The Glade 4.0

I doubt anyone here disagrees with you, including RD.

The problem with this "you owe a debt" concept is that the debt is entirely undefined, and therefore can never be paid in full. Every time some new social "good" could be accomplished, the "debt" is trotted out yet again as a reason to extract still more money from anyone reasonably successful.

Mysteriously, however, the debt is never mentioned when money is to be spent on non-social ends. Society in general benefits from satellite communications, GPS, and materials developed in space or for space, but this "debt" argument never appears when the space program is on the chopping block. The same applies to the military.

Morally, do we owe a debt to society for our success? Yes, we do. However, that debt is undefineable, and should not be used to form the basis of tax or fiscal policy, since it magically takes on whatever size and shape one pleases.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

DE I agree, overall. However, on the military, that's not true. I can't tell you how often I hear that we owe our veterans, owe our troops in the field, etc. etc.

I agree. From a standpoint of tax or fiscal policy I'm much more interested in cost/benefit analysis vs. some generic feel good argument.

For myself, my comments around people owing a debt were really just around the justification for the concept of taxes and the concept that it's reasonable to expect for people to pay back some of what they make into the country that provided the framework to be able to make that money.

Where and how the exact lines get drawn on how much and where it comes from is an entirely other can of worms.

I don't think this happens to be the case. When I've castigated our government for its tax collection methods and policy in the past, including more links to BLS.gov tables and IRS Data Sheets than I typically want to read in a year, you've vehemently disagreed with any objections to what's going on. Indeed, you once posted that you would rather pay taxes than donate to a charity.Yet, you object to any proposed reform of the tax system anyone on these forums mentions. When we talk about cutting payroll and social security taxes; when we talk about reducing excise taxes that favor international entities over American companies; when we talk about not instituting carbon taxes; etc., you frequently object. To that end, what do you think is reasonable? Is the 62% I paid out this year reasonable? That meets or exceeds all the great European nations many people on this forum bandy about.I'm not so sure it is; how one justifies taxation, especially front-end taxation, tends to be a function of political ideology not practicality. Indeed, I've posted a greater than 10,000 word post on exactly how deleterious income and payroll taxes are to the working class ...

I know how you responded then.

_________________

Just because I don't agree with your suggestions, doesn't mean my statements aren't true Khross.

Do you support the fiscal policy of the current administration? Did you support the fiscal policy of George W. Bush's Administration?

Actually, it occurs to me that those questions are unnecessary. You're on record as agreeing with the Healthcare Reform Act.

_________________

I only read what you said and what said was that the nothing in that intricate web had anything to do with one's personal efforts. I can see what you mean and what you said are two different things but you try to blame me for reading what you wrote instead of being inside your mind for some reason.

If you want to say what you mean then do it. I cannot magically conjure meaning from your head. I must use the words you've chosen to convey meaning so please don't blame me when I get the meaning you've chosen to convey instead of the one you hold. Don't do it to Khross either.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

About all this "debt" nonsense - while one may feel they owe something for something given saying that there is a debt which should have the power of law behind it is to agree that any given group who decides amongst themselves to enact a program you may benefit from can force you to be indebted to them without your consent. I believe we would all find that to be an insane proposition.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Elmo:

Dude, you're wrong. You made a bad assumption that he used an exclusive qualifier. He didn't.

Anyway, back on topic: Assuming the economy does collapse like you say, what steps will occur that will produce this better situation you are looking for? What will people do, rally around, etc. Why would it be a more preferable form of government instead of a worse?

You know except that exclusive qualifier RangerDave did use, Arathain. It seems to me you simply don't want to admit you were wrong. We'll try this with symbolic logic, since you want to believe that a value is not exclude from a given set.

Outcome A depends upon Set Y.

Set Y has "nothing whatsoever" to do with Value P.

Can Value P be part of Set Y?

_________________

Nope, but what part of that logical chain precludes Outcome A from also being dependent upon Value P?

Let me put it another way:

Let "Outcome A" = cake
Let "Set Y" = cake mix, oil, water
Let "Value P" = eggs

Outcome A is dependent on Set Y.
Set Y has "nothing whatsoever" to do with Value P.
Can Outcome A also be dependent on Value P?

Yes it can. Indeed, without including Value P, any claim of Outcome A would be a lie.

Almost, but not quite in your case ...

You (RangerDave), Aizle, and Arathain have forgotten a qualifier in your readings of the original sentence.Above is the original sentence.

The bolded section is: "Your ability accumulate that wealth". We'll call this Outcome A.

The underlined section is: "intricate web of factors". We'll call this Set Y.

"Personal Efforts" is Value P.

Now, there's a word in your sentence that precludes the Cake Analogy. Do you know what that word is, RangerDave?

_________________

"On"?

No, in all seriousness, I suspect you're going to say "nothing" was the key word, on the theory that it precludes any relationship between Set Y and Value P, even an indirect relationship via mutual contribution to Outcome A. Right?

Nope. The word is "an" ...

The "web of factors" is "an ... web of factors" which means it's singular. Outcome A "was dependent on" only Set Y because of the article.

_________________

So to clarify, do you think Dr. Doom is randomly the Count or whatever of Latveria or what?

Don't how either of you can still be going on about your RD's english. At some point can't someone just agree to disagree?

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

No I am not. He said nothing. That excludes anything else. So if you have nothing in the pile which is labeled "personal efforts" - so then what personal efforts contributed?

Answer - Nothing. Really this is like 6th grade reading comprehension at the most. He chose the wrong words - he then clarified his meaning. Big deal -it happens. I just can't understand all the people saying his original words don't mean what they do when even he admits they didn't.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Collapse hasn't happened yet. Tick tock.

It'll be funny if we all keep posting here for decades all the way into old age, and Elmo is still raving about the coming economic apocalypse, and we'll all keep rolling our eyes.

But the major question would be... when the apocalypse hit, will elmo still be red and cuddly?

Oh wow it hasn't happened in a few days, color me surprised!

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Always.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

You've actually been predicting this for at least a few years now, but you conveniently forget. I'm just wondering how many years "upcoming" is and if it's something like how the Sun will become a Red Giant eventually.

No, but A can still depend on P. A depends on both Y and P. Y and P are distinct.

This is basic math.

OMFG.

Yes, it depends on AN intricate web of factors.

It also depends on ANOTHER intricate web of factors.

You're wrong. But anyway, care to answer my questions?