Thread: The world I would love to live in.

Originally Posted by honedright

It occurs to me that maybe, at least in part, of the confusion, or better yet, disagreement, lies with a misunderstanding between Federalism and Nationalism?

Originally the federal government was designed to be a small, limited body with enumerated powers as is evident by reading the Constitution, as well as the writings of the founders as found in their personal letters and The Federalist Papers.

This is most likely true, but it is also true that the very same people in the very same document ensured that this is not an immutable dogma. As you stated earlier, it's the government of the people for the people, so if the people want it modified in any way they can do that through the established system of voting. It's fairly complicated to ensure that drastic changes don't happen at a whim, but at the same time flexible enough that the founders grandchildren don't have to be bound to the exact same government that their grandfathers thought would be good at the time.

So, starting from day one the federal government started growing as people's identity shifted from bostonians, pennsylvaniians, etc. to americans first.
If the people wanted to keep the government the exact same way it was set up in late 1700s, they'd have voted the representatives who made bad changes out of office and elected ones who would return it back to how it was.

Originally Posted by honedright

That would make more sense since then, if one did not agree with a certain states policies or laws, one could move to a different state with more favorable laws. By enlarging the federal government and going from a federal to a more national system, contrary to the original intent of the founders, it eliminates ones choices between states as then all states tend to be under the control of one centralized administration.

There are still significant differences between states. Especially when it comes to taxation. For example if you move from California to New Hampshire you would stop paying 8.75% sales tax and instead would pay 0% sales tax. Your income tax would also change from progressive 1% to 12.3% to flat 5%. Or you could move to neighboring Nevada and pay 0% income tax.
Of course, those are less compared to the federal tax rates ranging from 10% to 39.6%, but you have still chosen to live in one of the states with most taxes, biggest redistribution, and most populist way of government (direct referendums). There are surely more factors than tax rates and redistribution that enter into deciding what is ultimately the better option.

Originally Posted by gugi

This is most likely true, but it is also true that the very same people in the very same document ensured that this is not an immutable dogma. As you stated earlier, it's the government of the people for the people, so if the people want it modified in any way they can do that through the established system of voting. It's fairly complicated to ensure that drastic changes don't happen at a whim, but at the same time flexible enough that the founders grandchildren don't have to be bound to the exact same government that their grandfathers thought would be good at the time.

So, starting from day one the federal government started growing as people's identity shifted from bostonians, pennsylvaniians, etc. to americans first.
If the people wanted to keep the government the exact same way it was set up in late 1700s, they'd have voted the representatives who made bad changes out of office and elected ones who would return it back to how it was.


There are still significant differences between states. Especially when it comes to taxation. For example if you move from California to New Hampshire you would stop paying 8.75% sales tax and instead would pay 0% sales tax. Your income tax would also change from progressive 1% to 12.3% to flat 5%. Or you could move to neighboring Nevada and pay 0% income tax.
Of course, those are less compared to the federal tax rates ranging from 10% to 39.6%, but you have still chosen to live in one of the states with most taxes, biggest redistribution, and most populist way of government (direct referendums). There are surely more factors than tax rates and redistribution that enter into deciding what is ultimately the better option.

The only problem I have with your argument (not addressing the state issue) is the fundamental ideology. I believe, as did the founders, that the fundamental, self evident Lockean truths that they recognized then are just as true today, and tomorrow, as they were then. And from that Lockean based ideology flows all the rest.

And beyond ideology, Locks treaties just make common sense.

Originally Posted by honedright

The only problem I have with your argument is the fundamental ideology. I believe, as did the founders, that the fundamental, self evident Lockean truths that they recognized then are just as true today, and tomorrow, as they were then. And from that Lockean based ideology flows all the rest.

Well, I just don't see any evidence that the US government is based on Lockean ideology. May be that was one of the big influences, but ultimately they didn't state that everything ought to flow from Lockean ideology.

The principles that they stated are:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If you want to go back to the declaration of independence it's just as limited there:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

I don't find it reasonable to extrapolate from the explicitly stated principle that people are entitled to self-governance which they think would be good for them, to some more general philosophy from which this principle is derived and by doing so deny them the right of self-governance replacing it with a dogmatic system that may not reflect their views on how to be governed.

Originally Posted by gugi

Well, I just don't see any evidence that the US government is based on Lockean ideology. May be that was one of the big influences, but ultimately they didn't state that everything ought to flow from Lockean ideology.

The principles that they stated are:


If you want to go back to the declaration of independence it's just as limited there:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.


I don't find it reasonable to extrapolate from the explicitly stated principle that people are entitled to self-governance which they think would be good for them, to some more general philosophy from which this principle is derived and by doing so deny them the right of self-governance replacing it with a dogmatic system that may not reflect their views on how to be governed.

Interesting how you left out both the Preamble and the Declaration of Natural rights from the Declaration of Independence.

Originally Posted by honedright

Interesting how you left out both the Preamble and the Declaration of Natural rights from the Declaration of Independence.

I left it as not very relevant to the matter - after all it didn't really apply in practice - children of slaves were apparently born without the explicitly enumerated right of liberty, and sometimes to life.

The argument I'm making is that the right to self-governance is the primary one - it is explicitly stated and is the only one that was defended with guns.
You argued that there is the general philosophy of John Locke from which the US government system follows and therefore it's not what is actually written down, practiced, and fought over that matters, but what is most important is Locke's philosophy. I simply rejected that notion as extrapolation lacking direct evidence, while the specific principle that it would conflict with is stated very explicitly.

Originally Posted by gugi

I left it as not very relevant to the matter - after all it didn't really apply in practice - children of slaves were apparently born without the explicitly enumerated right of liberty, and sometimes to life.

The argument I'm making is that the right to self-governance is the primary one - it is explicitly stated and is the only one that was defended with guns.
You argued that there is the general philosophy of John Locke from which the US government system follows and therefore it's not what is actually written down, practiced, and fought over that matters, but what is most important is Locke's philosophy. I simply rejected that notion as extrapolation lacking direct evidence, while the specific principle that it would conflict with is stated very explicitly.

But your argument shifted the goal posts away from the part of the Declaration where the founders declared, as direct evidence, that they found Locke's principles to be self evident truth. Self governance is certainly part of Locke's principles, but there is more that you seem to be choosing to ignore. The entire country including the Lockean principles expressed in the Declaration and Constitution were defended with guns and lives. How can you deny that? And you are still stuck on your old argument, and appeal to pathos, about slavery (which I still find contradictory to your support of redistributive policy, both being immoral from today's point of view, although redistribution maybe even more so from a historical one). Read Locke's chapters on: Of The State of War, Slavery, Property and Paternal Power from his Two Treaties to gain some insight as to the question of children of slaves. You may find that most of the world did not view slavery as we view it today and that your argument may be a false one incorporating the Historians fallacy, as well as presentism. Slavery was an age old institution at the time of the founding, and not easily undone with the stroke of a pen. And we did fight a civil war costing lots of money and many lives to address the problem. You don't think that an example of Locke's principles defended with guns? And to fault the founders for not initiating another costly war after they had just finished and barely won another, I think, is a bit unfair. In the end, as I've already posted before, it was the Lockean principles of Natural Rights, declared in the Declaration and adopted into the Constitution, that eventually won the day. And back to direct evidence: you can not detect Locke within the first ten amendments of the Bill of Rights?

And I'll re-edit my post - I think we are done arguing as I feel we are just rehashing the same old argument over and over.

And to the OP - I hope I made it clear as to "The world I would love to live in." I believe we already have that world. We just need to stop it's gradual corruption and decline.

Originally Posted by honedright

But your argument shifted the goal posts away from the part of the Declaration where the founders declared, as direct evidence, that they found Locke's principles to be self evident truth.

It didn't, if anything you're shifting your argument first from morally grounded, then towards legally grounded, currently to philosophically grounded
I told you why I disagree with you

1. No mention of Locke in the constitution or the declaration of independence.
2. Out of the three enumerated 'natural rights' they didn't deem the one about right to liberty worthy to fight for. They fought to replace the government of King George with one of their own, not to bring liberty to all humans living in these states. They could've instead chosen to fight for ending slavery - this shows priorities. Thus in the view of the founders self-governance trumps other 'natural rights' (even if it's because of political expediency and not inherently superior morality).
3. Your proposition is that redistributive tax is immoral because it's against a basic principle of Locke's philosophy and therefore it supersedes the right to self-governance (hence you think the current 21st century generations should live under a philosophical dogma from 17th century). The problem with this is that nowhere the immorality of redistributive taxes is mentioned in the constitution or the declaration of independence, while at the same time the right to self-governance stated explicitly more than once.

Originally Posted by honedright

And you are still stuck on your old argument, and appeal to pathos, about slavery (which I still find contradictory to your support of redistributive policy, both being immoral from today's point of view, although redistribution maybe even more so from a historical one).
...

Few things:

1. Slavery is the ultimate redistribution far worse than any tax, therefore it is more immoral by your own criteria.
2. The only justification for Slavery that Locke envisions is as punishment for 'violating a law of nature' deserving death. As a philosophical work it doesn't look for justification in whether something is considered by the present or past societal norms acceptable or not. The parental authority over children has nothing to do with the immorality of being enslaved solely as a result of their birth. I simply don't know what justification you find for this.
3. Your own logic that societal norms and laws change, invalidates the argument about redistributive taxation. Contrary to your assertion, that has been viewed as perfectly normal and moral as well.
   
   • The whiskey rebellion is one example of redistributive taxation (impose a tax on a very narrow group to pay for something that people who aren't taxed are benefiting from). So far this case has invariably caused you to immediately drop morality as argument and resort to authorization in the constitution which you seem to rationalize as "as long as it also benefits the farmers it doesn't matter that they're the only ones paying for something that also benefits a lot of freeloaders".
   • Pretty much any monarchy - the king and the elites got supported by either taxing the poor, or the looting in the wars they won. That was considered the way things are set up by God.

The bottom line is the constitution states clearly people have the right to a government of their choosing, but it doesn't say they can not chose to be taxed for their healthcare. And you claim the opposite - that any individual's right to not be taxed for the purpose of healthcare supersedes the right of the society selecting their own government, and specifically to agree collectively what things are to be paid through taxation and what individually.

I am sorry, but I simply don't see the support for your position and you abandon the nature of your argument (absolute morality/temporal morality/legally justified/philosophically justified) every time I present factual evidence that contradicts it. I have followed you through those frameworks and presented counterarguments within the one you've currently picked, but because you constantly jump ship we aren't going anywhere.

I am pretty sure that you are firmly set in your views and wouldn't change them no matter what, but at the very least you haven't shown the rational justification for them that you claim exists. Nothing wrong with that, I just thought I'd get a consistent logical rationalization.

Originally Posted by honedright

It's good to be loved. Glad you missed me and glad your happy I'm back.

It occurs to me that maybe, at least in part, of the confusion, or better yet, disagreement, lies with a misunderstanding between Federalism and Nationalism?

Originally the federal government was designed to be a small, limited body with enumerated powers as is evident by reading the Constitution, as well as the writings of the founders as found in their personal letters and The Federalist Papers. The states, and the people, on the other hand, were intended to retain all powers not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. Therefore, when you talk about a "Majority" maybe you are referring to states rather than the federal government. That would make more sense since then, if one did not agree with a certain states policies or laws, one could move to a different state with more favorable laws. By enlarging the federal government and going from a federal to a more national system, contrary to the original intent of the founders, it eliminates ones choices between states as then all states tend to be under the control of one centralized administration. If that had been the intent of the founders then the federal system would not have been limited and enumerated in it's powers, and there would have been no need to emphasize the fact re: the 9th and 10th amendments as the states could essentially do what ever they wanted as long as what they did was not prohibited by the Constitution, and reserved to the federal government.

While I understand your point with this comment I'm not sure that be it macro or micro will make it any easier to manage but let's leave this one for a different discussion.

Originally Posted by honedright

I like your scenario. In fact I think within your scenerio is possibly the crux. At least, I think we are very close to agreement. Imagine, though, that the dyke continues to spring leaks, and no one has really bothered to find a root cause for the leaks. I would not, and I doubt many Americans would, refuse a temporary sacrifice in order to help out their fellow man. But imagine another scenario where you are going to your doctor for a specific illness, the doctor prescribes his "remedy" but your symptoms continue to return. Year after year after year. You continue to pay your doctor for his "remedy" which gives temporary relief, but no lasting cure. I think eventually you would be, at least, very disappointed with your doctor. Especially if you discovered that the good doctor was only masking your symptoms instead of diagnosing and curing your problem. The two scenarios are basically the same and I think we can both agree. I agree that I would not allow the leak to exacerbate into a flood endangering the town while instead searching for a root cause. But I think you must also agree that while temporarily fixing the leak and mitigating further immediate damage, we must also begin a serious effort to find and alleviate the root cause(s) of the problem(s).

In over 80 years of "good intention" policy in the US, I think that there has been a lot of symptom masking at the expense of finding root causes. It's one thing to help a man up out of the hole he fell into, it's another to fill the hole so that no one else suffers the same fate.

And it's another thing entirely to set up a publicly funded first aid station to fix broken bones and scraped knees next to the hole, and because of the first aid station, no one can afford to buy a shovel. Fill the darn hole!

Thank you. I also agree with your medical scenario. The unfilled hole is a symptom. With this knowledge we can use a very logical and well proven method to find the root cause and apply a solution. The 5 steps of root cause analysis:
1.) Define the problem (what's happening).
2.) Collect data about the problem (what's the impact).
3.) Identify the possible causal factors (what sequence of events lead to the problem).
4.) Identify the root cause or causes (why does the causal factor exist).
5.) Recommend and implement solutions (what can be done, how will it be done, who will do it, what are the risks).

Armed with this tool you can solve any problem. How many politicians do you think currently use it? How many even know about it? Why is that? To find out use the above tool on the symptom of "a preverbal hole that never gets filled". I believe you will end up with two main root causes. One will be the 2 party system. The second is the concept of career politician. A third might be the existence of political lobbying.

What's needed is a big change. People should only elect politicians who would abandon actions designed to support re-elected and concentrate on actual problem solving actions regardless of the partisan nature. They would find to their surprise that a steady dose of the latter will ensure the former without fail.

Originally Posted by Brenngun

While I understand your point with this comment I'm not sure that be it macro or micro will make it any easier to manage but let's leave this one for a different discussion.




Thank you. I also agree with your medical scenario. The unfilled hole is a symptom. With this knowledge we can use a very logical and well proven method to find the root cause and apply a solution. The 5 steps of root cause analysis:
1.) Define the problem (what's happening).
2.) Collect data about the problem (what's the impact).
3.) Identify the possible causal factors (what sequence of events lead to the problem).
4.) Identify the root cause or causes (why does the causal factor exist).
5.) Recommend and implement solutions (what can be done, how will it be done, who will do it, what are the risks).

Armed with this tool you can solve any problem. How many politicians do you think currently use it? How many even know about it? Why is that? To find out use the above tool on the symptom of "a preverbal hole that never gets filled". I believe you will end up with two main root causes. One will be the 2 party system. The second is the concept of career politician. A third might be the existence of political lobbying.

What's needed is a big change. People should only elect politicians who would abandon actions designed to support re-elected and concentrate on actual problem solving actions regardless of the partisan nature. They would find to their surprise that a steady dose of the latter will ensure the former without fail.

Well sure, because how did the hole get there, right? But we seem to have come to an agreement. If only we could get the rest of the country on board.

And your method is essentially the same as that used in medicine to diagnose and treat. I would only add one more step, and that is continued follow-up to monitor implementation for effectiveness.

Originally Posted by honedright

Well sure, because how did the hole get there, right? But we seem to have come to an agreement. If only we could get the rest of the country on board.

And your method is essentially the same as that used in medicine to diagnose and treat. I would only add one more step, and that is continued follow-up to monitor implementation for effectiveness.

It got there through unchecked overpopulation taxing current resource levels. Reducing procreation would significantly reduce the impact of most modern day problems. If you mean by agreement that the current tax collection and disbursement process is not theft then yes we agree.

I can't lay claim to the root cause analysis model but I have used it on a regular basis in both my professional and personal life. The problem is elected officials don't and the general electorate does not hold them to a better standard by making them accountable for their actions (or lack of).