241–250 of 275 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or exist, for that matter?
If you ever have the misfortune to work near or in social services, then you realize yes they exist and are not an urban myth. Sadly, some government programs encourage the behavior (e.g. "free" cellphones).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because social programs get their money from coercion. GitHub doesn't. (To the extent that you think you can find a private company that can and does use coercion, I object to that too.) Even as a liberatarian, I'm happy to say some things are well worth the coercion. But it should never be forgotten , because otherwise people do start thinking it's just free money that has no other concerns whatsoever, and start spe…
Because social programs get their money from coercion Language matters, and the verb 'coercion' in this context, to me, is actually repugnent. Here's what Wikipedia has to say ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion ): "Coercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or f…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"You're focusing only on the costs" Bollocks. I'm saying we should talk about the costs, not ignoring the benefits. I actually think this is a net good move on Finland's part. I know you're projecting, since you've imputed claims to me I actively disagree with.
Well, why is it so imperative that we talk about the costs if we're in a agreement that there's a net benefit? Perhaps I am projecting, but generally when people are at pains to point out that things are not free and there's a cost, what they mean is that there's a net cost to society (or think that there is) and that the money would be best spent somewhere else or not collected at all. When you lead off with a compl…
It must be a nice sinecure.
You'd probably have lots of free time to send press releases to the BBC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
His point was that the financial arithmetic isn't prohibitive. A box full of stuff costs the same amount whether you give out 5 million or 300 million (in fact, economics of scale says that the US could probably do it cheaper than Finland can). We have 300 million people (or whatever the birthrate is) which is certainly more than Finland has, but we also then have 300 million taxpayers. Sure, the absolute cost is hig…
Well, about 300 million people, but less than 100 million taxpayers. About 130 million workers in the US [1], of whom about 30% have a negative income tax rate[2]. Doesn't completely change your point, since less than half of Finland's population works as well[3], but I thought it worth mentioning. [1] http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/employed-persons-1999-2... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/…
"The employment rate of employed persons between 15 and 64-year-olds in April was 68.7 per cent, which was 0.2 percentage points higher than a year earlier. Employment rate for men fell from the previous year to April by 0.1 percentage points to 68.6 per cent. The female employment rate increased by 0.6 percentage points to 68.8 per cent. For seasonal and random variation, the trend was 68.7 percent."
Source: Statistics / Labour Force Survey
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, why is it so imperative that we talk about the costs if we're in a agreement that there's a net benefit? Perhaps I am projecting, but generally when people are at pains to point out that things are not free and there's a cost, what they mean is that there's a net cost to society (or think that there is) and that the money would be best spent somewhere else or not collected at all. When you lead off with a compl…
It just means they feel like the other party is forgetting about the cost. For example, if I hear my friend raving about this new phone that only costs 99 dollars, I might remind him that it would require him to upgrade to a data plan that costs 20 dollars more per month. That doesn't mean that the phone isn't still worth buying, just that it's not as cheap as I think he is imagining it to be.
Intentionally or not, the implicit suggestion that the costs are being picked up by someone else is rooted in economic stereotypes that remain widespread in the US despite a lack of supporting evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_queen or for a more current example: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-09/politics/38405...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because social programs get their money from coercion. GitHub doesn't. (To the extent that you think you can find a private company that can and does use coercion, I object to that too.) Even as a liberatarian, I'm happy to say some things are well worth the coercion. But it should never be forgotten , because otherwise people do start thinking it's just free money that has no other concerns whatsoever, and start spe…
Because social programs get their money from coercion Language matters, and the verb 'coercion' in this context, to me, is actually repugnent. Here's what Wikipedia has to say ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion ): "Coercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or f…
I don't see taxes (and I pay a fairly significant share) as our evil government squeezing out our hard earned cash by threatening, or intimidating us.
And what if you decide that you have a better idea of how to spend your money than the State, and stop paying "your taxes"? Do it long enough, they send men with guns to arrest you, and put you on trial and (probably) put you in jail. If you resist any portion of this process, you will probably be shot to death by the men with guns.
How is this not "use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or force"?
All State power is ultimately rooted in the use of force. Just because many (even most?) people happily pay "their taxes" out of rote habit, or because they've grown to accept a certain measure of coercion as acceptable, doesn't change the underlying principle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because social programs get their money from coercion Language matters, and the verb 'coercion' in this context, to me, is actually repugnent. Here's what Wikipedia has to say ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion ): "Coercion /koʊˈɜrʃən/ is the practice of forcing another party to act in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats or intimidation or some other form of pressure or f…
"You can see taxes as a necessary evil, or hate them, but defining taxation as coercion is pretty loaded and rather close to Orwellian newspeak." In addition to what refurb said, I feel you're exactly backwards. We should always remember that taxes come from the threat of imprisonment if you don't pay and coercive force. There are things that are worth this threat. Civilization is a big deal. It's a good thing. I'm r…
That's a very good point. I, for one, consider taxation to be theft, plain and simple. But yet I don't try to defend myself from this theft via force, for pragmatic reasons (they employ more men with guns than I do, for one). So, I grudgingly tolerate a certain level of coercion, even though it is extremely distasteful to me.
BUT... I maintain that if you're going to steal my money and spend it - nominally - in my name, then you better damn well spend it wisely and on something important. This is one reason government agencies piss me off so much.. I see so much waste and inefficiency and fraud and other shenanigans, and it just enrages me that they are taking my money and blowing it on idiotic shit, or - worse - things that I'm fundamentally morally opposed to.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"You're focusing only on the costs" Bollocks. I'm saying we should talk about the costs, not ignoring the benefits. I actually think this is a net good move on Finland's part. I know you're projecting, since you've imputed claims to me I actively disagree with.
Well, why is it so imperative that we talk about the costs if we're in a agreement that there's a net benefit? Perhaps I am projecting, but generally when people are at pains to point out that things are not free and there's a cost, what they mean is that there's a net cost to society (or think that there is) and that the money would be best spent somewhere else or not collected at all. When you lead off with a compl…
Just because something produces a net benefit does not mean that there are infinite funds to allocate toward it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cost per capita is the same, so your argument doesn't really make sense. By the way, I see that argument every single time when someone proposes the USA to do something better. "It's a big country, we can't fix anything".
Until you consider how the US Government runs any program into the ground, is blanketed with regulations and bureaucracy, and generally hurts the people who it's supposed to help. Here's a few examples just in case you need some evidence: The US Postal Service: http://www.economicfreedom.org/2012/12/12/stamping-out-waste... The War on Poverty: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062612-616212-war-o... Medicare:…
"So why isn’t the USPS making innovations and meeting customer needs like Outbox? Simple: because consistent financial support from the government eliminates incentives to do so."
Anybody who thinks it really is that simple is someone to be wary of when getting information or analysis.
The biggest reason USPS doesn't make changes like this is that congress ties its hands -- free market devotees don't want it competing in new areas. Or even old areas, like postal banking/payments (imagine the outcry here if someone decided maybe a public digital/physical payment infrastructure might be beneficial if competitive with the various private services). Some don't want it doing anything at all, but they can't really get rid of it, so they join up with the next group: budget-watchers who want it revenue neutral (which it managed pretty well for a long time)... AND now subject to pension/healthplan requirements well above and beyond any private standards. Meanwhile, cutting service is seen as a no-go.
Some people have actually speculated subjugating the USPS to this set of no-win requirements is actually an intentional strategy to bolster the case for privatization, which would pretty much have been a non-starter before 2006.
You could say that this proves that the US Government is ineffective, I suppose, but in a representative democracy, what that mostly proves is that US politics either prevents good policy thinkers from being elected or prevents them from effectively doing their job. Or letting others do theirs.
There may be an institutional component too (our legislature in particular is less representative than one might think), but I suspect the biggest factor is cultural/philosophical.