Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

scottaaronson.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 653 posts

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#321

Post by prometheus76 »

palata wrote: post #272
alphazard wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxation is the mechanism that moves power from the people to the government, and increasingly politicians and their specific interests. Do you actually believe that if your taxes went up, power would be less concentrated, or that you or your countrymen would have more power? Every government goon doing authoritarian dirty work collects a paycheck and wouldn't do their job without it.

I think they mean "taxation of the too rich" in that case. > moves power from the people to the government In a functioning democracy, the government is the people. If the government is against the people, it's not a functioning democracy. And needless to say, a non-functioning democracy is not a proof that the concept of democracy doesn't work.

The government is the majority of people. So the government very well can be against 49% of the people and it would still fit your definition.

If 100 people were about to embark on a journey on a ship, what makes you think 51 of them know who should run the ship if none of them have ever even been on a ship?

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#323

Post by iso1631 »

alphazard wrote: post #258
whatever1 wrote: post #150

Power corrupts, end of story. Democracy (limited terms), taxation and anti-monopoly regulation are examples that show a path to cure the disease. Nobody should be trusted with too much power for too long.

Taxation is the mechanism that moves power from the people to the government, and increasingly politicians and their specific interests. Do you actually believe that if your taxes went up, power would be less concentrated, or that you or your countrymen would have more power? Every government goon doing authoritarian dirty work collects a paycheck and wouldn't do their job without it.

Higher corruption tends to be associated with lower tax-to-GDP ratios, which seems the opposite to your assertion.

Of course there's the cause and effect issue -- does the high corruption cause lower tax, or do the lower taxes enable the corruption.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#324

Post by thrance »

api wrote: post #236
a-french-anon wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> end of story. Is it? Here's another version I like even more that unsettles democracy dogmatics: power attracts the corrupt.

Why is that only a problem for democracy? It’s one of the central problems of civilization and has been discussed by philosophers since the Greeks. In monarchies you’d often end up with kings and people in line for the throne being murdered and all kinds of palace intrigue to select for the most conniving psychopath. In theocratic systems you get hypocrite self dealing priests. In socialist and communist systems you…

> Why is that only a problem for democracy?

Because democracy at least pretends to give power to the people. Except letting a few individuals wield enough wealth and power to buy media, politicians and judges is completely antagonistic to the basic ideals of democracy, and not many realize this (yet).

> I’m not aware of any system that [...]

Liberal democracy is better than feudalism, I see no reason why our systems of governance can't be improved further. And, at least to me, the obvious path forward is to keep any of those "deranged dark triad personalities" from gaining too much power, maybe by limiting the amount of wealth any single individual can hold unto.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#325

Post by jltsiren »

gscott wrote: post #119
vee-kay wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

People seem to forget how many companies Bill Gates put out of business by using their designs. It takes years to sue and win damages minus lawyer fees. Then to try to whitewash his reputation by giving the money away.

I think it's the opposite. People remember how Bill Gates got rich. They remember that the damage he caused mostly affected capitalists and professionals in developed countries. His businesses mostly didn't abuse labor in developing countries. He didn't cause that much environmental damage. He didn't undermine democracy and the society that much.

People remember that Bill Gates played the game and won, and the damage he caused was mostly limited to the economic sphere and to other people playing the same game. That's why they are willing to give Gates a chance to redeem himself by using his money for good.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#326

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

felixgallo wrote: post #298
alphazard wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think they mean "taxation of the too rich" in that case. Everyone wants taxes to go up on everyone making more than them, and for their own taxes to go down. The problem is this is a collective negotiation, not a discussion about what to ask the genie for when we rub the lamp. If the middle class wants to decrease their own taxes (which is the political issue that objectively affects them the most, and how they l…

I'm having difficulty parsing what you're saying in your first paragraph. What is it to 'meet the wealthy half way'? Did the ultra wealthy meet the middle class or the poor half way when they essentially ended their tax obligations and legalized mass influence buying in Citizens United? What's the 'half measure' that is going to rein all that back in?

Tax cuts for the ultra wealthy are routinely paired with tax cuts for the less wealthy, for the same reason that countries which tax the ultra wealthy a lot also tax the less wealthy a lot. Building support for taxation means convincing people that taxes are great and they should embrace the benefits of living in a society with lots of tax revenue to spend.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#327

Post by nicoburns »

alphazard wrote: post #258
whatever1 wrote: post #150

Power corrupts, end of story. Democracy (limited terms), taxation and anti-monopoly regulation are examples that show a path to cure the disease. Nobody should be trusted with too much power for too long.

Taxation is the mechanism that moves power from the people to the government, and increasingly politicians and their specific interests. Do you actually believe that if your taxes went up, power would be less concentrated, or that you or your countrymen would have more power? Every government goon doing authoritarian dirty work collects a paycheck and wouldn't do their job without it.

> Do you actually believe that if your taxes went up, power would be less concentrated, or that you or your countrymen would have more power?

Absolutely. The source of most of the corruption I see in the world today is wealth, and specifically wealthy people paying people off to get their own way. If there was less wealth inequality there'd be much less scope for this.

Note: I believe this would be the case even if the money was literally burnt/disappeated rather than being given to the government (not that I suggest that's what we do).

Politics has it's fair share of corruption too. But at least in my country (the UK) it's the lesser evil. And even if you look at a country like the US where there is a lot more political corruption, the source of a lot of that seems to be private money influencing elections.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#328

Post by carlosjobim »

thrance wrote: post #303
carlosjobim wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> taxation Taxation is the system where innocent people are forced to pay enormous amounts of money to the rich, powerful, corrupt. The whole basis for the Babylon system is taxation. Epstein and associates are able to thrive thanks to taxation. It has always been from the poor to the rich, never the other way around. Why do you think kings invented taxation in the first place?

Then why are billionaires so anti-taxation? This is completely incoherent.

When was the last time you heard a bank owner or large industrialist being against the taxation of everyday people?

Even the famous/infamous billionaires never come out against income tax for normal people. At most they're against taxation of themselves.

When did you hear the owner of a bank or a large hedge fund or a major industry talk against income taxes which the poor pay?

The rich are 100% pro taxes. It funnels money to themselves from the population, and keeps competition down.

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#329

Post by iso1631 »

foldr wrote: post #233
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Things in Europe aren't looking good. The consent of the governed is being eroded and manipulated just as badly as it is in the US. The UK, for instance, is a tinder box, where the share of the population that simply votes against the status quo is growing to become an absolute majority.

The UK is a country where the Prime Minister may very probably have to resign because he is unpopular. See also Liz Truss and Boris Johnson. Prime Ministers in the UK don’t usually last that long if the public turns against them. Compare to the US, where Trump is deeply unpopular but also in an essentially unassailable position as POTUS. If Keir Starmer, or any other British Prime Minister, gave one press conference…

> If Keir Starmer, or any other British Prime Minister, gave one press conference where they attacked a female journalist instead of responding to her question, and then criticized her for not smiling enough, they would be out of Downing Street within a day

Gordon Brown did an interview with a member of the public and forgot to take his microphone off when he got in the car. He said (in private) he'd just spoken to a biggoted woman. That was broadcast and it lost him the election.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bigotgate-gor...

Re: The time I didn't meet Jeffrey Epstein

#330

Post by ogogmad »

vee-kay wrote: post #309
stef25 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that deadly unproven vaccine It was not.

[flagged]

Lack of informed consent is a serious possible issue here. Lack of accountability might be another one. Being cheaper, by contrast, shouldn't be seen as bad. But all of this needs to be proven.
Post reply on HN