Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 4:59:09 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 4:00:21 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

There are laws that prevent people from doing aggressive violence, or from
stealing from others. These laws may be coercive, but they coerce people who
would otherwise be free to coerce others.

Those laws don't -prevent- crime, they just provide an agreed-upon way to punish those who fight and steal.

It's true that they don't make crime impossible, and so some crime occurs in
spite of their existence. However, it is reasonable to believe that they
prevent _some_ crime because the prospect of a penalty acts as a deterrent.

John Savard

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 4:40:55 PM UTC-6, wrote:

So, you think that providing "handouts" is a legitimate use of tax money?

Since you ask, yes. I've generally considered that my personal opinion on this
matter was irrelevant to the subjects being debated here.

I am aware of the position held by Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists and the
like, that a "majority" has no more right to steal than any individual. As a
principled moral position, it's hard for me to refute it in theory - although I
think that it's highly impractical in the real world, given the need for
defense against well-armed tyrannies.

It appears to me, from your posts, that this is not your position. Instead, it
seems that you favor adherence to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution,
which allowed tax dollars to be spent only for "the national defence and the
general welfare", the latter being things like lighthouses and libraries, not
the _particular_ welfare of individual welfare recipients.

As I am a Canadian, and not an American, I have no automatic attachment to that
position. Like many Americans, while I consider the Bill of Rights (the first
ten Amendments to the Constitution) and the Declaration of Independence - for
its clear statement of natural rights - as inspiring expressions of democratic
principles, the main body of the Constitution, despite having legal force as
the Declaration of Independence does not, I find less inspiring.

Basically, as in the old joke about the woman who was asked if she would sleep
with a man for a million dollars, once one has conceded the principle that the
majority can impose taxes for a purpose it considers necessary - defending
against an external military foe - then there is no fundamental reason why the
majority can't consider it so necessary to ensure that no child goes hungry
that it will ensure this result is achieved by compelling everyone to bear his
part of the burden of achieving this, rather than relying solely on voluntary
charity.

John Savard

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 12:45:20 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:29:31 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 7:12:52 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:40:53 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 4:06:49 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

Well, I'll try again. You said that socialism was such an unnatural notion,
people would have to be indoctrinated from a young age to believe it.

I think that cheerfully paying one's taxes willingly might be unnatural... but
if one has trouble earning an honest living, seeking a more reliable source of
handouts than charity is not unnatural at all.

So, you think that providing "handouts" is a legitimate use of tax money?

That's up to a society to decide.

In your opinion.

Of course. But it's not an uncommon view. It pretty much defines
anybody who believes in a free society.

You didn't read the question. A "society" that facilitates the taking of property from one person in order to give to another, for no particularly good reason, is hardly a "free society."

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 04:00:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 12:45:20 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:29:31 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 7:12:52 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:40:53 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 4:06:49 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

Well, I'll try again. You said that socialism was such an unnatural notion,
people would have to be indoctrinated from a young age to believe it.

I think that cheerfully paying one's taxes willingly might be unnatural... but
if one has trouble earning an honest living, seeking a more reliable source of
handouts than charity is not unnatural at all.

So, you think that providing "handouts" is a legitimate use of tax money?

That's up to a society to decide.

In your opinion.

Of course. But it's not an uncommon view. It pretty much defines
anybody who believes in a free society.

You didn't read the question. A "society" that facilitates the taking of property from one person in order to give to another, for no particularly good reason, is hardly a "free society."

I disagree. Freedom is about participation and having a voice. What
you call "taking of property" I call "sharing".

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 3:12:02 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 4:40:55 PM UTC-6, wrote:

So, you think that providing "handouts" is a legitimate use of tax money?

Since you ask, yes. I've generally considered that my personal opinion on this
matter was irrelevant to the subjects being debated here.

I am aware of the position held by Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists and the
like, that a "majority" has no more right to steal than any individual. As a
principled moral position, it's hard for me to refute it in theory - although I
think that it's highly impractical in the real world, given the need for
defense against well-armed tyrannies.

It appears to me, from your posts, that this is not your position. Instead, it
seems that you favor adherence to the original intent of the U.S. Constitution,
which allowed tax dollars to be spent only for "the national defence and the
general welfare", the latter being things like lighthouses and libraries, not
the _particular_ welfare of individual welfare recipients.

As I am a Canadian, and not an American, I have no automatic attachment to that
position. Like many Americans, while I consider the Bill of Rights (the first
ten Amendments to the Constitution) and the Declaration of Independence - for
its clear statement of natural rights - as inspiring expressions of democratic
principles, the main body of the Constitution, despite having legal force as
the Declaration of Independence does not, I find less inspiring.

Basically, as in the old joke about the woman who was asked if she would sleep
with a man for a million dollars, once one has conceded the principle that the
majority can impose taxes for a purpose it considers necessary - defending
against an external military foe - then there is no fundamental reason why the
majority can't consider it so necessary to ensure that no child goes hungry
that it will ensure this result is achieved by compelling everyone to bear his
part of the burden of achieving this, rather than relying solely on voluntary
charity.

John Savard

Not sure that pure libertarian anarchy would work for any country. I keep thinking Somalia. What made America great, (and I would include Canada since I grew up there and have not seen too much difference)? Well, according to one article:

"When the United States became independent from Britain it also rebelled against the British System of economics, characterized by Adam Smith, in favor of the American School based on protectionism and infrastructure and prospered under this system for almost 200 years to become the wealthiest nation in the world. Unrestrained free trade resurfaced in the early 1900s culminating in the Great Depression and again in the 1970s culminating in the current Economic Meltdown."

So, perhaps unrestrained free trade is also a type of libertarian anarchy. I would support free trade if it were possible to include restrictions on things like pollution, child labor, slave labor etc etc. On the other hand, we are doing remarkably well competing against foreign labor costs that are a tiny fraction of ours. Even though our manufacturing job numbers are at an all-time low, we are still manufacturing more stuff than we have ever done with less labor cost (mostly because of automation). In the long run, we will all be in the service economy.

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 9:48:51 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 04:00:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 12:45:20 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:29:31 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 7:12:52 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:40:53 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 4:06:49 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

Well, I'll try again. You said that socialism was such an unnatural notion,
people would have to be indoctrinated from a young age to believe it.

I think that cheerfully paying one's taxes willingly might be unnatural... but
if one has trouble earning an honest living, seeking a more reliable source of
handouts than charity is not unnatural at all.

So, you think that providing "handouts" is a legitimate use of tax money?

That's up to a society to decide.

In your opinion.

Of course. But it's not an uncommon view. It pretty much defines
anybody who believes in a free society.

You didn't read the question. A "society" that facilitates the taking of property from one person in order to give to another, for no particularly good reason, is hardly a "free society."

I disagree. Freedom is about participation and having a voice. What
you call "taking of property" I call "sharing".

The Founders wanted to get away from the inherited wealth of Europe.

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.�
— Thomas Jefferson.

The causes which destroyed the ancient republics were numerous; but in Rome, one principal cause was the vast inequality of fortunes. Noah Webster

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 9:48:51 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 04:00:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 12:45:20 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:29:31 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 7:12:52 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:40:53 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 4:06:49 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

Well, I'll try again. You said that socialism was such an unnatural notion,
people would have to be indoctrinated from a young age to believe it.

I think that cheerfully paying one's taxes willingly might be unnatural... but
if one has trouble earning an honest living, seeking a more reliable source of
handouts than charity is not unnatural at all.

So, you think that providing "handouts" is a legitimate use of tax money?

That's up to a society to decide.

In your opinion.

Of course. But it's not an uncommon view. It pretty much defines
anybody who believes in a free society.

You didn't read the question. A "society" that facilitates the taking of property from one person in order to give to another, for no particularly good reason, is hardly a "free society."

I disagree. Freedom is about participation and having a voice. What
you call "taking of property" I call "sharing".

The Bush Era Tax Cuts Didn't Create The Wealth They Were Supposed To

The Bush tax cuts were a test of these claims about supply-side economic policies. To justify the tax cuts the nation was, in effect, given a business prospectus from the Republican Party.

We were promised that cutting taxes on the wealthy would result in much higher economic growth and broadly shared prosperity. For those who wondered how we would pay for such a large cut to the government’s revenue stream, the Republican prospectus had a remarkable claim.

The tax cuts wouldn’t cost us anything. Growth would be so strong that the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. Even those who admitted that the tax cuts might not be fully self-financing still made strong claims about faster economic growth offsetting much of the lost revenue from the tax cuts.

The reality, of course, has been quite different

Bush Era Tax Cuts Didn't Fix Economy - Business Insider

http://www.businessinsider.com/bush-...conomy-2012-12

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 5:55:50 PM UTC-5, Razzmatazz wrote:
On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 9:48:51 AM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 04:00:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 12:45:20 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:29:31 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 7:12:52 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:40:53 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 4:06:49 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

Well, I'll try again. You said that socialism was such an unnatural notion,
people would have to be indoctrinated from a young age to believe it.

I think that cheerfully paying one's taxes willingly might be unnatural... but
if one has trouble earning an honest living, seeking a more reliable source of
handouts than charity is not unnatural at all.

So, you think that providing "handouts" is a legitimate use of tax money?

That's up to a society to decide.

In your opinion.

Of course. But it's not an uncommon view. It pretty much defines
anybody who believes in a free society.

You didn't read the question. A "society" that facilitates the taking of property from one person in order to give to another, for no particularly good reason, is hardly a "free society."

I disagree. Freedom is about participation and having a voice. What
you call "taking of property" I call "sharing".

The Bush Era Tax Cuts Didn't Create The Wealth They Were Supposed To

The Bush tax cuts were a test of these claims about supply-side economic policies. To justify the tax cuts the nation was, in effect, given a business prospectus from the Republican Party.

We were promised that cutting taxes on the wealthy would result in much higher economic growth and broadly shared prosperity. For those who wondered how we would pay for such a large cut to the government’s revenue stream, the Republican prospectus had a remarkable claim.

The tax cuts wouldn’t cost us anything. Growth would be so strong that the tax cuts would more than pay for themselves. Even those who admitted that the tax cuts might not be fully self-financing still made strong claims about faster economic growth offsetting much of the lost revenue from the tax cuts.

The reality, of course, has been quite different

Bush Era Tax Cuts Didn't Fix Economy - Business Insider

http://www.businessinsider.com/bush-...conomy-2012-12

"Up to $320 billion in economic output would be generated in 2020 if U.S. infrastructure investment were boosted by 1 percent of GDP per year."

http://businessroundtable.org/media/...infrastructure

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 10:48:51 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 04:00:18 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 12:45:20 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 20:29:31 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 7:12:52 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:40:53 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 4:06:49 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:

Well, I'll try again. You said that socialism was such an unnatural notion,
people would have to be indoctrinated from a young age to believe it.

I think that cheerfully paying one's taxes willingly might be unnatural... but
if one has trouble earning an honest living, seeking a more reliable source of
handouts than charity is not unnatural at all.

So, you think that providing "handouts" is a legitimate use of tax money?

That's up to a society to decide.

In your opinion.

Of course. But it's not an uncommon view. It pretty much defines
anybody who believes in a free society.

You didn't read the question. A "society" that facilitates the taking of property from one person in order to give to another, for no particularly good reason, is hardly a "free society."

I disagree. Freedom is about participation and having a voice. What
you call "taking of property" I call "sharing".

Strangely enough, thieves would use the same sort of language that you just did, peterson.

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 4:12:02 AM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
....then there is no fundamental reason why the
majority can't consider it so necessary to ensure that no child goes hungry
that it will ensure this result is achieved by compelling everyone to bear his
part of the burden of achieving this, rather than relying solely on voluntary
charity.

But what we get in the process is not just "free" school lunch, but federally-funded "poetry festivals" too.