Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of politicians pushed trickle down. http://www.psmag.com/business-economics/trickle-down-economi...
Politicians with their own self interests. It's not an actual serious economic theory.
[deleted]
L.A. to declare 'state of emergency' on homelessness
61–70 of 105 posts
Re: L.A. to declare 'state of emergency' on homelessness
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. This libertarian idea that people would give more if they weren't taxed is utter bullshit. As is the idea that every human is an island. We're all in this together. The charities people give to? For the most part, it's acute and visible charities. Very few people give to the same charity again and again, over the course of decades. People also give to attractive charities - kids with terminal diseases is a much e…
> This libertarian idea that people would give more if they weren't taxed is utter bullshit. This. Libertarians live in some sort of idealistic fantasy, where most humans are intrinsically good , and inclined to do good, like help the poor and needy around them. That is emphatically not the nature of the average human. We absolutely need to force and coerce people to do good, under the threat of violence (for non-pay…
I'm not sure that's an accurate characterisation of Libertarians. More typical would be to argue the poor and needy need to pull themselves together rather than living on handouts. I don't think the 'intrinsically good' thing enters much.
Re: L.A. to declare 'state of emergency' on homelessness
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you could find democratic support for replacing taxes with voluntary donations... Everyone has an Ayn Rand period, almost everyone grows out of it. Don't worry.
Is it ethical to put people in cadges who don't agree with you (or your group) on property redistribution? If you get enough people together can they own the minority's things? Does bringing up a controversial author mean anything?
> Is it ethical to put people in cages who don't agree with you (or your group) on property redistribution?
(Fixed some typos ^)
Short answer: Yes.
Longer answer: Tax law is just like any other law. The fact that it affects property ownership doesn't make it different in any way than, say, differing views on spanking children or driving without a seat belt. Person A doesn't go to jail because he doesn't agree with persons B and C. Person A goes to jail if he breaks a law he agreed on together with B and C. Who among A, B and C actually voted for or against the law is irrelevant. 2 or 3 of them did. 0 or 1 did not.
> If you get enough people together, can they own the minority's property?
Not sure what you mean by that.
A majority can decide what the laws should be. Exactly what laws are possible is possible depends on the legal framework, such as constitutions and international conventions. Most countries have constitutions that in turn are based on international conventions such as the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that individual is entitled to "peaceful enjoyment of his possessions", subject to the "general interest or to secure the payment of taxes". Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others" and "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property". This means that tax law basically has to conform to this: it can't be arbitrary. It applies to everyone. Could all the right handed people in a society decide that the income tax for left handed people is 100% and the income tax rate for right handed people is 0%? most likely not. Could 60% of the population decide that the taxes for the 40% with incomes over $100k is 100%? Probably, yes.
Re: L.A. to declare 'state of emergency' on homelessness
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Politicians with their own self interests. It's not an actual serious economic theory.
I never said it was. But it was pushed as an economic theory by politicians. It failed. I'm not sure what your point is, but I am sure that you're missing mine.
I was assuming you were the parent commenter, who has since deleted their comment.
Re: L.A. to declare 'state of emergency' on homelessness
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never said it was. But it was pushed as an economic theory by politicians. It failed. I'm not sure what your point is, but I am sure that you're missing mine.
I was assuming you were the parent commenter, who has since deleted their comment.
I was. That comment just said "the failure of trickle down doesn't persuade you [...]"
Trickle down was pushed by many politicians, and it failed. whether it's a real theory or not is totally irrelevant to the point.
Re: L.A. to declare 'state of emergency' on homelessness
#66Is there any way a person with a mental illness get a proper treatment in US? I mean, for some one who is unable to work because he has, for instance, schizophrenia, clinical depression or alcoholism, is there any option apart from indigence?
probably not much less than in Europe. While people like to assume that these issues do not face European countries a simple search of google shows its a problem in almost every western nation.
Re: L.A. to declare 'state of emergency' on homelessness
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. This libertarian idea that people would give more if they weren't taxed is utter bullshit. As is the idea that every human is an island. We're all in this together. The charities people give to? For the most part, it's acute and visible charities. Very few people give to the same charity again and again, over the course of decades. People also give to attractive charities - kids with terminal diseases is a much e…
> This libertarian idea that people would give more if they weren't taxed is utter bullshit. This. Libertarians live in some sort of idealistic fantasy, where most humans are intrinsically good , and inclined to do good, like help the poor and needy around them. That is emphatically not the nature of the average human. We absolutely need to force and coerce people to do good, under the threat of violence (for non-pay…
Who are "we, the good people, who force others" then?
If democracy is the rule of majority and the majority of people are "not good", then you're ruled by people who are "not good".
If government enforced people to do "good" (not smoke marijuana, preventing gay people from reproducing, allowed building with asbestos), and then the changed their mind (allowed to smoke marijuana, allowed gay people are to reproduce, banned asbestos), did they enforce the "good"?
Re: L.A. to declare 'state of emergency' on homelessness
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd do very well not to try not to hold this opinion in your mind: "the homeless are shameless opportunists who go wherever they can most leech off society" You've basically tarred a whole class of (often vulnerable) humans with your predisposed judgements. It's a dangerous thing to do. I'm in a privileged position, and in all honesty, I don't know enough about homelessness to make particularly informed comments on…
> I don't know enough about homelessness to make particularly informed comments on the subject. But you know enough to say omniusaspirer is wrong? > What about the kids born into it? What about the children? Should we debate about their place in society instead of fixing the system that created homeless kids? That same question can be used to accuse the hug-away-homelessness types of perpetuating perverse incentives.…
I think you've taken my comments in a pretty uncharitable way.
I don't need to know anything at all about homelessness to know that looking down on any group in society as a whole unit is wrong (and unproductive).
I'm not using a flawed "what about the children" argument here, in case you misunderstood. It's pretty straightforward; there are people literally born into a situation that they have no control over, so you can't make any judgements about their character due to the life they've "chosen".
Of course that's a single extreme example to prove a point. You don't need to do much research to see that this isn't a class of people who have chosen to take an easy path to leach of society.
http://england.shelter.org.uk/campaigns/why_we_campaign/tack...
Re: L.A. to declare 'state of emergency' on homelessness
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't know enough about homelessness to make particularly informed comments on the subject. But you know enough to say omniusaspirer is wrong? > What about the kids born into it? What about the children? Should we debate about their place in society instead of fixing the system that created homeless kids? That same question can be used to accuse the hug-away-homelessness types of perpetuating perverse incentives.…
I think you've taken my comments in a pretty uncharitable way. I don't need to know anything at all about homelessness to know that looking down on any group in society as a whole unit is wrong (and unproductive). I'm not using a flawed "what about the children" argument here, in case you misunderstood. It's pretty straightforward; there are people literally born into a situation that they have no control over, so yo…
> You need to start with compassion and an attempt at understanding otherwise you won't get anywhere.
-aidos
> ... looking down on any group in society as a whole unit is wrong (and unproductive).
Unless they think enabling homelessness causes homelessness? You don't know omniusaspirer. He or she could have been homeless at some point. He or she called for a national comprehensive solution and increased spending, but that's not good enough? Do we need to be feelings police and check privilege this aggressively? Why would you alienate potential allies in the fight against homelessness?
And, for what it's worth, I have lost family members to homelessness. And not due to a lack of compassion or resources. There was more than understanding, there was love, and it wasn't enough.
Re: L.A. to declare 'state of emergency' on homelessness
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't know enough about homelessness to make particularly informed comments on the subject. But you know enough to say omniusaspirer is wrong? > What about the kids born into it? What about the children? Should we debate about their place in society instead of fixing the system that created homeless kids? That same question can be used to accuse the hug-away-homelessness types of perpetuating perverse incentives.…
I think you've taken my comments in a pretty uncharitable way. I don't need to know anything at all about homelessness to know that looking down on any group in society as a whole unit is wrong (and unproductive). I'm not using a flawed "what about the children" argument here, in case you misunderstood. It's pretty straightforward; there are people literally born into a situation that they have no control over, so yo…
>there are people literally born into a situation that they have no control over
And similarly, Omniusaspirer (along with every other person) was literally born into a situation that he had no control over. So you can't make any judgements about his character, right?