This thread is just more statist doctrine dressed up.

Little something for you:

One is a fallacy, the other is a description of my own behavior. — NOS4A2

Why share your own behaviour if it is meaningless to this discussion? What's the point?

Sometimes we use examples to give force to arguments. What’s the point of loaded questions?

We can compare our naivety. If I’m so naive on the topic it should be easy for you to name a wealthy person who has committed murder and violence “just as much as the State has”; or name one wealthy person in Russia or China who has arrested someone and confiscated his wealth. I can give countless examples of States engaging in such behavior. — NOS4A2

That is easy, In 2003, Putin arrested and froze Mikhail Khodorkovsky assets. In order to keep the same thing from happening to them other Russian oligarchs handed over a large sum of their own assets to Putin himself. This single act made Putin one of the richest/powerful people on the planet and few people even know the entire sum of what he really owns.



As far as I can tell you have not given any examples in our conversations

Here is an example of the wealthy people (in the US) and/or companies starting wars/killing people in order to help their bottom line.

It’s a good thing there are compassionate, not-so-wealthy people such as yourself out there spending your efforts to help the elderly, disabled, the poor etc. to compensate for the lack of wealthy concern. But in effect you’re not helping, but advocating that the state and the wealthy—others—should help the poor wherever you refuse to. Equating compassion with tax-paying and statism is one of the greatest evils in the history of mankind, in my opinion. — NOS4A2

I'm not any more "compassionate" or whatever you think I am than other people (I actually believe/follow Machiavellianism due to what I know about the world). The only reason I'm "advocating" for more help for the working poor/middle class is that if all there is is very poor and uber rich people, there is little to nothing in the way of oversight of those in power since the very poor have nothing in the way of time/energy/resources of resisting those in power.

I think a part of the problem with your thinking is that you believe the uber wealthy and the "state" are two completely separate things when instead they are really two sides of the same coin. It is pretty much a given that the uber wealthy will ALWAYS have enough resources to make sure their needs are taken care of and that the laws are written in a way that allows them to more or less do whatever they want and for the state to be there to keep the plebs beneath them under their control. It is only through your own folly (as well as people that think like you) to think that it is the "state" is the "bad guy" when in reality "the state" (and those who work within it) are mostly just a puppet of those with wealth and power. While it is possible for someone in the state (such as Stalin) to not always "obey" the uber wealthy/powerful, that only becomes possible when those with money and power put them in such a position and/or they screw up so badly that they lose power in an uprising.

It is the uber wealthy/powerful that more or less create the state to take care of their wants and needs (at least the authoritarian states that you are taking about), it isn't "the state" that creates the uber powerful/wealthy.

Putin is the leader of a state. Yours is an example of an agent of the state getting away with such activity. But the phrase “the wealthy” also applies to people who are not agents of the state. Elon Musk, for example, doesn’t have the monopoly on violence, and any middle-class cop can toss him in jail should he break a rule.

If the richest man in America and the poorest cop in America were to draw guns and point them at each other, which one could shoot the other and be applauded for doing so?

It’s true, I do not equate the wealthy with the state because there are plenty non-wealthy, middle to low-class people who are agents of it. Similarly, not every wealthy person is an agent of the state.

You keep telling me things are a given but on closer examination we find they are not, and are in fact the opposite of the case. It makes all this condescending language about my thinking and naivety all the more precious.

If anyone in a discussion with us is not concerned with adjusting himself to truth, if he has no wish to find the truth, he is intellectually a barbarian. That, in fact, is the position of the mass-man when he speaks, lectures or writes. — Jose Ortega y Gasset - The Revolt of the Masses - p.72, footnote 1

Putin is the leader of a state. Yours is an example of an agent of the state getting away with such activity. But the phrase “the wealthy” also applies to people who are not agents of the state. — NOS4A2

You are misinterpreting my posts. Pretty much every time I talk about the uber wealthy doing whatever they want, I'm careful to include those who also are also in a positions of power. The simple reason is power that comes through wealth or power that comes from other means isn't really all that different. While you may think they are different or think that I consider them different, it is not what I believe. It is kind of moot how one obtains power once they start abusing it compared to the fact that they are abusing it.

And "No" I don't have problems with people who have wealth and are not abusing the power that comes with it and your constant insisting that I'm saying ALL wealthy people are abusing their power and/or are "evil" merely because they are wealthy is a strawman because it is NOT what I'm saying.

Elon Musk, for example, doesn’t have the monopoly on violence, and any middle-class cop can toss him in jail should he break a rule. — NOS4A2

Your incredibly naïve if you actually believe that any middle-class cop in the US can easily throw someone like Elon Musk in jail. For one thing, people like Elon Musk have something like an army of lawyers to help get him out of jail for whatever reason and if a cop trying to arrest him does anything wrong it could likely end his career.

It is pretty much a given that the law applies differently between those that are wealthy and those that are not. A few years ago a teenager while drinking and driving crashed into another vehicle and killed several people inside. However his rich parents (and their lawyers) made it so that he didn't have to serve any real jail time and only had to wear a monitoring device on his leg and not get caught drinking again. If someone else did the same thing it is pretty much a given they wouldn't been given such kid glove treatment.

If the richest man in America and the poorest cop in America were to draw guns and point them at each other, which one could shoot the other and be applauded for doing so? — NOS4A2

I'm having trouble imaging why one of the richest men in the US would want to try to have a shoot out with any cop as well as why any cop would want to shoot at such a person. Is it because you think cops have too much power because they are allowed to carry and use guns if need be or is it because you think that too many cops are just sociopaths that join the police force in order so they can get a chance to go out and shoot people.

In any case I'm pretty sure who does and doesn't have power really doesn't have much to do with whether or not someone can carry a firearm with them on their job. As to your imaginary scenario with who can get away with and/or applauded for shooting who, there are too many variables to such an event to consider that you have left out that it is impossible to comment on who is right or wrong in such a situation.

It’s true, I do not equate the wealthy with the state because there are plenty non-wealthy, middle to low-class people who are agents of it. Similarly, not every wealthy person is an agent of the state. — NOS4A2

Big deal, so there may be many people that work for the government who are merely pencil pushers that are not wealthy and are not that wealthy. Do you think these people have some kind of power that the rest of us have or are they merely underlings of people who either have more power and/or wealth then themselves.

For me, most of these man and women who are only there to put in their 8 hours and earn a paycheck have little to nothing with this seemingly omni-powerful "State" you keep talking about. If anything they are merely drones like the rest of us trying to do whatever they can do to survive.

If you believe there is some kind of "collusion" going on between such government plebs that allows them to be as or more powerful then the ultra-powerful/uber wealthy that seem to control everything that please show some proof to support such beliefs.

As far as I can tell, those with the top 1% of the wealth and those that get into political positions because they are supported by those people have FAR more power than them.

You keep telling me things are a given but on closer examination we find they are not, and are in fact the opposite of the case. It makes all this condescending language about my thinking and naivety all the more precious. — NOS4A2

I hate to say it but you all arguments/posts do seem incredibly naïve to me since your talking about some kind of imaginary "State" which supposedly has all the power to do anything they want, and that the uber-wealthy/ultra-powerful people who get their wealth/powerful from somewhere else are as powerless as the rest of us to do anything about it.

I don't know if you have been just reading too many of Ayn Rand's books or similar non-sense but your arguments suggests that what your view the world to be and what it actually is are two completely separate things.

Maybe you really are just too dense to get the point being made, so I'll bite and state it explicitly:

Corporations are run undemocratically. Unlike the government. To argue the former is OK and the latter not because the former is associated with "voluntarily" is simplistic, in the same way that arguing one is "voluntarily" associating with a state is also simplistic.

Millions of people have to work, otherwise they starve and become homeless. When you're poor, you take a job anywhere. This is why Amazon moves their facilities to places like Bessemer, Alabama or to a poor country. Paying people meager wages, giving them no say in what happens within the company, and hoarding 90% of the profits they all help to generate is unjust. At least on par with an income tax.

The problem is that you're too sick to see any of this, and find a way to bring it back to the state or ignore the problem outright. — Xtrix

:up:

What was your argument for why the state should intervene in the economy?

1. The state (in my case, the USA) has undertaken to safeguard some set of human rights
2. These human rights include the right to life
3. Life requires food
4.....etc, too tiresome to spell out the rest of it; if 1., 2. and 3. don't convince, then the argument fails.


What do you think of it?

You can question 1., question whether it's the place of the state to safeguard human rights. To which I would reply, if not the state then what or whom? Or you can deny the legitimacy of the concept of human rights. Both of these rebuttals seem problematic to me.

If the argument convinces, it follows that the current interventions in the US economy are inadequate to safeguard the right to life and an increase in intervention should be assayed. With 17 million children going hungry every day, it's safe to say at least one child has been denied the right to life due to inadequate intervention.

. The state (in my case, the USA) has undertaken to safeguard some set of human rights
2. These human rights include the right to life — ZzzoneiroCosm

The right to life is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. I don't think it shows up anywhere in the Constitution. We would need a group of judges to rule on what it means, but that probably won't happen because though the Declaration is definitely an expression of American ideals, it's not a law. It was just a notification to the British that they could shove it.

There's a passage in the Bible somewhere that says if a person doesn't work, he shouldn't be allotted food. I'd say that expresses a common and customary attitude in the US. "Get a job."

But as it happens, if a person is starving there are numerous options. There's probably a local food bank, probably run privately.

And even if the state did start giving out bread to everybody, that doesn't argue for taxation for other things. Or regulation of the economy. Or things like the EPA, OSHA, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Dept of the Interior, etc.

Why should the state do any of that?

The reason The Wealthy purchase or influence power is because the people with power are selling it. If the state didn’t have that power The Wealthy wouldn’t be able to purchase it. The Wealthy do not have the power you claim they do until the people with power afford it to them, and even then it’s just the promise that the state will use its power to benefit The Wealthy.

The Poor, with no wealth, can only purchase or influence power through less-costly means such as voting or protest.

Both seek to influence power, actual power. Both desire the same ends: to use state power to benefit their preferred group of beneficiaries.

A police officer has the legal right to use force against you. The bureaucrat has the legal right take your children, your home, your wages. They can put you in prison. I don’t think any other class of people has that sort of power in the statist system.

Why should the state do any of that? — frank

To my view, because it creates a more connective social experience. It makes my country more civilized and more humane.

But I don't have an economic argument. Economics is exceedingly complex and I've only taken 101.

The right to life is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. I don't think it shows up anywhere in the Constitution. We would need a group of judges to rule on what it means, but that probably won't happen because though the Declaration is definitely an expression of American ideals, it's not a law. It was just a notification to the British that they could shove it. — frank

I agree, the right to life isn't codified. But, to my view - and I consider it a no-brainer (correct me if I'm wrong) - there can be no human rights without first acknowledging the right to life.

So your argument appears to question the legitimacy of the notion of human rights.

There's a passage in the Bible somewhere that says if a person doesn't work, he shouldn't be allotted food. — frank

Not sure why you're invoking the Bible. Not a lot of human rights in Yahweh's eyes. Thank god for Christ.

I'd say that expresses a common and customary attitude in the US. "Get a job." — frank

Do you think it's that simple?

There's probably a local food bank, probably run privately. — frank

Is it your argument that there are 17 million children going hungry in the US every day because their caretakers choose not to pick up some groceries at the food bank?

That's a psychoer flag than I ever waved.

Is it your argument that there are 17 million children going hungry in the US every day because their caretakers choose not to pick up some groceries at the food bank? — ZzzoneiroCosm

I already gave NOS my own brickhouse of an argument for government intervention. I just noticed you were continuing to rag NOS, so I wondered what your argument is.

You don't appear to have thought one through. And instead of taking the opportunity to put your ideas in a form that makes sense, you just resorted to calling me a sociopath.

Good grief.

I already gave NOS my own brickhouse of an argument for government intervention. — frank

Can you link me to it?

More likely it's because their parents didn't apply for the federal, state, or local government nutrition aid available.

You see, for most Americans, there are government agencies on three levels that provide money for food. How is it that you don't know that?

Why should the state do any of that?

So they can continue to do nothing about it themselves. It achieves the greatest effect with the least possible exertion, no matter if it is an unjust relationship.

So they can continue to do nothing about it themselves. It achieves the greatest effect with the least possible exertion, no matter if it is an unjust relationship. — NOS4A2

Moral hazard, NOS. That's the argument you're missing.

The idea behind @frank and @NOS4A2's approach is similar. Completely unreasonable propositions are set within rhetoric mimicking academic inquiry, detached interest. When challenged the resort is to journalism "I wasn't advocating anything, just reporting how things are...".

Moral hazard, NOS. That's the argument you're missing.

I’ll look into it.

I’ll look into it. — NOS4A2

:up:

Like I said you're just looking for an opportunity to be an asshole to someone else. That's it. — frank

If you express a paucity of empathy, I'm justified in calling you sociopathic no matter how much you dislike it.

If you express a paucity of empathy, I'm justified in calling you sociopathic no matter how much you dislike it. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Actually I was just asking for your argument. You interpreted that as a lack of empathy.

Shadow.

Only insofar as I think the state should defend human rights, which you just claimed yourself right before you implied it should offer people food and a living.

My advice is to use words that can't be interpreted as expressing a paucity of empathy. If you care about empathy, that should be important to you.

Ha, thanks