite, in fact, by his intentional endeavors Mr Gates (for all that he's *also* a thoughtless "liberal") causes the generation of vast amounts of wealth for untold numbers of his fellow human beings.
Crude: "But wealth disparities aren't "causes"."
I agree that they are not necessarily causes. It's logically possible for extreme wealth disparities and for everybody's needs to be met.
"If I earn 2 billion dollars this year, that fact alone did not cause some person to be unable to afford health care."
Perhaps not.
"And here's one thing I'm really curious of: Do people have any duties when receiving charitable assistance?"
Yes. The Biblical view of charity was that you were given the means of earning your needs. Farmers were told not to harvest all their crops so that the poor could come and reap the leftovers. The farmers weren't told to harvest all the crops and then give some to the poor who sat around and did nothing.
In the year of Jubilee, the land was returned to the family so that they could then work the land and produce enough to live.
In the New Testament, Paul tells us that those who don't work, don't eat.
So yes, the poor have responsibilities, also.
But can we agree that if there are rich and their are poor, then the rich have a responsibility to help the poor?
Or do you think that it's every man for himself, as apparently Ilion thinks.
Bilbo,
I agree that they are not necessarily causes. It's logically possible for extreme wealth disparities and for everybody's needs to be met.
That's not what I'm saying. Let's say there's an extreme wealth disparity, and everyone's needs are met on Friday. Come Monday, not everyone's needs are met.
Are you honestly saying that whatever happened in the interim was "caused" by the wealthy, or the wealth disparity itself? That seems wrongheaded.
But can we agree that if there are rich and their are poor, then the rich have a responsibility to help the poor?
Are we talking in terms of Christianity? Sure. But I think it's complicated, and I think you obviously realize that since you were able to say "yes, the poor have duties" without blinking.
For one, I don't think 'helping the poor' automatically means government involvement, and in fact I think there's a tremendous moral danger in believing this - in part because it makes charity mechanical. A person who has charity offered to them by a person - an actual individual, giving of themselves willingly and without legal force - will actually see charity as charity. In fact, so will the person offering it. Codify it into law, and things change. Now it's not charity, it's force, politics, and more. The appreciation vanishes because the charity is gone.
For another, there's rarely any talk about duties from anyone but the rich (and "rich" often means "middle class" too.) "The poor" are just treated as the platonic form of people who need help, help, help. I remember when Bill Cosby went off on what he saw as the duties of lower income blacks, and the response was a pretty damn hostile one.
Let me put it this way: I think being poor should not be comfortable, particularly for those who are in the situations they are due to bad decisions, past or present. You say "food, shelter, clothing, education and health care". I say, "healthy but dull food, small unaccommodating shelter, ugly clothing, K12 + autodidact education, and limited health care".
That's not 'every man for himself'.
Dave Johnson doesn't know anything about economics. If he did, he'd realize that taxes on the wealthy: 1) Reduce incentives. 2) Reduce overall consumer demand. 3) Prevent present and future investment and expansion, which is the main source of jobs.
He's a business man that probably took one economics class in college and now thinks he's legit.
But it seems to me as if the investment and expansion is offshored much of the time. The tax revenue thus saved by the wealthy doesn't have to be invested at all, and doesn't have to be invested in America.
Is there a way to link tax breaks to the creation of American jobs?
Is there a way to link tax breaks to the creation of American jobs?
Spoken like a true liberal. And by liberal I mean Pat freaking Buchanan, haha.
Oliver Wendell Holmes:
"I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization."
And for the record, that wasn't a slight. Buchanan's a protectionist and cops to it openly, and tying tax breaks to keeping industries in the US is something he'd agree to. Walk down that path, and you're not walking down a clearly liberal path. Certainly not a libertarian one, I admit.
I am not sure every issue is conformable to right/left or liberal/conservative analysis. We have certain positions that are typical of Republicans and others typical of Democrats. However, I think a lot of these positions are a function of whose bread is being buttered by whom, and is largely a product of historical accident. Abortion, for example, of an issue that has gotten into the liberal-conservative debate mostly by historical accident.
It may seem that way, but I think it's not the case. I think approval/demand for (and, in truth, outright worship of) abortion, for example, is all-but-inevitably a "liberal" and leftist position. The "need" for abortion "rights" is implicit in the "liberal" notion/definition of freedom or liberty, which is, in turn, a function of the "liberal" (*) obsession with radical autonomy, by which personal autonomy is the highest good and over-arching moral imperative (**).
(*) and, perhaps, descends from what some call classical liberalism (with is to say, in the American context, the conservative-libertarian spectrum). By way of illustration of this possibility, the Australian ‘traditionalist’ blogger Mark Richardson uses the terms ‘left-liberalism’ and ‘right-liberalism’ to denote, respectively, (American-style) “liberalism/progressivism” and libertarianism (and most American conservatism); for he sees, and makes a good case for, both political constellations as equally descended from the radical autonomy theory of John Stewart Mill and company.
If his analysis is correct, then one begins to understand why “the conservative movement” (such as it is) so frequently buckles to the slightest pressure from organized “liberalism” (the organization/backbone of which comes from the leftists -- and those people are utterly committed to politics and the acquisition of power, that being their religion and all they have left in life). That is, on this analysis, most so-called conservatives assume the same underlying philosophy and anthropology as “liberals” do; they just reject, in an unprincipled manner, more of the inevitable conclusions of those assumptions. Thus, when “liberals,” in a group consensus, decide to stop rejecting (in an unprincipled manner, for they also do it) some logically inevitable conclusion of those shared assumptions, most so-called conservatives are wholly unable to offer a principled opposition to the latest “liberal” demands. And so, after a bit of huffing and puffing, most so-called conservative acquiesce to the “liberal” demand, and that becomes the new set-point in the on-going “culture wars.”
(**) at the same time, since they are being steered by the leftists, most “liberals” radically reject certain concepts which follow from the autonomy of human persons: for instance, until it catches up to them personally, most “liberals” reject the notion that the fruit of one’s labor belongs to oneself, rather than to “society” (meaning the government) – in the name of their twisted notion of what liberty is, the “liberals” will turn us all into slaves to the leftists.
B.Prokop, paraphrasing O.W.Holmes: "I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization."
Taxation, which is to say, governmental confiscation of the fruit of one's labor, which confiscation is all-but indistinguishable from, and frequently less honorable than, a mafia protection racket, does not “buy” nor cause civilization: (unorganized) society causes civilization. When it stays within its proper bounds – but no human government does this forever – government certainly may protect civilization.
You know, no one is stopping you-all from paying all your income as taxes. What we object to is your (hypocritical) demand that someone else be a tax-slave.
"Thus, VR's (*) seemingly innocent and uploaded question is wrong-headed, "
I have no clear idea what I meant to type where I have "uploaded" ... perhaps "upfront"
No hypocrisy here. Each year I voluntarily pay approximately three thousand dollars more in federal and state income taxes than I am legally obligated to, by not claiming certain deductions. I do this because I sincerely believe we are way undertaxed.
It is far too easy to throw around insults when you have no idea who you're talking to.
You are a nong, Ilion.
VR: “… That may be why conservative political leaders are using a consequentialist argument about jobs as opposed to a moral argument that redistributionist tax policies are unethical. Of course, a strict anti-redistributionism would undercut their support for oil subsidies.”
I suspect that you’re merely reciting “liberal” talking points, or using a “liberal” tendentious redefinition of “subsidy,” when you assert that the (so-called) conservative politicians support or advocate oil subsidies -- which talking points are, of course, and all-but inevitably, contradicted (*) by other “liberal” talking points on the same issue of energy-for-the-masses.
But, let us assume that the (so-called) conservative politicians really do support or advocate oil subsidies – in contrast to the (generally) “liberal” demand for ever-increasing subsidies for all manner of “green” energy supplies, everyone of which consumes more energy that it can contribute to the national economy. And, let us assume that, miraculously, everyone were to see and agree that the issue of taxation is at root a moral question: do we, or do we not, by natural right, individually own the fruit of our labor?. That answering this question in a “conservative” manner shows one that all demands for subsidizing one’s own life-choices and spending habits is the demand that one’s fellow citizens be made one’s slave -- and thus, that one’s demand is fundamentally immoral -- is a problem, how?
(*) “liberals” both advocate, and work to make reality, that energy be made more expensive … and then they bitch and howl (especially when the GOP holds the Oval Office) over the price of gasoline. As in most things they hold dear, “liberals” believe in magick: that both ‘A’ and ‘not-A’ may be true or may be had simultaneously, and that it’s the fault of those mean old conservatives, with their linear dead-white man thinking, that a choice must always be made, one or the other.
B.Prokop: “It is far too easy to throw around insults when you have no idea who you're talking to.”
B.Prokop, I have not insulted you yet. But I can, and quite easily, if that is what you wish.
Ilíon: “You know, no one is stopping you-all from paying all your income as taxes. What we object to is your (hypocritical) demand that someone else be a tax-slave.”
B.Prokop: “No hypocrisy here. Each year I voluntarily pay approximately three thousand dollars more in federal and state income taxes than I am legally obligated to, by not claiming certain deductions. I do this because I sincerely believe we are way undertaxed.”
But, you are not satisfied to voluntarily and individually pay a measly $3000 more in taxes than you, personally, are (currently) legally obligated to pay (*). You are not satisfied to say to yourself, “You know, I have earned more that I can reasonably use in my own life, so why don’t I donate some of it to the public fisc?” No, no, no … that’s not good enough for you, for you also take it upon yourself to determine that *I* have earned more income than I need – you demand that *I* be made your slave.
So, perhaps, as an wannabe-enslaver, you’re worse than a hypocrite. I know, that does take some doing.
(*) Which is surely a first in the annals of “liberalism;” aren’t you the folk who always seem to “forget” about taxes come April 15?
"You are a nong, Ilion."
And you're a fool -- intellectually dishonest, to the core. Does that make us even?
VR: "Obama is, of course, regarded as a major disappointment to the hard left."
Is he, really? And who could trust the truth of *anything* those people say?
Obama is weakening America, both internally and in our dealings with other states; his policies (and his antics, and worse, the antics of his supporters in doing their best to protect him from critical evaluation) may even be ther proverbial straw that breaks America's back.
If one is a hard-core leftist, why would one be disappointed by him?
On the other hand, a core part of the leftist persona and mindset is to be radically dissatisfied by everything which is -- to seek always to destroy what-is-now -- while constantly dreaming of the (physical/material) Utopia which will satisfy one's spiritual hunger.
"Spoken like a true liberal. And by liberal I mean Pat freaking Buchanan, haha."
Even aside from his odious desire to throw Israel under the bus, his protectionism should cause any sane man to reject him as a political leader or thinker. Sure, he *can* be, and frequently is, right on all sorts of things ... but why bother with him, when there are so many other far-more sensible persons bloviating?
VR: "But it seems to me as if the investment and expansion is offshored much of the time. The tax revenue thus saved by the wealthy doesn't have to be invested at all, and doesn't have to be invested in America."
Morally: once again, does one, or does one not, own the fruit of one's own labor? or does it belong to "the government?"
Pragmatically: it doesn't matter, for the world is really one economy -- "America" doesn't trade with South Korea, some individual Americans trade with some individual South Koreans.
Protectionism, in all its guises, is but the attempt to enslave, through the back door, one's fellow subjects (who are, amusingly, still called citizens). It is the attempt to:
1) use governmental force and compulsion, unto violent death, to make one's fellow subjects subsidize one's own life;
2) present oneself as being moral in doing so;
Ilion,
Even aside from his odious desire to throw Israel under the bus, his protectionism should cause any sane man to reject him as a political leader or thinker.
Well, what's wrong with his protectionism? It's not some crazy new idea. According to Pat, America was built on the practice. And apparently, China has been as well.
Ilion, I'm real curious of this one: What's your stance on illegal immigration? Or immigration, period? Would denying a business the right to import as much labor as it wants from wherever it wishes be more slavery? Would refusing immigrants partly on the grounds of what it would do to the job market be immoral?
Mr Prokop
I do think your stance is noble but as my fellow countryman the late Kerry Packer used to say, "Pay your tax, but don't tip them. They're not doing that good a job."
Maybe your gov't deserve a tip?
Crude: "That's not what I'm saying. Let's say there's an extreme wealth disparity, and everyone's needs are met on Friday. Come Monday, not everyone's needs are met.
Are you honestly saying that whatever happened in the interim was "caused" by the wealthy, or the wealth disparity itself? That seems wrongheaded."
I don't think there's enough information to tell what the cause was, Crude. Do you?
Bilbo: "But can we agree that if there are rich and their are poor, then the rich have a responsibility to help the poor?"
Crude: "Are we talking in terms of Christianity? Sure."
Do you think non-Christians are not obligated to help the poor?
"For one, I don't think 'helping the poor' automatically means government involvement, and in fact I think there's a tremendous moral danger in believing this - in part because it makes charity mechanical. A person who has charity offered to them by a person - an actual individual, giving of themselves willingly and without legal force - will actually see charity as charity. In fact, so will the person offering it. Codify it into law, and things change. Now it's not charity, it's force, politics, and more. The appreciation vanishes because the charity is gone."
I agree. I think the best form of charity would be one-on-one. However, if there are not enough rich people being charitable, or the numbers they are trying to help are too great, it would seem that some sort of institutional organization, private or government, would be needed.
"For another, there's rarely any talk about duties from anyone but the rich (and "rich" often means "middle class" too.) "The poor" are just treated as the platonic form of people who need help, help, help. I remember when Bill Cosby went off on what he saw as the duties of lower income blacks, and the response was a pretty damn hostile one."
I already agreed that the poor have responsibilities, also.
"Let me put it this way: I think being poor should not be comfortable, particularly for those who are in the situations they are due to bad decisions, past or present."
What if their situations were not due to bad decisions, past or present?
" I say, "healthy but dull food,"
sounds reasonable
"small unaccommodating shelter,ugly clothing,"
even if their situations were not due to bad decisions?
"K12 + autodidact education,"
I would think the better the education, the better their chances of getting out of poverty, wouldn't you?
"and limited health care".
Define "limited."
"That's not 'every man for himself'."
Congratulations on being a step or two above Ilion, (which isn't very difficult on this issue, is it?)
Bilbo,
I don't think there's enough information to tell what the cause was, Crude. Do you?
You can't tell just from that information that the wealthy or the wealth disparity was the cause, because wealth disparities aren't 'causes' in that sense.
Do you think non-Christians are not obligated to help the poor?
Given what? Christianity?
I agree. I think the best form of charity would be one-on-one. However, if there are not enough rich people being charitable, or the numbers they are trying to help are too great, it would seem that some sort of institutional organization, private or government, would be needed.
Even if that were the case - I doubt it, at least in the US, in terms of raw material capability - I think private organizations are leaps and bounds better than governmental ones for similar reasons. The government is the worst option.
But at least we agree on the 'best' type of charity.
I already agreed that the poor have responsibilities, also.
You did, and I praised you for that. But I think it's clearly a problem in these discussions, and the popular handling of them.
What if their situations were not due to bad decisions, past or present?
I'd need examples, and I think bad decisions make up the bulk of the problem, certainly in the US.
I would think the better the education, the better their chances of getting out of poverty, wouldn't you?
Not at all - there are diminishing returns, and it's becoming clear that a post-K-12 formal education is largely a waste. Make use of the libraries and the internet.
And "getting them out of poverty" is a massive undertaking, and a foolish government policy. Supply what I've said, and the onus is on them to get themselves out of poverty.
Define "limited."
Limited. Budgeted. "Enough so that charity would still be required, particularly in the case of major illness and otherwise." "Health care for the poor should be worse than for the middle class, before private charity is factored in."
I'm no economist, but I'm thinking if one were to come upon this conversation, he'd take issue with the assumption that wealth disparities do not cause poverty. A large economy like ours only works with a sizeable middle class with a good deal of disposable income. If the middle class shrinks because their wages become stagnant and their jobs get outsourced to cheaper labor sources elsewhere, there's less disposable income. If there's less disposable income, there's of a demand for goods and services, which in turn creates a lack of jobs. Very wealthy people do create jobs by investing, but I don't believe the create anything like the number of jobs created by the normal consuming habits of middle-class Americans. So if a wealth disparity is created by the business owners freezing wages, or by a radical shift in the tax burden away from progressive taxation, then that absolutely could create poverty. If there was an infinite money supply that could somehow magically keep its worth despite there being an endless supply of it, then sure, wealth disparity and poverty could be totally unrelated. But I don't think that's the world we live in.
So if a wealth disparity is created by the business owners freezing wages, or by a radical shift in the tax burden away from progressive taxation, then that absolutely could create poverty.
Yeah, but that doesn't seem like the 'wealth disparity' doing it. It's the business decisions you're mentioning. The mere fact that that guy over there has 2 billion and that guy over there has 1 dollar doesn't add up to "well, clearly the wealth disparity is the cause here".
Do universities cause poverty? I mean, you can find a number of people who are saddled with horrible college debt. I'm not a fan of student loans or universities, but I don't think "a university education causes poverty" would be the right way to put it.
Crude: "Ilion, I'm real curious of this one: What's your stance on illegal immigration? Or immigration, period?"
Well, I wouldn't even be here if not for all the unregulated immigration of Europeans to these shores 300-400 years ago, and the subsequent displacement and/or destruction of the societies which already existed here. So, clearly, I'm all for open borders and the subsequent destruction of the society which has developed here over the past 400 years. :o
But, seriously -- do human societies have any rights comparable to the rights of individuals or do they no rights; are societies even real?
Do human societies have the right to have expectations and make demands? Do human societies have the right to define what they are and what they are not; do they have the right to change or to not change as they see fit? Do human societies have the right to define what behavior they will and will not accept or countenance? Do human societies have the right to accept or reject outsiders into their fold, for any reason they wish (or even for no reason but that they wish not)? Do human societies have the right to try to perpetuate themselves? Do human societies have the right to reject that which works counter to their own perpetuation?
When a human society is a territorial-based people, in contrast to, say, a chess club, and specifically, when it is not subject to any other people-group, does it own the government which rules its territory, or does that government own it? Does any government have the right to, in Bertholt Brecht's phrasing, "elect a new people"?
Crude: "Would denying a business the right to import as much labor as it wants from wherever it wishes be more slavery?"
Does a business -- a "person" by legal fiction -- have greater rights than the society -- an abstraction of actual persons -- by which its fictional existence is defined and protected?
Crude: "Would refusing immigrants partly on the grounds of what it would do to the job market be immoral?"
Do human persons have greater moral responsibilities to their own families and to their own societies, and the individuals thereof, than they do to individuals who are not members of their families nor their societies? Do human persons have a moral obligation to make themselves poor (or, risk making themselves poor) merely because, someone, somewhere lives in poverty? Do human persons have a moral obligation to import strangers into their society -- and risk the dissolution of that society -- merely becasue those outsiders "want a better life"?
Crude: "Well, what's wrong with his protectionism?"
Should this not be obvious whom what I have already said: it's immoral. Protectionism is but another form of demand for subsidation of one's life at the involuntary expense of one's fellows.
Ultimately, a demand for commercial protection is the demand that governmental compulsion, unto violent death, be used to compel one's fellow "citizens" to buy the product one is offering, regardless of what they wish to buy.
Crude: "It's not some crazy new idea. According to Pat, America was built on the practice."
Then he would be wrong ... or dishonest. America was built on work and investment (initially, foreign), on the generaton of wealth and the creation of material value. America was built by offering other human beings (both fellow Americans and foreigners) goods and services they wanted to buy at prices they were willing to freely pay.
But yes, the desire to live off one's fellows, the desire to shelter oneself from the need convince others to trade their labor for one's own, is not a new idea.
Crude: "And apparently, China has been as well."
China also murders its subjects. Still, it's not protection that is going to make China rich.
I'm going to break one of my post-lenten resolutions, and respond to Ilion's questions, one by one:
But, seriously -- do human societies have any rights comparable to the rights of individuals? YES
Are societies even real? YES
Do human societies have the right to have expectations and make demands? YES
Do human societies have the right to define what they are and what they are not? YES
Do they have the right to change or to not change as they see fit? (Not sure what this question means)
Do human societies have the right to define what behavior they will and will not accept or countenance? YES
Do human societies have the right to accept or reject outsiders into their fold, for any reason they wish (or even for no reason but that they wish not)? NO
Do human societies have the right to try to perpetuate themselves? YES
Do human societies have the right to reject that which works counter to their own perpetuation? SOMETIMES
When a human society is a territorial-based people, in contrast to, say, a chess club, and specifically, when it is not subject to any other people-group, does it own the government which rules its territory, or does that government own it? IT OWNS THE GOVT
Does any government have the right to, in Bertholt Brecht's phrasing, "elect a new people"? NO
Does a business have greater rights than the society? NO
Do human persons have greater moral responsibilities to their own families and to their own societies, and the individuals thereof, than they do to individuals who are not members of their families nor their societies? YES
Do human persons have a moral obligation to make themselves poor (or, risk making themselves poor) merely because, someone, somewhere lives in poverty? YES
Do human persons have a moral obligation to import strangers into their society -- and risk the dissolution of that society -- merely because those outsiders "want a better life"? SOMETIMES (This one needs to be answered on a case by case basis.)
Ilion,
Ultimately, a demand for commercial protection is the demand that governmental compulsion, unto violent death, be used to compel one's fellow "citizens" to buy the product one is offering, regardless of what they wish to buy.
And a demand to halt illegal immigration or set and enforce legal immigration limits is a similar demand, regardless of who citizens wish to hire. Which I'm fine with.
Really, I understand exactly what it means to get the government involved. But I think safeguarding the economic and industrial interests of the state isn't as clear a case of immorality as you're making it out to be. But if your view it's "It's immoral, period, end of discussion", then that's that.
And Bob Prokop,
Do the poor have any duties? Bilbo thinks so.
To Crude:
Everyone has duties.
I do not know whether or not "Ilion" is a Christian, but be that as it may, the philosophy he espouses is straight from Hell. It is, in fact, that place's governing constitution. Let me explain:
I am forever amazed by how much my entire subsequent life has been influenced by the relatively short time I spent in the Army (1975-1979). I truly believe that I learned and grew more in those four years than in any other comparable length of time. From insignificant mannerisms (how I stand, what I do with my hands while walking, the fact that I always start off on the left foot) to fundamental ways I view the world, I keep finding bits and pieces of my Army experience down there in my subconscious, nudging (or pushing) me in one direction or another.
One really good example is foxholes. One of the first things we learned in Basic Training at good old Fort Ord, California, was the correct (that is, the Army’s) way to dig one. And if you have some picture in your mind taken from a host of cheesy WWII movies (hole in the ground, head and rifle sticking out) – get rid of it now. What we were taught was the DuPuy foxhole, named after the Marine general who invented it. DuPuy had studied the carnage of Vietnam (remember, I enlisted only about 3 months after the fall of Saigon), and realized that everyone had been doing it all wrong ever since, well… ever since ever. The problem with firing out of a hole in the ground was that an advancing foe could fire right back at you. Thus the high casualty rate on both sides in a defensive battle.
What DuPuy came up with was a system of mutually supporting two-man foxholes. “Buddy Teams” of two soldiers would each dig their own pit, piling all the excavated dirt directly in front of the hole, completely blocking one’s view straight ahead. When you were finished, you could fire diagonally to the left or to the right, but immediately in front of you was this great earthen berm, higher than your head. The end result was that, in a line of these DuPuy “Defensive Fire Pits” (to use the official term), each buddy team was responsible for protecting the team to either side of them, while their own defense was left in turn to those teams. To work, the system required complete trust between the teams. You yourself could do absolutely nothing to protect yourself, and concentrated all your attention and efforts on defending your neighbors.
Think about this for a moment. There is a really profound principle at work here. One that I think goes to the very core and fundament of our being - of the universe itself. It is the indispensable principle behind How We Must Live. As the poet Charles Williams so beautifully put it:
This abides – that the everlasting house the soul discovers
is always another’s; we must lose our own ends;
we must always live in the habitation of our lovers,
my friend’s shelter for me, mine for him.
The consequence of ignoring this is not just selfishness. It is not just missed opportunity or a life sadly lacking in color or meaning – it is a violation of the very nature of reality. To attempt to live for one’s self is an exercise in futility – you will fail.
One of my favorite passages in the New Testament occurs near the end of Mark. Christ has been crucified, and various passersby taunt him, asking why He doesn’t “save yourself and come down from the cross”. They conclude with the scoffing remark, “He saved others, himself he cannot save”.
Wow. Read that again. What was meant as a contemptuous dismissal, as a cynical comment on apparent failure, turns out to be the very key to The Meaning of Life itself. We cannot save ourselves – we must rely on others. And it is up to us to save them in turn. This is what it means to be a Human Being. When we fall short of this principle, we fall short of, and even deny altogether, our very Humanity.
Bob,
Everyone has duties.
Alright. What are the duties of the poor
Crude: Yeah, but that doesn't seem like the 'wealth disparity' doing it. It's the business decisions you're mentioning. The mere fact that that guy over there has 2 billion and that guy over there has 1 dollar doesn't add up to "well, clearly the wealth disparity is the cause here".
Me: It doesn't matter what caused the disparity, the very fact of the disparity would create poverty.
Take two nations, each with an equal GDP. In one nation, the top 1% owns 90% of the wealth, in the other country, the top 1% owns 30% of the wealth. All things being equal, there will be more poverty in the first nation than in the second as an inevitable result of such a wealth disparity. The reason is simple: neither the rich nor the poor spend enough to keep a large modern economy afloat. A modern economy depends on a large middle class. There is such a thing as a money supply, and it is not infinite. Only if it was infinite could wealth disparity not contribute to poverty. Since there is a finite supply of money and wealth, the more one person has, the less that is available for others.
What duties do the poor have? I think I can best answer that question by quoting this parable from Dostoevsky:
Once upon a time there was a peasant woman and a very wicked woman she was. And she died and did not leave a single good deed behind. The devils caught her and plunged her into the lake of fire. So her guardian angel stood and wondered what good deed of hers he could remember to tell to God; 'She once pulled up an onion in her garden,' said he, 'and gave it to a beggar woman.' And God answered: 'You take that onion then, hold it out to her in the lake, and let her take hold and be pulled out. And if you can pull her out of the lake, let her come to Paradise, but if the onion breaks, then the woman must stay where she is.' The angel ran to the woman and held out the onion to her. 'Come,' said he, 'catch hold and I'll pull you out.' he began cautiously pulling her out. He had just about pulled her right out, when the other sinners in the lake, seeing how she was being drawn out, began catching hold of her so as to be pulled out with her. But she was a very wicked woman and she began kicking them. 'I'm to be pulled out, not you. It's my onion, not yours.' As soon as she said that, the onion broke. And the woman fell into the lake and she is burning there to this day. So the angel wept and went away.
It doesn't matter what caused the disparity, the very fact of the disparity would create poverty.
No, I'm pretty sure 'what caused the disparity' actually does matter. To use an extreme example, if a wealthy person gives a poor person 50k, and the poor person promptly consumes it in a week on cocaine and gambling, going on about how the wealth disparity is to blame for the poverty is foolish.
The reason is simple: neither the rich nor the poor spend enough to keep a large modern economy afloat.
And your example dictates that how? It wouldn't be the disparity itself, it would be actions on the part of the rich and poor alike.
At the end of the day, you're going to have to deal with the more direct causes of problems other than simply alluding to the "wealth disparity". And frankly, so long as the four necessities I mentioned are met, the government's duty to the poor ends in my eyes. From that point on it's charity.
Bob,
Dostoevsky's nice, but I'd rather a more direct answer - because as I told Bilbo, this seems like a question a lot of people refuse to answer or dwell on.
What are the duties of the poor? Do they have any aside from "try not to kill anyone"?
"Crude",
I had sworn off such IM-style posting, but this is too serious a matter. Thus Christ:
For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we [do such things]?' And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.'
I do not see Christ putting "conditions" on our charity. The beggar woman (the poor) in Dostoevsky's story takes an onion from us, and in return provides us a pathway out of Hell. A fair trade, I'd say.
Crude, I can't really think of a simpler way to describe this. The reality is, the rich do not create jobs. Demand creates jobs. Where there is great demand for a product, jobs will be created. In order for there to be great demand for a product, there has to be a lot of people making enough money to buy the product. If the society has a handful of rich people and oceans of rich people, there will never be a demand for a large number of products. Your ascribing this not to the disparity but to the behavior of the rich and poor omits the fact that the disparity causes the behavior. People with very little money buy very little not because of their mindset but because they don't have the money. Rich people buy a great deal, but even if they make as much money as a thousand poor people combined, they won't consume as much as that thousand people would, nor would they support as many industries. And that's a rational decision on their part. We can assume every one of those thousand middle class persons would have a TV, a car, etc, but very few rich people own 1000 cars or 1000 television sets. So it's better for the economy at large if instead of that money being consolidated into the hands of one person that it's spread over that 1000. That will allow for the creation of more jobs, and thus will eliminate more poverty.
Look, if you were right, if wealth disparity had no causal relation to poverty, then wealth disparity wouldn't be a good predictor of poverty. But it is. Every society with a large wealth disparity has higher levels of poverty than societies with a more equitable wealth disparity. This is the history of the world. From the time of Moses to today, there have always been societies with a few super rich people and oceans of poor people. In those societies, the poor can never advance, because neither they nor the rich put enough money into the economy to create enough jobs to create a middle class.
Bilbo,
Do you see what I mean about the "duties"? I ask Bob, and his reply is basically an unqualified "nothing". No responsibility. No commitment. Not even gratitude. 'The poor get money and assistance without question or standard, because Bibleverse. We're done here.' One gets the impression it's insulting to even bring this up this question.
Sorry, I don't think it's that easy. Nor do I think it's wise or even moral to avoid such a question, even in the context of Christianity. The poor do have duties, and the duty to the poor goes far beyond throwing money their way and talking about how moral it is to do so.
Anon,
The reality is, the rich do not create jobs. Demand creates jobs.
You realize that people can also create demand, right? Including the wealthy? And when there's demand, the wealthy can and in many cases certainly do fill it - by creating jobs?
Your ascribing this not to the disparity but to the behavior of the rich and poor omits the fact that the disparity causes the behavior.
You're thinking of the wealthy as nothing but consumers, when they are also often providers of jobs. You are ignoring the fact that the man with the wealth can spread the wealth around by investment, and what investment really adds up to at the end of the day.
I won't deny that if you have a miser situation - someone who has all the wealth and does nothing with it - you could have a problem. But that just backs up what I said: It's not the disparity, it's the action.
Look, if you were right, if wealth disparity had no causal relation to poverty, then wealth disparity wouldn't be a good predictor of poverty. But it is.
Correlation ain't causation. I'm saying you have to look at the actual causes, the actual issues in the particular society. Trying to put it all on the back of the disparity is more an ideological move than anything else, and talking about 'the rich' without appreciating the role wealthy people play in terms of investment and job creation is crazy.
The causes in the concrete matter, a lot.
"Crude",
I never said the poor have no duties. In fact, I specifically asserted the contrary.
But that has no bearing on OUR duty to the poor. Our requirement as human beings to the poor is in no way contingent upon their response.
And yes, I am completely unashamed about arguing from scripture. I see nothing wrong with doing so. I only pray (literally) that, when I do so, my interpretation is correct.
One thing I am fairly certain of however, is that on That Great and Awful Day, the Maker of all things visible and invisible, and the Judge of the living and the dead, is NOT going to ask me what were the "duties of the poor". He's going to ask me what I did for the least of my fellow human beings.
And He's going to ask you the same thing.
Crude: You can't tell just from that information that the wealthy or the wealth disparity was the cause, because wealth disparities aren't 'causes' in that sense.
They can be. For example, on Friday everyone's needs are met, but by Monday only one person can afford to meet their needs, because only one person had enough money to last the weekend (even though all of them were equally frugal). The disparity is why no one else could meet their needs on Monday.
By the way, I think Anonymous explained excellently why wealth disparity causes poverty.
Bilbo: "Do you think non-Christians are not obligated to help the poor?"
Crude: Given what? Christianity?
Given Bob's excellent explanation of what it means to be human.
Even if that were the case - I doubt it, at least in the US, in terms of raw material capability - I think private organizations are leaps and bounds better than governmental ones for similar reasons. The government is the worst option.
Perhaps. It depends on what is needed. Do we need higher tariffs to protect our shrinking manufacturing base? The government is the best option for that.
Not at all - there are diminishing returns, and it's becoming clear that a post-K-12 formal education is largely a waste. Make use of the libraries and the internet.
You mean there's no sense in becoming a doctor?
Limited. Budgeted. "Enough so that charity would still be required, particularly in the case of major illness and otherwise." "Health care for the poor should be worse than for the middle class, before private charity is factored in."
Why? Isn't a healthy person more likely to succeed in making a living than a sick person?
Do you see what I mean about the "duties"?
Yes, and I think Paul's, "Those who don't work, don't eat," pretty much sums it up.
Bob,
I never said the poor have no duties. In fact, I specifically asserted the contrary.
You answered me with a Dostoevsky parable, I asked you for a direct answer, you gave me another parable. You listed none, zero, nyet, no "duties" the poor have, unless you think that the poor literally are the saviors of our souls and have a duty to do that.
Bilbo says "those who don't work, don't eat". What say you, Bob?
Matt 19:24 "Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
So a society of a few rich andmany poor is ideal, right? If everyone was comfortable it would be harder for them to enter heaven. Poverty is a blessing in many ways.
B. Prokop said: "Our requirement as human beings to the poor is in no way contingent upon their response."
This is plain nutty. If throwing welfare benefits at some guy is just going to make him fat and lazy, then of course you don't do it. You make him feel some fear over his situation, which will hopefully goad him into working.
Your attempt to infer it from Matt 25 is also crazy. You are simply taken the behaviour enjoined as to be followed without exception. But that is always a bad hermeneetic.
Bilbo,
They can be. For example, on Friday everyone's needs are met, but by Monday only one person can afford to meet their needs, because only one person had enough money to last the weekend (even though all of them were equally frugal). The disparity is why no one else could meet their needs on Monday.
And maybe they were frugal on Friday but a spendthrift last week. And maybe they were spendthrifts that day.
You have to take a look at the actual causes, because simply assigning it to 'wealth disparity' doesn't wash.
Perhaps. It depends on what is needed. Do we need higher tariffs to protect our shrinking manufacturing base? The government is the best option for that.
I was speaking in terms of charity - law enforcement is another question. And even there, I think personally persuading people, even businessmen, to freely spend their money in adequate ways is superior to any law. I just recognize, pragmatically and very hesitantly, that there are cases where some limited intervention can be justified.
You mean there's no sense in becoming a doctor?
You mean there's sense in becoming an english major?
(Sorry, english majors, but if it makes you feel any better, I'll leave a nice tip after my meal's over.)
Why? Isn't a healthy person more likely to succeed in making a living than a sick person?
Better keep yourself healthy then if you can, eh?
Yes, and I think Paul's, "Those who don't work, don't eat," pretty much sums it up.
Then you too have a disagreement. And Bob's highlighted my problem with the modern conversation on this topic. Some kind of fetishism of the poor.
Great stuff on your experience in the Army, B Prokop. You might like Wayne Martin's take on things as in this video here.
Anonymous also has made some very interesting points about disparities in wealth in a finite economy. Considering one extreme, where all wealth and power belongs to one individual, the welfare of the populace will depend almost completely on his character. Is there a lesson there? I think so.
Crude: "Well, what's wrong with his protectionism?"
Ilíon: "Ultimately, a demand for commercial protection is the demand that governmental compulsion, unto violent death, be used to compel one's fellow "citizens" to buy the product one is offering, regardless of what they wish to buy."
Crude: "And a demand to halt illegal immigration or set and enforce legal immigration limits is a similar demand, regardless of who citizens wish to hire."
Really?
So, there is no substantive difference between --
"No, you may not (or, you do not have the moral right to) use the fruit of your own labor/efforts to hire foreigners in the own lands -- and take upon yourself the risk so entailed -- to do the work that, for whatever reason, you are not willing to pay your fellow-citizens to do," on the one hand,
and --
"No, you may not (or, you do not have the moral right to) import foreigners into the midst of our society -- and impose upon us the risk so entailed -- to do the work that, for whatever reason, you are not willing to pay your fellow-citizens to do," on the other?
How curious!
The (moral) businessman or entrepreneur who invests in a foreign land, rather than hiring his fellow citizens to do the work he wishes done, does not do an injustice to his fellow citizens. For, among other things, he does not *owe* anyone a job. Further, at his own risk, he generally does a benefit to those foreigners he hires -- unlike the oh-so-caring "liberals" whose "help," in the long term, is always indistinguishable from deliberate malice.
The (immoral) businessman wanting more employees, or the rich "liberal" wanting servants, who imports foreigners rather than hiring his or her fellow citizens to do the work he or he wishes done, does indeed commit injustice against his or her fellow citizens, on multiple levels, including:
1) the foreigners, even in low numbers, are a disruption to the society; and, they may well turn out to be worse than a mere "disruption;"
2) this businessman or rich "liberal" *dumps* the social costs of those foreigners onto his or her fellow citizens;
2a) then, when he or she is done with the foreigners and "lets them go," the society is stuck with even more monetary costs due to their presence;
3) this (immoral) businessman or rich "liberal" is not taking upon himself or herself the costs and risks (for instance, a dicey legal system) of hiring the foreigners in their own lands, but rather, wants to continue to enjoy the benefits of *this* society (for instance, law and order), while pushing all the cost of his or her choice onto this society.
a seriously foolinh person: "I do not know whether or not "Ilion" is a Christian, but be that as it may, the philosophy he espouses is straight from Hell ..."
This amusing response is even better than I could have hoped for. Now, if only I can make the time to give it the adequate mocking it deserves.
Post a Comment