Taxes > 100% ?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Huh? A complete swing and a miss. It is not my suggestion that people aren’t smart enough to elect the right officials or to be good officials themselves.

Electing good officials - those with both the brains and the values to make decisions you think are good - is the very definition of acting in your own self-interest.[/quote]

So, what’s wrong with Social Democracy then? If people will elect good officials, in their own best interest, how does that make Social Democracy a worse solution? Surely the officials will still do the right thing…

And where did you get the absurd idea that Social Democracy defends this:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
that educated Rationalists don’t need the old constitutional limits on government, as they are brighter and not as susceptible to the flaws of the Stupid People.[/quote]

… when Social Democrats are the staunchest supporters of a strong Constitution with separation between the branches of Government?

Are you basically characterizing the Welfare State as an abuse of power and an overstep of the boundaries of government? Why? What makes welfare an abuse of power? Because it involves taxes? Do you know of ANY government that does not charge taxes?

If you were an anarchist, I would find no contradiction in your argument. The problem is that you’re not – you somehow believe that officials are good enough for some things that you find personally convenient for them to be capable but are incapable for others that you find also convenient for them to be incapable.

How convenient, isn’t it?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
As stated before, most academics I know I wouldn’t put in charge of a lemonade stand. I don’t mean this as a personal swipe at you, I am just making the point that on paper, they are theoretically the smart ones in our society - but are not fit to govern anyone.

Matter of fact, were I pushed to adopt an extreme position, I’d say that academics are the ones most in need to paternalistic oversight - the real world is awfully unforgiving to the insulated and naive people that are tehcnically supposed to be the brightest among us.
[/quote]

Apparently US Presidents have been complete idiots then, since most of them – including Mr. Bush – surround themselves by academics.

Bush even put one of the foremost, purest academics in the world in front of the Federal Reserve (Ben Bernanke, in case you weren’t paying attention).

So, again, which one is it? Are government officials smart or idiots? And, specifically, is Bush smart or an idiot?

102

[quote]hspder wrote:

So, what’s wrong with Social Democracy then? If people will elect good officials, in their own best interest, how does that make Social Democracy a worse solution? Surely the officials will still do the right thing…[/quote]

What? This doesn’t even make sense.

[quote]And where did you get the absurd idea that Social Democracy defends this:

thunderbolt23 wrote:
that educated Rationalists don’t need the old constitutional limits on government, as they are brighter and not as susceptible to the flaws of the Stupid People.

… when Social Democrats are the staunchest supporters of a strong Constitution with separation between the branches of Government?[/quote]

This is, without a doubt, one of the most hilarious things I have ever read on these boards. Seriously?

The Left hasn’t endorsed separation of powers since they started losing the culture wars of the 1960s. The Left wholly endorses the idea of a judiciary acting as a ‘progressive’ super-legislature, removing many important political questions from the sphere of democratic action - the unquestioned territory of the legislative branch - so that it can judicially invent policy prferences.

Moreover, ‘progressives’ really don’t care for separation of powers as a practical matter - after all, such a separation actually has an effect of making the lawmaking process quite conservative (in the general sense). That is why so many ‘progressives’ - frustrated with what they see as too slow a march to utopia by way of being held back by Dark Ages thinking in the democratic realm - are so quick to encourage courts and administrative law agencies to substitute their will for the popular will. Why wait on an unwilling electorate filled with Stupid Neanderthals when you can get a judge or bureaucrat, acting as a Secular Papacy, to pronounce the new laws of society from on high?

Sorry, Hspder - nobody is buying that one.

Now you are drunk driving. First, the welfare state most certainly can be an overstep of the boundaries of government. The first question is: is creating a welfare state within the enumerated powers of the government (whether federal or state)? Big important question. After that, if it is feasible under existing law, it becomes a political question - and, as a matter of policy, a welfare state can definitely be an overstep. And, it can just be bad policy.

Second, your talk of taxes is irrelevant - I never made such a claim, so there is little reason to address it.

Sure I do, and your fundamental flaw is that you fail to see degrees in between. Government must have powers, but they must also limited. Basic civics, Hspder.

Where to draw those lines? The whole idea that I think government officials should do some jobs and they shouldn’t do others is the very essence of any policy debate in a liberal democracy - dear me.

You really have shown a lack of understanding here - there really aren’t two options here. You don’t even think so, so stop trying to argue that position. Question for you - are government officials capable of regulating sexual relations between adults? Should they do so, even if ‘capable’?

Short answer - we want the government to do some things and not do some things. The fun stuff is somewhere in the middle, trying to hash that out.

Well that means little to me, since I said I wouldn’t put the academics I personally know in positions of public leadership.

  1. Could be either - depends on the individual. And could be something in between, as in smart in one area, but lacking in another. I realize that doesn’t compute in your therapeutic Stupid People Theory, but get used to it.

  2. Bush is smart, smarter than he is given credit.

Oh, and trying to go the Bush route is a dead-end - I have repeatedly said I am pretty unhappy with his administration these days.

One other thing, Social Democracy is a lot of things, but ‘democratic’ it ain’t.

103

thunderbolt23,

Firt of all, nice backpedalling on that attack on academics. Or maybe not.

Seriously, we’re going in circles here.

You continue to make wild, unsubstantiated claims about Social Democracy (so, we don’t support separation of powers?! Find me ONE Social Democrat that has come out against it!), like you know the ideology I defend better than I do.

You also continue to run away from the fundamental question of why is a Welfare State a bad thing – by not providing any scientific rationale behind your repugnance.

Finally, you continue to contradict yourself by affirming, on one hand, that you believe people will consistently make decisions in their own best self-interest, but then, on the other, fail to explain why the majority of the countries in Western Europe, for example, have chosen Social Democratic governments for the better part of the last 60 years, Or why in the US people voted for FDR. Four times. Or, better yet, why Laissez-Faire Capitalism is, by FAR, the LEAST frequently adopted ideology on the planet in the past (even in the very recent past).

To put it another way: if laissez-faire is the option that is in the best self-interest of everyone, and most people do, most of the time, pick the option in their best self-interest, why is it that laissez-faire has so rarely been adopted?

Well, I know that you’re again going to answer with a gross distortion, an unsubstantiated claim or a copout, so you don’t really need to bother – I’m back on a large consulting engagement and I won’t be able to read it anyway in the next four weeks.

So, good luck with your beliefs – the beauty of Democracy is that the people always get the government they deserve, so whatever you deserve, you will get it…

104

105

I’ll do this fast, and that can be the end of it.

  1. There was no backpedaling - I am quite positive there are academics worth voting for. I just don’t know any.

  2. The point about separation of powers was to demonstrate that Social Democrats do not share the ideas of Old Liberals - not that Social Democrats don’t believe in any form of separation of powers.

  3. It is quite disingenuous of you to somehow suggest that I have sidestepped the validity of the welfare state when you just brought it up in the last post. We weren’t discussing it specifically, and if you truly wanted a discussion about whether or not a federal welfare state fit into the enumerated powers of the legislature or executive branches, or the policy implications of it, I’d be happy to oblige. But that really wasn’t on the table, so don’t pretend like it was.

  4. As usual, you can’t get the point right - first, I don’t support laissez-faire. Second, what is in ‘people’s best interest’ is always what is up for debate in a liberal democracy. That’s the point. Third, suggesting that people vote their interests doesn’t always mean I think they get it right - again, that is what we debate in a liberal, pluralistic democracy. Here it is in a nutshell - I can think people can get their policy choices wrong and still respect the fact they their interests deserve a say in the democracy they live in. Perfect example is Europe - I think their system is flawed, and were I to move there, I’d vote a different way. But I think their Social Democracy is what they want and that is what they got.

There is nothing contradictory about that, but nice try.

  1. Again, people generally don’t want laissez-faire. And neither do I.

  2. I realize it must pain your ego to no end that someone may actually have a coherent philosophy that doesn’t treat you as some rational Moses coming down from the mountaintop with holy tablets of political wisdom, but sooner or later you may have to grow up and recognize that people think differently. I happen not to like Social Democracy - and it is not somehow above criticism.

  3. I don’t need luck with beliefs, thanks anyway. Enjoy your consulting work.

106

[quote]hspder wrote:

Many believe he did this on purpose, mainly to avoid backlash. In a sense, by not being clear on what he was defending, he could avoid persecution from either side. Remember that the 17th century was far from being the haven of freedom of speech.[/quote]

That raises the question: why, then, write Leviathan in the first place? If, in being vague enough to avoid backlash, one renders one’s massage indiscernible, what is accomplished? I doubt very much that Hobbes’ intention was simply to create “food for thought” in any nebulous sort of way–however reasonble that sounds in retrospect; rather, I think Hobbes had hoped, “without other design,” as he puts it, “to set before men’s eyes the mutual relation between protection and obedience.” That Hobbes fails to make his position clear–or rather, that many readers fail to clearly understand his position–I think, is completely incidental to his purpose.

With that said, I found Hobbes’ position rather clear: he is, in my opinion, advocating absolutism. However, I admit my understanding of Hobbes is far from complete, so I am, more likely than not, mischaracterizing some aspect of his position.

I certainly agree with your last point: Hobbes’ work has, without a doubt, had a great influence–exactly what kind of influence, I don’t yet know–on all subsequent political philosophy.

I would like to add that I think Hobbes and Locke are representitive of two historically recuring themes: Hobbes sees man’s nature, and nature’s law, as inherantly evil and in need of paternal control, Locke sees man’s nature, and nature’s laws, as inherantly good and in need of protection. For Hobbes government creates the laws and for Locke, it enforces laws already written.