Then I could translate Gormans speech using Google Translate. — Harry Hindu

Yeah, one wonders why we bother with translators at all. :roll: Sigh. Of course Google translate isn't sufficient. What part of my comment even remotely suggests this to be my point when the entire complaint was her skill was insufficient? Not absent, but insufficient, lacking, not good enough.

We're not talking about an event that happened in the Netherlands. We taking about an event that happened in America that is translated to other languages, not just Dutch, dumb-ass. — Harry Hindu

I know and that's how my comment should be read. I can comment on the US experience because I'm intimately familiar with its language and familiar with its culture and history because I read local, untranslated sources. You don't know shit about the Netherlands and even on this narrow subject failed to get your facts straight, first by basing yourself on a few foreign news sources and then failing to know Rijneveld doesn't publish in English. Maybe just accept you don't know what you're talking about for once.

God, are you wilfully obtuse or what? We're talking about a translation from English to Dutch. That, at the very least, would require the person doing the translating being better at English than average. That has exactly zero to do with being able to know the American experience. That said, I'm obviously less qualified to comment on such experience than other Americans, but more qualified to comment on it than you do on the Netherlands.

And no, I wouldn't be able to translate Gormans speech as well as Munganyende Hélène Christelle, Rachel Rumai, Zaïre Krieger, Rellie Telg, Lisette MaNeza, Babs Gons, Sanguilla Vabrie, Alida Aurora, Pelumi Adejumo or Schiavone Simson but I sure as hell would be better at it than Rijneveld would be. For starters, I do have experience with spoken word performances and my English is better. As stated before, the publisher had appointed "sensitivity readers" precisely because of her crappy English.

Finally, the complaints about Rijneveld being chosen were mostly made online. I'm not a news curator working for your pleasure. I shared what was the case and you can either chose to believe me or not. I have exactly zero incentive to provide "evidence" for what is apparent for anyone living in the Netherlands.

And you keep insisting this narrative is correct because you want it to be about her being white so you get to make your inane "colour blindness" and there's "no systemic racism" point. But this was once again an example of systemic racism. Only white people would get the benefit of the doubt of doing such important work without having actual qualifications for the job! And that was also part of the complaint but not a complaint against Rijneveld herself.

I can read English and read local sources. How's your Dutch? Yeah? Thought so. That's why I can accurately comment about the US and you can't about the Netherlands.

I was being helpful telling you what the actual criticism was since I'm Dutch and live in the Netherlands. That you insist the Cnn article to be accurate an complete is your problem.

What is the black emancipation movement and if a non-blacks person are incapable of understanding it, then why translate it in the first place? — Harry Hindu

I haven't said this, I said she had no knowledge of it. As to what it is, try Google.

For someone who pretends to be colour blind, you're really hung up on making this about colour.

Who are you talking about? The Dutch writer is white and non-binary. They won the International Booker Prize in 2020. For more than 50 years, the Booker Prize has recognized outstanding fiction in the English-speaking world and is considered one of the top literary awards. The article is about how the Dutch writer is unqualified because they are white and doesn't mention any other reason other than that. So who is it that is having trouble reading again? — Harry Hindu

The Booker Prize was for her translated book from Dutch to English, which was translated by Michele Hutchison, you fucking retard. The original is De avond is ongemak. Her English sucks and even if it didn't, she still doesn't know anything about the black emancipation movement and has zero experience with spoken word. But please, continue to ram your own foot in your mouth.

You claim you have a right to wear whatever you want based merely on the fact that you can clothe yourself. — khaled

And even that isn't true. Decency laws require you to be clothed instead of naked on arguably less important grounds than the requirement to wear a mask. Being naked doesn't kill anyone, it just bothers many people's sensibilities, not wearing a mask while being infectious can kill others either directly or indirectly. The whole argument for "I don't wanna" is specious.

Not sure that can be laid at his feet. In any case, rather varied results I think: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/16/maybe-i-was-wrong-about-joe-biden-is-he-the-progressive-president-i-was-waiting-for

The "colour blind" progressive is poisoning the Dutch debate as well. I always wonder how they imagine problems will go away by not talking about them. Add to that the pretentious "impartiality" of those thinking they're above it deploring how society is becoming more polarised, where what's actually going on is that one side demands equality (that great Conservative value enshrined in almost every constitution) and another side vehemently opposes it and you realise just how few allies there really are.

Having trouble reading again I see. I'm talking about experience and knowledge of "black emancipation", "spoken word" and the "English language". Rijneveld is a writer who has written poems but doesnt perform, has zero experience as a spoken word artist, hasn't studied the English language or literature, isn't bilingual, isn't versed in US sociology or politics let alone the black emancipation movement. She's entirely unqualified to do this.

So your reply is totally idiotic.

The tao that can be told
is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.

This is the heart of it. The TTC is about reality before concepts. If it is put into words, it's no longer the Tao. The Tao is unspeakable. It's what was before there was anybody to think about it. It's also a joke. In this book, we're going to talk about what can't be talked about. I see the TTC as a bunch of snap shots of the Tao. Lao Tzu is trying to show it to us without letting the words get in the way. We're supposed to get our view of the Tao in our peripheral vision. — T Clark

This also reminded me of Kant as you later mentioned. Another thing your commentary to "a good man is a bad man's teacher" reminded me of was the legal positivist idea of a Grundnorm. That last one might seem really strange considering what it attempted and was concerned about but the implication is the Grundnorm stays out of reach without a possibility to really name it.

Marries into the Royal family then says, "It's not working for me."
— fishfry

I have tried really really hard to find an ounce of sympathy in my heart for poor Megan, and you know what? There just isn't any. When it comes to Megan Markle, I have a heart of stone, No empathy either. — Bitter Crank

So marrying into royalty makes you fair game? I don't agree.

It also comes with assumptions like Meghan hasn't married out of love and it was a rational decision. If she married out of love and underestimated it all or let her feelings guide her then when things cool down "this isn't working for me" is entirely valid. And being rich is totally irrelevant but somehow when people are rich and famous we expect all sorts of things from them. Maybe stop thinking rich people are accomplished, OK? They're just as fucked up as you and me.

I don't care because I don't have an opinion one way or the other and wish the story would piss off from the front page.

I'm so French I was thankful for the English subtitles. I used to speak decent French and Spanish but I don't practise enough. :sad:

Speaking of French kisses. My six year old daughter was saying "ewww" when my wife and I kissed a few days ago.

So I ask "do you think this is disgusting?".
"Yes!!"
"You'll be happy to know then that we sometimes kiss and also use our tongues."
Daughter : :gasp: "Wait... What?"

Ah, dinner table talks. Gotta love them.

Yup. I try not to buy Chinese stuff since a few months into the Hong Kong protests. It's almost impossible so I go second best where I can and buy second hand. But second hand electronics... Not sure how that's going to pan out over time.

I really think Chinese exports should be subject to taxation based on a points system. No democracy? 10% tax. Ongoing genocide? 100% tax plus prohibited import on any products that have a potential (military) dual use or produced by companies also making military equipment. Jailing of dissidents? 5% etc. Etc.

I would think the purpose is no group gets too little and we'd probably vote for inclusivity too based on what I perceive as the public conscious of the Netherlands. So build side walks broad enough for wheelchairs and wheelchair access for wheelchair users. That sort of thing. Public health and education are likely outcomes too. Even so, part of what is considered moral is also cultural so different societies would reach different conclusions.

I am unable to see how the market system prohibits such hiring. Any employer can easily decide the “moral worth” of a person, and decide who to hire based on his own conscience or on the possibility of just outcomes. People can, and have, run companies that explicitly hire the homeless or convicts, for example. — NOS4A2

Of course this isn't possible. That some people let themselves be guided by some moral principles when hiring, still doesn't lead to a moral and just outcome. Certainly when only some do it but even when all would do it, your still don't have a just outcome. How can market actors tell to hire a local or a Bangladeshi to make your shirt? How can market actors tell how much to pay nurses as opposed to, let's say, cigarette manufacturers or cocaïne producers? So the idea you have a moral right to these market outcomes is simply incoherent.

And that's not even going into issues like the polluter pays principle, environmental, safety and health standards for workers, which are costs market actors will externalise unless they're forced to take them into account.

The idea markets can solve every issue or ever result in moral outcomes is deeply flawed.

Really? I thought he brought it down to earth quite well. You're one of the negotiators at a table, each of them represent a group of people (age groups or physical characteristics, whatever) but they don't know which group they are representing but they are still to get the best deal possible for whoever they're representing. Basically it requires you to consider and value all interests involved with respect to a given proposal.

Maybe it goes back then to what we understand as the proper role of government. Is the overarching goal of government to provide everyone a level playing field or is it something else like to try to ensure the population life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? — BitconnectCarlos

That's also, in my view, the main ethical discussion. What's the role of government? I'm partial to John Rawls approach with the veil of ignorance and reflexivity.

For a moral right to exist to pre-tax income, the moral worth of the person and the services ought to be valued and thereby lead to a just and fair distribution of work and pay. There is no such valuation, so whatever you get paid is not the morally correct outcome. So if the outcome is unjust, you cannot claim a moral right to the results of that unjust outcome.

For example, where there are 2 workers with the same skill, it would be morally correct if the one that's starving gets the job. Since the market system is incapable off taking such moral issues into account, you cannot claim a moral right to whatever earnings you make as a result.

This reply doesn't address what I raised. If you have no moral right to those earnings, there's no plunder or confiscation going on.

Just this...

So much more than being a mother or a father. — Amity

Nah, reducing humanity to mindless baby makers seems about accurate. All the rest is just a means to that end. :razz:

The market and somehow "everything" do not care at all if the payer is or not a moralist. They just want his money to provide revenue to the State. — javi2541997

I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly here. Who is "they"?

My main point is there is neither a moral nor legal right to pre-tax income.

That doesn't answer whether taxes are moral or not, merely establishes that the claim "taxation is theft" is false.

If we look at the function of the State then it should have adequate means to perform that function. To finance those means a State can do the following things:

1. print money
2. issue debt
3. raise taxes

Printing money is arguably just another way to tax people. If the government prints money, everybody's money devalues because the money supply increases (all other things being equal). So through government action, your money buys less. It also introduces increased currency exchange costs because holding this State's currency carries an additional risk that inflation is a consequence of government financing needs. Foreign investors won't be interested in holding this currency for a long time. So printing money isn't a good way forward. And since it more or less does what taxation does, the government is better off raising taxes. That leaves comparing taxation with issuing debt.

The government can issue debt to finance itself but that debt needs to be repaid at some time. This puts the burden on future generations. It's not moral to put the burden of costs now entirely on future generations. At the same time some burden can be applied to future generations because they will benefit from the social goods and prosperity the current and past generations have created.

So to avoid the clearly unjust result that the financial burden of State financing is entirely borne by future generations, taxation is necessary to at least establish inter-generational fairness. Taxation will also be required to pay off future debt (to the extent this cannot be rolled over).

The only meaningful underlying ethical discussion in my view is therefore: what should be the function of the State?

What I am disputing is the underlying ethics of paying taxes. — NOS4A2

There's no underlying moral right to pre-tax income because that would mean people should be paid based on moral worth of their services and their own moral worth or needs. But that's not what's being established in the market.

Merged the two discussions.

This discussion was merged into Taxes.

I love how people argue how bad government is for not acting enough when they argue simultaneously that governments shouldn't do anything. If you want governments to act well you have to give them both a mandate and the means to carry out that mandate. If enough people believe in minimal government then don't expect that government to solve anything either.

Second, the threat of violence is implicit in every "voluntary" transaction. It's voluntary right up to the point where people start disagreeing about the service or product delivered.

At the very least it's a dick move.

Within our existing legal framework, this quite clearly would constitute theft. It doesn't answer whether taxation is theft one way or the other though.

@180 Proof Georgian Republicans are sore losers. Let's have an extra helping of voter suppression now that the law we instituted in 2005 no longer works in our favour.

What keeps you there when stuff like that happens regularly in Georgia?

For taxation to be theft, there must be a right to pre-tax income. Legally, this is clearly not the case.

A moral right to pre-tax can only be said to exist if earned income results in a fair and equitable payment for labour rendered. This too is false. Market circumstances are not concerned with the moral worth of labour or who needs the job the most or who is most deserving of fulfilling the assignment. So a moral right to pre-tax income is incoherent.

Since no rights are infringed, there's no theft.

Oh, I suspect many of these people consider themselves self sufficient and self reliant and believe they will be entirely unaffected by such a change in society.

The problem with the assumption that tax is theft is that there's either a moral or legal right to pre-tax income. There isn't. The legal argument is clear, the law clearly prescribes your don't have a right to your entire pre-tax income.

Morally is incoherent too, because it assumes the market automatically leads to just outcomes. It quite clearly doesn't because economic transactions are representative of relations of power, not moral worth.

except that it's wrong on several counts. For starters, it ignores the circulation of money. The ease of exchange and number of transaction have a lot more influence on rates of inflation than the money supply itself. So, no, deflation is not a "natural" order, whatever that even means when talking about a medium that only works because we agree it's an accepted means of exchange.

So does this mean that whites can never understand the language used by blacks? If so, then I think that NOS4A2 is right when they say that this is just going to lead to more division and segregation. — Harry Hindu

Some issues here.

1. We have black, female, bilingual, spoken word artists familiar with black emancipation in the US in the Netherlands, hell, we have bilingual spoken word artists that would presumably have a better understanding of the medium at least, none of them were approached;
2. Publisher knew this so there was a team of sensitivity readers set up because this translator's knowledge and grasp of the English language are mediocre at best;

The criticism was primarily about experience and knowledge of the translator.

Good for you. Enjoy it. My best friend's mother passed away, he couldn't be there for her because of COVID and due to curfew I can't be there for him either. I had extra hugs with the kids instead. That was my sunshine for the day.

you allow yourself to be trapped by the innocence that humanity, with power in hand, will act willingly simply because this act would benefit itself. — Gus Lamarch

But I've not said this. The exercise I was hoping to go through is the recognition that all societies are far more complex than what you'd like to paint it as. I offered as support a story of cooperation, which has happened and still happens if we look at local political structures. People willingly cooperate often and what they accomplish when they do this willingly because they are inspired is far greater than the fear you suggest as a driving factor or indeed the individualism you appear to push as a solution. It's too simplistic.

We don't drink from wells we dug ourselves. The vocabulary you use isn't your own. Etc. Etc.

In any case, I appreciate the somewhat more civil tone in the last few posts.

The primary issue was a belief that Trump had been elected, that evil forces had interfered with the election, and that Mike Pence was committing treason. — frank

Ask yourself what's so appealing about this that it attracts white supremacists in droves?

I suggest that this was the excuse and the racists heard the racism Trump stands for loud and clear and wanted 4 more years of that, willing to believe the lies because it was convenient to get what they wanted. Or are we back to the other side being too stupid to figure out the truth for themselves?

Again I respect your point of view and I guess you are not of these kind of people but if you say that easy argument of “they are taking our money in south while we are working in north” is so convincing in your population it disappoints a lot coming from countries with better universities, welfare State, modernism, open minded. — javi2541997

I don't think the majority thinks this way but enough do, that it's a political consideration. Especially if you're on the Conservative side of the spectrum and your main challenger is euro-sceptic. So it's the 20% of voters, the xenophobists, that were pleased by what they heard, there was another 20% that criticised them for it and the rest doesn't care enough.

As to better education... I had an Italian roommate once who could tell me things about early Dutch history I never learned. Dutch law is basically still roman law. Etc. Etc.

If, hypothetically, the first "Individual" to appear, it drove the stake into the ground and said: -This is mine. This is not the creation of the State, but of private property. The State arises from the perversed perception of this same individual, who, instead of inspiring other individuals to achieve their own successes like him, and encourage them, he establishes that "whoever lives and has lived in this land, now will have to pay tribute to me", simply because he "can" do it, because he now has political power; he "murdered" the individual power of his peers. — Gus Lamarch

I'm still not clear on what makes a state a state because I reject the notion that it necessarily must be through fear. The reality is that specialisation allows a community to be more prosperous. It makes no sense for individuals to be successful like "him" because they have different strength. Just like in a family, where the parents lead they can do so through fear or through inspiration, but the latter does not mean children get to do whatever they want - but, OK, those are dependent relationships so the analogy only goes so far.

In a small community though, not everyone is found to be a subsistence farmer. You want better huts but your neighbour is better at building them, so you barter. In a large enough community, the neighbour will become a builder as a result of his aptitude. Where did people bring their disputes? A man or woman was considered wise and they brought them their problems. And here emerges sovereignty, someone's word becomes law. And someone breaks the law and the community as a whole enforces it and if the community is large enough, some burly types are part time enforcers. But this is all on the basis of cooperation and economic specialisation. For the community to function the basic rules need to be enforced but this is only a threat to those that would break the rules otherwise. Most people adhere to the rules, accept the various roles (not a typo) within the community as an expression of beeps aptitudes.

In a healthy community, these rules and roles then serve the community and it's just to enforce them. If they don't serve the community, they ought to be disobeyed. In one oppression is justified in the other it isn't.

Weren't the first states sustained through "fear"? — Gus Lamarch

Let me ask this differently. What distinguishes a non-nomadic tribe from a State? Or a reclusive family staking out a claim of land? An individual doing this? And why do you assume fear is the driving factor instead of (the need for) cooperation behind the ordering of societies? Fear is merely a tool and a pretty useless one compared to inspiration.

The European Union is an economic prison created by a State larger than the States that compose the European nations.

Initially it was a relationship of interdependence and unity thanks to the great destruction of both World Wars, however, over the course of 70 years, without a new purpose, this institution would meet its end. The point is that this same institution, already established, generated a lot of profit for the elites, and therefore, a new objective had to be be created. This same objective that currently imprisoned and made dependent the nations that decided to be part of it.

Therefore, my previous argument that "a State that is sustained by some characteristic of society, tends to eternalize that same characteristic", is correct, since the current economies are no longer concerned with the development of the economy, but with the establishment of the economy.

"The State does not need anymore that you have economic independence and economic prosperity to establish itself, on the contrary, it needs you to become poor and depend on it so that it stabilizes." — Gus Lamarch

The EU was always about economic harmonisation and therefore integration. I don't think it's radically different than any other modern government in that it favours the wealthy over the poor (or capital over workers). When has a system of government not done that? Marx and other structuralist interpretations of the State often highlight this and I'm missing it from your assessments. I think you're reducing too far. There's certainly an element of repression in every society and I don't think societies can function completely without it because basic rules need to be respected (for instance, human rights).

I remember the Dutch primer minister said about my country (Spain) we are citizens who waste the money in women and wine. It is completely a lie. Nevertheless, that is the economic trap. Sometimes I think norths European countries want the south to be poorer just to get more benefit and zero competition. This is why I do not understand how Greece and Spain are the countries which have mora labour hours despite they have the lowest income (?) interesting. — javi2541997

Yes, this plays into stereotypes Dutch people (and Swedish, Austrian and Danish) have of southern european countries like Spain, Italy and Greece. You're lazy, and we're hard working. These politicians need to play for their local audience more than they do for the EU as they are elected by Dutch people. And so they take a strict stance to be seen as being critical of the EU, meanwhile working behind the scenes to reach a compromise. It's not pretty when you're on the receiving end.

- You focus on the argument that "concepts as abstractions have not yet been conceived" to support your argument directed against me and not my idea.

What you forget is that, in practice, these concepts have been projected by humanity for more than 5,000 years.

Honestly, your total bias in the detail of concepts being only metaphysics has already become almost religious rhetoric. — Gus Lamarch

It's important for me to understand what you mean since you make grand statements which aren't at all clear. So if these ancient civilisations fall within the meaning of a State, where do you draw the line? We had earlier settlements than that, that exercised some control over a geographic area? Were those states too?

Because I think that's where you run into trouble, because either you accept those as a "State" avant la lettre or you have to explain where the cut-off is and why that isn't arbitrary. And you run into trouble, because we know that the earliest settlements ("States") were certainly not predicated on fear to create order - I still disagree this is the case, considering the many and varied roles government plays in our lives. There's oppression (penalties, stratification, standardasation) but also positive liberty (opportunities, welfare, etc.).

One of the reasons I thought you were talking about modern states is precisely due to the use of "fear", which is reminiscent of Max Weber's definition that the State has a monopoly on violence. I'm probably more of a pluralist, in that individuals and groups vie for political power but similarly think the structure of modern government is conveniently beneficial to favour capitalist production - in other words, it's not just political but also economic power that shape the State and the government/State isn't an unbiased participant in the socio-economic fabric.

The point being that to apply the word "state" to these ancient governments, when you clearly meant it in the modern sense, is wrong because they are not what we understand states in the modern sense to be. Your example of the Greek empire is telling, because the Greek poleis continued to exist and had their own governments. So the suggestion that I don't know my history, meh, I shrug.

If your point was related to these ancient governments as well, then for the life of me I don't understand the individualistic bent of your post because that's even later. Edit: indivualism I mean, that's 17th century.