Post Amfqv2yaSPisuuPdTc by mu@mastodon.nz
(DIR) More posts by mu@mastodon.nz
(DIR) Post #Amaa5umka6SbggflvU by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-10-02T05:27:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Two views of the rich's response to the potential increase in capital gains tax...Nimesh Shah, tax advisor to the wealth: 'Every entrepreneur is talking about whether to move overseas...Some have done it already';Graham Hobson, founder of Photobox: '[I'd] love to see capital gains tax rates aligned with income tax...I am a rich person & I will not leave — as many others won’t'!So mass exodus or a few marginal migrations.... take your pick!#tax #wealth #politics h/t FT
(DIR) Post #Amaa5vZJfXJC7JOYcq by Dizzfunctional@mastodon.world
2024-10-02T06:44:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 They said the rich would flee Scotland when they put the top tax rate up. A few did in the first year - 0.3% of high earners, which cost around £61 million in lost tax revenue that year. The tax revenue grew by £600 million first year and further £300 million the second year. #TaxTheRich Those who want to contribute can leave. Don't let the door hit you on the way out! 👋
(DIR) Post #Amaa5wFV8h3KE98FNY by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-02T07:37:38Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@Dizzfunctional @ChrisMayLA6 High taxes are not the answer. The soviet union had very high taxes, and it led to complete misery. The question for scotland should rather be, how many millionaires and billionaires would move to scotland with their businesses if the taxes were abolished! That would create real value for the people!
(DIR) Post #Amab7uo1ZlCCHhmooC by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-10-02T07:49:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @Dizzfunctional But then the Q. is how does one fund a state without tax revenue?I'm unaware of any state in history that has survived without tax revenue...
(DIR) Post #AmagG8J1lZccF31ehk by paavi@mastodontti.fi
2024-10-02T08:46:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @Dizzfunctional @ChrisMayLA6 Soviet Union or any given state is bad example pro or contra if you only concentrate on tax rate. A state that puts more of the tax revenue on health care (without being inefficient about it all), education and housing rather than bloating the military budget is probably doing better than a state that does the opposite. Superpowers like the USSR leaned towards spending a lot on "defence".High tax rate is not bad in itself and budgeting priorities matter.
(DIR) Post #AmagUKKtpq03bgfZnU by amerika@annihilation.social
2024-10-02T08:49:19.330007Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@h4890 @Dizzfunctional @ChrisMayLA6 Low taxes mean more active culture and markets
(DIR) Post #AmamAICaevbUvCc4Uy by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-02T09:52:55Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@paavi @Dizzfunctional @ChrisMayLA6 Taxes are inherently bad, since tax is theft. The reason I say that is that taxes is money that is taken from me, by another human being (or organization of humans beings) against my wishes and permissions. If I resist, I will be eventually met by violence. That is why an ethical society can never be built on taxes, powered by violence or threat of violence.
(DIR) Post #AmamJQv9c1YeZJoeXY by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-02T09:54:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@paavi @Dizzfunctional @ChrisMayLA6 Another negative is that the public sector lacks the auto-correcting and optimizing functions of the market, since it does not have customers. That is why public attempts at welfare always ends up being more costly, more inefficient and with worse service, than private attempts. So taxes from that point of view, equals self-harm, since it means a worse outcome and more waste.
(DIR) Post #AmamP40BjjxFDzr6LA by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-02T09:55:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@amerika @Dizzfunctional @ChrisMayLA6 Low taxes means _organic culture_, real culture. Tax funded culture is not a culture of the people, it is the culture of the ruling elite, fed with other peoples money.
(DIR) Post #AmambksGAIEZfJCNkG by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-02T09:57:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional The utopian answer is of course to dismantle the state. ;) But in order to not give you a flippant and overly ideological answer, it can be funded by voluntary contributions. If the voters feel they get value for their money, why would they not fund the state? Anything else would not give them the same value. Another important thing to do is to shrink the state and its functions. A third way is for the state to sell its services on the free market.
(DIR) Post #AmammvD64m4muKGnIW by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-02T09:59:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional That allows it to compete on equal terms and people will just purchase the service they think fulfills their needs the most. Another component in this thought experiment is charity. When no state, or when a very small state, exists, people will be more prone to give to charities, than in a society where the state taxes are in the 50%-70% levels since that sends the message "we'll take care of this" and likewise, "why should I give to charity too, after 50%-70% is
(DIR) Post #AmamphDkXqnWO9tkC8 by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-02T10:00:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional already taken in form of taxes". I think that would be the start of an answer from my side.
(DIR) Post #Amapu0dwZfVfeBtldQ by paavi@mastodontti.fi
2024-10-02T10:34:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @Dizzfunctional @ChrisMayLA6 Oh, I see. The all-mighty invisible hand of the market. I'll sit this one out.
(DIR) Post #AmarZKXNc4anAu5ymO by paavi@mastodontti.fi
2024-10-02T10:53:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @Dizzfunctional @ChrisMayLA6 Taxation is redistribution of wealth and often is necessary for services the average citizen and society in general needs. I agree to disagree. Your point is valid but from my point of view wrong.
(DIR) Post #Amas4Tskv43d8Nwogi by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-10-02T10:59:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @Dizzfunctional On voluntary funding of the state; we have a classic collective action problem, alongside the well-known question of free-riders... but our real difference, as you know, is that for me tax is not a bad thing.... here is something you may have seen already but sets out my position at some length.https://northwestbylines.co.uk/politics/economy/is-taxation-a-necessary-evil-or-something-socially-positive/
(DIR) Post #AmasAGPlu7BV6S9Equ by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-10-02T11:00:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @Dizzfunctional actually what the data show is that in proportional terms the rich give less to charity than the poor... so, the notion that if they paid less tax they would give more, seems a but of a stretch
(DIR) Post #AmcTR5PzvroVNq6AvQ by Daveosaurus@mastodon.nz
2024-10-03T05:32:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @Dizzfunctional @ChrisMayLA6 Of all the criticisms that could be levelled at the USSR, high taxation is not one of them. Until 1989, at the height of perestroika, the USSR had a flat income tax of 13%. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1989/04/17/soviets-face-progressive-income-tax/019f809b-9702-4f00-ae62-b3127d565d78/
(DIR) Post #Amd5qEINrQToPgxAsS by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-03T12:42:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional Yes, I've read it. When it comes to free-riders and collective action, those are problems regardless of if you have taxes or not, except that the free rider problem is not as big of a problem in a private society. When it comes to the tragedy of the commons, the solution is to eliminate the commons, and the tragedy is reduced or minimized as well. For instance, we have taxes. I "fight" that by legal means, and therefore I pay between 9% and 14%.
(DIR) Post #Amd5xPv52aqQUZTrTU by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-03T12:44:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional Regular workers hover around 40%-45%. I break no laws, I just use them in the most optimized way. Am I a free rider? If so, the problem exists regardless of if you have taxes or not.
(DIR) Post #Amd61lRex3jwPVnB6O by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-03T12:44:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional Ahh... in proportional terms, but what about in absolute terms? At the end of the day, isn't it the dollar (or euro or pound) that counts, not how big a proportion that was given?
(DIR) Post #Amd6FbH1Z92cuzPne4 by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-03T12:47:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Daveosaurus @Dizzfunctional @ChrisMayLA6 That's actually irrelevant since in the soviet union, while private ownership of means of production was indeed forbidden, there existed a _limited allowance_ for personal property that did not interfere with state interests or economic planning. For instance, the Soviet regime strictly prohibited individuals from accumulating wealth through entrepreneurial activities or investments in private enterprises.
(DIR) Post #Amd6HOW5y03DvsJu2y by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-03T12:47:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Daveosaurus @Dizzfunctional @ChrisMayLA6 Any attempt to engage in private business was considered illegal and punishable under criminal law.So as far as I am concerned, the tax rate was effectively 100%.
(DIR) Post #AmdDBMstp0KYoP3mQy by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-10-03T14:05:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @Dizzfunctional That's a really interesting moral Q.; I would argue if you are trying to judge people's propensity to give to charity then proportionality is the way to go.... especially, if you are projecting a society where all social expenditure is funded by donation...
(DIR) Post #AmdX96gB6Dih3ZJCmu by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-03T17:48:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional Ahh... ok. I think the key difference here is what we value in the charity scenario. Is it the actual number of dollars given, or is it the propensity? I would argue that it is more important to look at the nr of dollars being actually given, than propensity or the proportion of donated money relative to income. What do you think?
(DIR) Post #AmdZEFir6WTsSZ8u6y by Daveosaurus@mastodon.nz
2024-10-03T18:12:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @Dizzfunctional @ChrisMayLA6 So, you're talking about an ideological hypothetical tax rate, not an actual tax rate. Fine, then. You do you.
(DIR) Post #Amde8FL876edJ305tA by mu@mastodon.nz
2024-10-03T19:07:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional it has to be proportionality. The raw number is a distraction. Think about it, if money is unevenly distributed, and there is a fixed amount of money that would solve the problem, and if those with more money contribute proportionality less, that means that those with less money have to collectively provide more, or the problem doesn't get solved.
(DIR) Post #Amdpag5VMF71rrS4I4 by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-10-03T21:15:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @Dizzfunctional I think for individual causes/charities the absolute donation rate is clearly of major relevance.... but as a universal social policy the proportionate rate is key - partly because we might expect some progressive aspect to giving, but also because in the long-run the proportion will define the rate not the actions of individuals....
(DIR) Post #AmeQSWq9YL9vArFSwi by Crell@phpc.social
2024-10-04T04:08:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @Dizzfunctional @ChrisMayLA6 Sweden has a high tax rate, and is one of the happiest democracies in the world. There was way more wrong with the USSR than it's tax rate.Let's also recall that France had structured its taxes so the wealthy wouldn't pay taxes. It led to massive poverty, starvation, and in 1789, the French Revolution.I'd prefer a functioning economy and democracy without all the beheadings, personally.
(DIR) Post #AmeQoM6w7nVsGiVTRw by Crell@phpc.social
2024-10-04T04:12:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional Not everything can or should be based in the free market.https://peakd.com/politics/@crell/social-infrastructure-services
(DIR) Post #AmejdPko8bfZVkeVlY by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T07:43:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Daveosaurus @Dizzfunctional @ChrisMayLA6 That depends on how you define tax. In my ideological home lands, everything taking from me by the state, without my consent is defined as taxes. But I will do me, and I think we will agree to disagree.
(DIR) Post #AmejpbqyyfoKVpM7Lk by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T07:45:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mu @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional I disagree. The raw number is what counts. If you have one man providing 1% of his income, and this results in 10 million going to charity, that is much better than 10 serfs providing 99% of their salaries, yielding 1 million. This is also the same problem many socialist countries have when it comes to taxes. They do not realize that 10% of 1 trillion is much better than 100% of one million. It is the actual money that counts, since money is the tool we
(DIR) Post #Amejrls0huFm9orpYW by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T07:46:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mu @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional use in modern society to fund welfare programs.
(DIR) Post #Amek3JUi2937ctTKds by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T07:48:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional Ahh... this is also an interesting point of disagreement. In my ideological homeland, we tend to say that one thing matters and one thing only, and that is the actions of individuals. If they won't act (be that dissatisfaction with taxes, an authoritarian leader or what ever) nothing will happen. If 99% of the people stopped paying taxes tomorrow, the state would quickly collapse. I don't see how anything but indidvidual human action can be the fundament for
(DIR) Post #Amek4GzaoxoI9lNKTI by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T07:48:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional action.
(DIR) Post #AmekNp0Cb6Rl8cyvgm by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T07:51:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Crell @Dizzfunctional @ChrisMayLA6 I agree about your point with the USSR. All of it was wrong, and in my opinion, this is where socialist countries end up eventually without an opposition. When it comes to the french revolution I disagree. I do not think that was the only cause, but a complex interplay of various factors that can be categorized into long-term and short-term causes. Some are: * Social Structure and Class Discontent.
(DIR) Post #AmekTmINZfEwTrK9ke by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-10-04T07:52:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @Dizzfunctional Yes, this is the key area where we are clearly speaking from different positions;for me we can only understand humanity through its society & collective existence... and I completely appreciate that taking the stance that you do on the priority of the individual would lead you to a different conclusion on things we are discussing.Its one of those things where the premise from which one starts is so much not about evidence as belief (or ideology if you prefer).
(DIR) Post #AmekXQqvEx9l8RDvyC by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T07:53:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Crell @Dizzfunctional @ChrisMayLA6 Remember, France was a monarchy, not a libertarian free society. As a libertarian this in itself, would be reason enough for rebellion on my side. * Economic Hardships. Since france was not a free, capitalist society but had lots of bad economic inheritance in its economy from the middle ages, this leads to economic hardships. Same as in the soviet union. When you deviate from a free
(DIR) Post #AmekcUAaKnrcs3pYZc by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T07:54:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Crell @Dizzfunctional @ChrisMayLA6 capitalist society, you induce inefficiency which on an extreme level leads to starvation. * Enlightenment Ideas. The Enlightenment played a crucial role in shaping revolutionary thought. Philosophers like Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Rousseau advocated for ideas such as liberty, equality, and fraternity. Their writings inspired many in France to question traditional authority and seek reform. Those are some factors.
(DIR) Post #Amel5NYbzyGQlDqXB2 by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T07:59:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Crell @Dizzfunctional @ChrisMayLA6 In the case of sweden, the problem is how to define happiness and the questions you ask. Let me administer the test and design it, and you'll see different figures. Another thing to keep in mind with sweden is that from the 1970s, sweden has _massively_ lowered its taxes, privatized big areas of the economy, and embraced international free trade. So given how much the happiness has increased in sweden since the 70s, a reason for this is probably the
(DIR) Post #Amel6keDdOFqfE7iDY by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T07:59:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Crell @Dizzfunctional @ChrisMayLA6 massive tax decreases and liberalization of society.
(DIR) Post #AmelgvPD7806SDLtjM by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T08:04:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional In the spirit of openness, my own best counter-argument against libertarianism is that I believe it is an unstable system, that over time might tend to transform into fiefdoms, mimicking the medieval ages, at worst. Now I'm curious... what is your own best counter-argument against social-democracy (a democracy with a strong welfare state and around 50% tax rates on income)?
(DIR) Post #AmelgvTopzgegVVZui by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T08:01:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Crell @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional I disagree. The article calls me a religions fundamentalist, but I disagree with that as well. ;) Not once in my life (I've lived in 6 countries) have I encountered a public service that was better than the equivalent private one.
(DIR) Post #AmempB88dMbTUgrlsu by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-10-04T08:19:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @Dizzfunctional Ha ha, well of course, the mirror image; my best counter argument is a system built on individuality is unstable.... not least as it swiftly becomes unfair & recourse to power & strength pattern existence..... there is a reason that societies developed - they were not, as anthropological studies have demonstrated
(DIR) Post #AmesfNyibrcoAeAqW0 by mu@mastodon.nz
2024-10-04T09:24:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional if you need 100M to fix a problem, and the rich person puts in less than their fair share, others will need to put in more than their share to fix it. That doesn't seem right to me.
(DIR) Post #AmfHMrX8zuNvBdXZB2 by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T14:01:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mu @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional Depends on who's problem, what the problem is, does it even have to be fixed?. This line of reasoning also has the weakness of "fair". What is fair? And to fair to whom? After all, there is no law of nature defining this. Ethically, the only system I know of who is able to handle these objections is a voluntary association of people, since if you find it "fair" you join, and if you don't you don't. There is also a line of reasoning in this scenario that
(DIR) Post #AmfHWDaONPboBfWLlQ by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T14:03:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mu @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional has to do with peoples motivation. Let's say you pay tax, because everyone pays tax, because you think the money goes to a worthy cause. However, if someone else does not pay, you decide not to pay, because otherwise it seems "unfair" to you. That means, that at the end of the day, the worthy cause was less important to you, than the fact that everyone should suffer equally. If the cause was more important, you would pay regardless. So some peoples
(DIR) Post #AmfHaU17EDqiJ03Q4O by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T14:03:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mu @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional argument that they only pay if others pay, and if others did not, seems to indicate, that for them, the most important thing is that all should suffer equally, and what the suffering leads to, seems to be a lesser concern.
(DIR) Post #AmfHjOMpbTCzOCSYYS by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T14:05:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional Interesting... could you clarify a bit? I'm not sure I understand your argument here.
(DIR) Post #AmfL5Go4h4pCAqKIK0 by Crell@phpc.social
2024-10-04T14:42:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional You've used USPS. Pure "efficiency" is not the goal.Capitalism is nit self reinforcing. Free msrketd do not stay free on their own. They naturally tend toward oligopoly, monopoly, etc. This is readily apparent froknevd just recent history.Libertarian philosophy is based in the principle "it was legal, so it must have been ethical." (According to its original founders.) That is such a bankrupt approach, unless your goal is justifying inequality.
(DIR) Post #AmfOtMNGZF1XmcMZnc by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-10-04T15:25:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @Dizzfunctional The history of humanity is a history of small groups growing & solidifying into larger groups & then 'society' - this is pretty much what anthropology tells us.... indeed, much of the social structure that allows individuals to act as individuals (asocially) has its background in collective actions.... so my counter argument is if you took all the social structures away, then you would be left with a Hobbesian war of all against all.... & the triumph of the heavily armed
(DIR) Post #AmfcoyQT40UbhzfBYm by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T18:01:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Crell @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional Free markets of course stay free of their own, they are after all, free markets. I do not think you can show me an example of a free market that became unfree, without the help of governments, politicians or violence. What tends towards monopoly is states. Often when I debate people who do not like freedom, they are worried about monopolies in the free market. But they often forget that the government is a monopoly. since they do not fear that, there is
(DIR) Post #AmfcydyXx6fTB9DMLA by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T18:03:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Crell @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional no reason to fear market monopolies as well. Another thing to consider is that it is basically close to impossible for real monopolies to form in a free market. Should someone corner a market, alternatives will quickly be developed. This self-correcting feature in the market is completely lacking in governments, which is yet another reason why they lack efficiency. I do like though that you consistently say that efficiency is
(DIR) Post #Amfd4TimzR9p76ct2O by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T18:04:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Crell @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional not the goal. I naturally disagree, because with the efficiency of the markets, more people can be helped, costs will be lowered and quality of life will be improved. With a focus that is not on efficiency of production, distribution and consumption of material goods, the world will be worse off.
(DIR) Post #AmfdFNQOk076lpDkDw by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T18:06:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Crell @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional Finally, you say that libertarianism is based on "it is legal thus ethical" and this is actually incorrect. First, there is no "founder" of libertarianism, it has many different interpretations, but at its base, it is nothing else but the scientifically proven way to maximize material welfare of the people. It makes no claims at all about what is legal or ethical. It just promises that maximize material wealth given limited resources. This has been proven.
(DIR) Post #AmfdGql7A9ku2Qc4eG by Crell@phpc.social
2024-10-04T18:06:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional That's incredible. Every word you just said is wrong.Im not interested on debating someone that far down the rabbit hole of fundamentalism. Good day.
(DIR) Post #AmfdN2jHZOSKtwi26a by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T18:07:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Crell @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional Beyond that, it promises nothing. If you want, you can deduce the non-aggression principle out of it, that is, harm no one, except if someone aggresses towards you. This forbids a majority oppressing a minority, and likewise a minority oppressing a majority, so it is the "ism of peace". I find it the most ethical ism, way more ethical than isms based on taxation as theft enforced with a monopoly on violence. I think that is way more unethical.
(DIR) Post #AmfdbWgUzhnzrMJURM by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T18:10:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional Ah, I think I see, but I do not see how it would be an argument against social democracy. There you lost me. But in terms of the argument, I think "social structure that allows individuals to act" is putting the cart before the horse. But this I think we covered in our disagreement about individual action and what is primary.
(DIR) Post #AmfdquBzsGFz71NbLU by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T18:13:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Crell @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional Sorry to hear that. I can only recommend you follow the professor to learn how to engage with "fundamentalists". Needless to say, I think every word I just said are right, based on my studies, statistics and readings and real world proof. You just saying "no" will not convince me. But it is probably for the best. Have a pleasant weekend and happy debating with non-fundamentalists!
(DIR) Post #Amfqv2yaSPisuuPdTc by mu@mastodon.nz
2024-10-04T20:39:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional you seem to think of people as being logical individuals, ignoring that we live in a society. Part of living in a society is giving up some autonomy and resources in order to maintain society as a whole. And this will not always directly benefit an individual, but it's all or nothing, you can't get the benefits of society without accepting the costs. So, knowing that there are costs that will fall on people that don't directly benefit them...
(DIR) Post #Amfw5DHNVNHDXPrvdY by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T21:37:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mu @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional I disagree. People are, by nature, individuals. It is very difficult to deny this claim. Society is tricky, since pinning it down to a definition we both can agree on is probably very difficult. I view society as a voluntary association. You can join, you can also live by yourself, or you can live for a while with and without people. We have many examples of societies where no taxes were extracted (medieval iceland, indians, for some, monaco, LIechtenstein
(DIR) Post #AmfwElPJzFO1zU8dCy by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T21:39:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mu @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional and some places in arabia. They are for sure societies, but do not tax individuals (depending on your legal situation). So a society does not need to be based on taxes. I think that is inside the box thinking. This is common though, because we are conditioned by it from birth by the state. But there is such a thing as out of the box thinking, and historically, and today, it does exist. Therefore I do not agree with that living in society must be connected
(DIR) Post #AmfwSVnCq4jfcHrjiy by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T21:41:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mu @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional with giving up autonomy and resources in order to maintain society. When it comes to not getting benefits, another way of expressing that, is that some people are destined to work all their lives to support others. Those others then basically have "servants" as long as they don't just leave, which makes that geographical area the property basically of the supported class.
(DIR) Post #AmfwaO3NUrdHvlBXgO by mu@mastodon.nz
2024-10-04T20:42:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional the next question is how to distribute those costs. It seems fairest that we expect more from people who have more. The method which does this most fairly to the rich is having an even proportion of contribution.It is possible to argue that everyone should have a certain threshold by which they can survive, and that society takes everything above that, which would be bad for the rich, but good for everyone else.
(DIR) Post #AmfwaOuCKTsqZZtj0q by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T21:43:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mu @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional When it comes to the cost, I think the fairest and most ethical way to distribute them is that each pays for his own costs. That way, no theft needs to take place. Because if you decide that someone, against his will, must pay, that is theft, and this is unethical. Especially when enforced by violence, which adds insult to injury, or rather injury to insult. By having some pay for others, you are basically saying that their needs are more important,
(DIR) Post #AmfwiILkaRTiYdY8Lg by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T21:44:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mu @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional and that means you end up with a society based on inequality. Some are supported and don't have to do much (like politicians) and others have to work all their lives to support that lifestyle while themselves living at subsistence or existence levels (factory workers in many countries). Democracy, also means that it is right for a majority to exploit a minority, so theoretically, there is nothing stopping a majority of have nots, making slaves out of the rich
(DIR) Post #AmfwrPAGcR0QIdWROK by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-04T21:46:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mu @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional and a democrat would be bound by majority to accept that. Given the above, don't you really think that the most ethical society is based on non-aggression and letting people live the lives they want, without the threat of violence and theft, in the form of taxation, hanging over their heads? That to me, is the only ethical system possible. I have never heard of another system being able to handle those problems except for a free society.
(DIR) Post #AmgCbfIwRScgzR62Iy by mu@mastodon.nz
2024-10-05T00:42:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional I don't believe any human will survive very long with no social contact, and I challenge you to describe how you would survive without access to the benefits that society brings. Noting, of course, that money and education are benefits of society.
(DIR) Post #AmgujofTuNMmKXKu0m by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-05T08:57:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mu @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional Ahh, but I have never argued in favour of no society at all. I'm arguing in favour of a society of voluntary associations, without monopoly on violence and taxation. I have never said that societies of individuals don't exist, or that people should never live in one. Just to give an example, I think it would be very possible in a free world, for my ideological friends at liberdon to form a society and live together without taxes.
(DIR) Post #Amgus7Fkh3n0HsG7uK by mu@mastodon.nz
2024-10-05T00:42:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional So, I'll concede your point that humans can be individuals if you can describe how someone would survive for (say) five years without any contact with anyone else, without being trained by anyone or without using anything make by another person, if you are willing to concede that if you can't find a way for that to happen, that society is a part of being human.
(DIR) Post #Amgus87HU2bixtIsLI by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-05T08:58:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mu @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional What is there to concede? You do not believe humans are individuals? The fact that I can interact with others, does not erase my individuality. I have my own will, preferences, likes, dislikes, I can choose to engage with other or not. I think a part of this discussion is that we use different definitions for terms such as individual and society.
(DIR) Post #Amgvu31dTzpxi08pFI by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-10-05T09:10:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @mu @Dizzfunctional 'I think a part of this discussion is that we use different definitions for terms such as individual and society.'Yes, so often discussions like this pivot on the initial definitions (and premises) from which we argue.... so, here, is something else we can agree on (even if it then means at times we are 'talking past each other')
(DIR) Post #AmgwIxcCjcVSAX7pbc by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-05T09:14:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @mu @Dizzfunctional Yes. It is in a way sad, because it does feel like "giving up". On the other hand, if those differences are not made clear, the discussion can run on for hours and hours, and we just run in circles and do not get anywhere. So the only path forward is then the "meta-discussion" of the definitions. This reminds me of when I was studying academic philosophy. ;)
(DIR) Post #AmhCr06XaJ690AZIjA by mu@mastodon.nz
2024-10-05T12:20:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional what in hearing is that you think it's possible to take only what you want from a society, and give only what you want, and I don't think that's correct. When you want the benefits of joining a group, you must also take on part of the responsibility for maintaining that group.When the group needs things of you that you don't want to give, if you choose to bail at that point, you've just become a looter or vampire.
(DIR) Post #AmhLPBpnHLfYrPY5Oy by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-05T13:56:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mu @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional My best example of this kind of society would be a market. Imagine a group of people who meet in a square. Each offering services and goods to others. If I need something I buy it, if I don't, I don't. That way, the market itself, makes sure that the goods and services available to that community, are utilized in the most efficient way, at the lowest possible price, _over time_ (that is, markets in the short term do get things wrong, but in the long term
(DIR) Post #AmhLQGjkXLe2M4Ehma by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-05T13:56:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mu @ChrisMayLA6 @Dizzfunctional are amazing at pricing things right).
(DIR) Post #AmhR38kgeqYuef1sEy by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-10-05T14:59:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @mu @Dizzfunctional Interestingly, many C19th 'radicals' saw localised markets as emergent & socially valuable, but then argued that C19th capitalism had led to markets at a distance which had the effect of undermining the socially valuable signalling that individuals contracting with each other also communicated... thus, capitalist markets (by distancing) were different mechanism than the local market where real people met & contracted with each other for exchange.....
(DIR) Post #AmhWRZz9YXVXq2Gi1o by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-05T15:59:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @mu @Dizzfunctional Haven't heard about that. Have you read anything about how modern communication might have affected their argument? And do you have a link to it? It seems to me that one might not mean the destruction of the other, but markets within markets is an interesting thought. In this day and age, we tend to think about "one" global market.
(DIR) Post #AmhZUqHdiSQt7LA9vk by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-10-05T16:33:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @mu @Dizzfunctional at the risk of self-publicity here's a piece I wrote some years on John Ruskin & political economy which includes a discussion of his argument about distancing in markets.... my remarks were based on this (and knowing he was not alone in such thoughts/analyses).Hope you find it interesting https://www.academia.edu/1967015/John_Ruskin_s_Political_Economy_There_is_No_Wealth_but_Life_
(DIR) Post #Amhaasp9HdUygjHTlY by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-05T16:46:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @mu @Dizzfunctional Thank you very much! =)
(DIR) Post #Amhk2kDVmETfgp2K8W by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-05T18:32:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @mu @Dizzfunctional Hmm, in some respects Ruskin does seem to have some similarities to the famous libertarian thinkers such as Mises. He focuses on the individual. If I understand the paper correctly, am I right in making the interpretation that Ruskin argues that abstract models, and "the market" can never be held responsible, but only individuals? This does seem to dovetail nicely with some aspects of some libertarian thought. In terms of ethics influencing economic
(DIR) Post #AmhkAjELKSGMwkETei by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-05T18:33:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @mu @Dizzfunctional decisions, I tend to view that as long term, instead of short term thinking. What I mean is that yes, ethics does matter in the market, and will repay you handsomely in the long run and will trump short term quaterly thinking any time any day. Therefore I have a very soft spot for family run businesses instead of Q-run corporations. I only read the intro and conclusion, and based on what I see, I will give it some more time.
(DIR) Post #AmhtgJJC8jtJPDdVBY by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-05T20:20:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @mu @Dizzfunctional "Ruskin argues that economic change is driven by individual ethical choices, not rational material interests." I think that is an oversimplification. I would tend towards either both, or, as per ethical contractarianism, that ethical choices are in fact a sub species of rational material interests. Another perspective is that the market is a tool, not a god or an ideology. It is a tool _used_ by ideologies.
(DIR) Post #AmhuXK9FkU15MFGTXU by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-05T20:29:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @mu @Dizzfunctional Sorry, I can't contain myself, ethical capitalism... here I see that what I thought was my own wonderful buzz word, was in fact invented and discuss 100 years before. I'll have to console myself with my two runner ups pareto utilitarianism and agnostic monism. Ok, need to get back to reading. WIshing you a pleasant evening!
(DIR) Post #AmhxgXpwWYYUHTJxtg by ChrisMayLA6@zirk.us
2024-10-05T21:04:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @mu @Dizzfunctional Glad you're enjoying it.... of course one of the reasons that Ruskin is emphasising the individual is that art history (as a discipline) in the late C19th was completely concerned with the artist as individual creative genius... so Riskin's starting point is likely (albeit in different emphasis) quite close to your own.... likewise, enjoy your evening
(DIR) Post #AmixwZifUDgFuYWQmO by h4890@liberdon.com
2024-10-06T08:42:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ChrisMayLA6 @mu @Dizzfunctional I do realize it is history after all, but I always wonder where he would end up if he wrote today? Would he have dropped the individual perspective completely? It still exists here and there, but I think it is perhaps not so fashionable in these times of identity politics.