{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5441", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 5441, "subject": "Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 38", "messages": 2, "voices": 2, "first": "2009-05-20T00:34:27+00:00", "last": "2009-05-20T01:40:53+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<4A135013.5070803@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2009-05-20T00:34:27+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 38", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "below, as briefly as possible ..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMessage: 1\nDate: Tue, 19 May 2009 18:43:10 -0500\nFrom: \"James Wynn\" \nSubject: Re: (urth) Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 31\nTo: \"The Urth Mailing List\" \nMessage-ID: <84EF7CEE69A547A3B2317E899DE09AD7 at eMachinePC>\nContent-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=\"iso-8859-1\";\n\treply-type=response" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I said:\n\"The Devil in a Forest\", Wolfe presents the issue moral terms. If I'm \nbenefiting from a service more than my neighbor, and also paying less for \nthat service than my neighbor, why is that less shameful than just going to \nhis door and demanding the money?\nOkay. Here are your three options:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "David Stackhoff replied:\nIf you keep thinking in terms of your individual, personal,\nexclusive benefit, you will never grasp the concept of the public good." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nI understand public good. I also understand the true meaning of shared \nresponsibility, and that there is no free lunch.\nLet me re-iterate the analogy I offered in the post you responded to:\n\n\"Say five citizens get together to fund\na new well. Hmmm...they could all pay the same amount to dig it, or they\ncould all pay the same percentage of their wealth, OR....they could vote\nthat Moe here--who also has a lake on his property so he doesn't need the\nwell---will pay for half of it because, after all, he can \"afford it\". How\nis that different from a two foxes and a hen voting on what to have for\nsupper?\"\n\nOf course, in a community of five this would never happen. The four would be \nashamed to force such an arrangement. But --as with Gloin in tDiaF who \nagreed to rob Phillip so long as Phillip would never know it was him--we do \nthis all the time in the privacy of the voting booth.\n\n---------------------------------------------------------\n\n\nI still don't think you get the sense of \"public\" I am referring to. Your scenario has nothing to do with it. It's an intangible---it's not a direct benefit. \n\nSomeone suggested public vs private education as an example, and it's a good one---although sharing of water so that no one goes thirsty would be a good one too, properly handled. When no one dies unnecessarily or goes uneducated, and there are no water riots, everyone benefits, obviously. Imagine a sign over your town that says \"___ YEARS SINCE A CIVIL WAR.\"\n\nA hypothetical town factory owner benefits from public education because he can hire intelligent, educated workers---so he happily pays his share of taxes, and he still gets to smoke his fine cigars and sail his yacht.\n\nSomehow your example gets short-circuited. Where did the part about the lake owner paying more come from? You may as well propose that the tall man eats more apples. It's a non sequitur.\n\n\n-------------------------------------------------------------------" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "I said:\nThis is actually is the most fair way. But, that's asking way too much \nfairness from a society of Fallen human beings. On the other hand, if the \npoor don't like it, I suppose they could move to Mogadishu." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": " \nYes, in their yachts." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nWell, the Boat People of Vietnam were a lot more destitute than the American \npoor, and somehow managed to pull off something similar." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "You're ignoring the fact that most personal wealth in the US is inherited.\nYou're also ignoring racism and classism. And your assumption that the \nfirst guy gets more benefit from services\nis unfounded and unproven. _" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nI do not believe the first statement is true. I'd like to see the numbers to \nback it up. I've heard just the opposite. Racism is illegal. I'm not sure \nhow you gauge classism, but I'm sure I've been as much a victim of it as \nanyone.\nAs for my assumption, who gets more benefit from a public transportation? \nThe top 1% who pay 22% of federal income taxes? The top 5% who pay 60%? Who \nbenefits the most from emergency room care? Who benefits the most from \neducation subsidies? Who benefits from public shelters, free public schools, \nand Earned Income Tax Credits?\n\n------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\n\nRacism is illegal?\n\nWhat?\n\nClassism, in this case, means \"Sure, I can find a spot for your boy on my investment bank team.\"\n\nWho benefits when thousands of people can get into town BY TRAIN to see a basketball game?\n\nThe poor? or the team owner?\n\nThink!\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "I asserted:\nDavid Stackhoff implied that he found the idea increased taxes appealing \nbecause he didn't think he'd pay the bulk of them (or any of them?)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": " \n\nI said nothing like that. I said I WANT TO PAY MORE TAXES. I want a bigger, \nbetter public \"space.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nI was drawing from this statement:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "\"As a result, I will pay more taxes. I want to pay more taxes.\nWhy? Because it's a deal. Because my city is broke. Because I believe in \nthe public good. Because I'm not rich.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n\nI took that to mean you expected to receive more from \"the public space\" \nthan the value of the taxes you were paying. Somebody would have to make up \nthat per-person difference. Sorry if I took that wrong.\n\n-----------------------------------------------------------\n\n\n\nNo. I meant that (even if everyone else earned the same amount and paid the same in taxes) I would still see the benefit of shared space and goods. (By \"space\" I mean both literal space and figurative or cultural space.) For one thing, there is the economy of scale, as for example when building a rail system, as well as collective bargaining power. How many trains could you build yourself? And it's cheaper than paying for a second car and gas. If I had to pay for everything (everything---think no health insurance) at (free) market rates, my family and I would starve and die. \n\n\n\n------------------------------------------------------------\n\nBut, you don't need to pass laws to pay more taxes. Just figure a what \npercentage of your income you are paying now and add 10%. I've never known a \ngovernment to turn down money.\n\nJ.\n\n \n\n\n\n------------------------------" } ] }, { "message_id": "<8CF5CBE95BE94F6592CD4A7215778B73@eMachinePC>", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2009-05-20T01:40:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 57, Issue 38", "in_reply_to": "<4A135013.5070803@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff: I still don't think you get the sense of \"public\" I am \nreferring to. Your scenario has nothing to do with it.\nIt's an intangible---it's not a direct benefit." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "How is a water well not a direct benefit?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "A hypothetical town factory owner benefits from public\neducation because he can hire intelligent, educated workers" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Does he benefit more than the people whose children are getting educated?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "---so he happily pays his share of taxes, and he still gets to\nsmoke his fine cigars and sail his yacht." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You're concept of the rich is colored by a preconception of Thurston Howell \nIII. Typically, an owner of a factory risked everything he had to get there \nand worked 14 hour days for years. He's might be well be strangers by the \ntime he can afford a yacht. All this to employ people who just want to get \ntheir checks on Friday and get home to the barbeque." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Someone suggested public vs private education as an example." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Why do you believe that something would not occur unless the government did \nit? You want to legislate that everyone spend a certain amount on schools? \nFine. Why does the government have to do it? In Europe, the money spent on \nchild schooling goes to the child. Why shouldn't a home-schooling parent \nget the money to stay home, buy school supplies, and send their child to \nintellectually enriching experiences?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Somehow your example gets short-circuited.\nWhere did the part about the lake owner paying\nmore come from?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Adam and I were discussing progressive income tax. And that is essentially \nthe foundation of the sort of system that Wolfe is excoriating in tDiaF. The \npoint is that the rich pay more. They are less reliant on public facilities. \nAnd they are out-voted." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Racism is illegal?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Errr...yes. I suppose an employer can certainly hold any view he wants \nprivately...very privately...but it's illegal for him to act on it. If he \nexpresses racist views in private, he opens himself to lawsuit even if he \ndoesn't actually do anything. So, yeah. Racism is illegal and socially \npersecuted. Not that I'm complaining about it, but we should face the truth \nfor what it is." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Classism, in this case, means \"Sure, I can find\na spot for your boy on my investment bank team.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This certainly happens for politicians. I'm thinking of VP Biden's son. But \nit's not the thoroughfare to success." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Who benefits when thousands of people can get into town BY TRAIN to see a \nbasketball game?\nThe poor? or the team owner?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "So you're saying the rich should pay for a \"public space\" to benefit the \nowners of a basketball team who probably don't even live locally. Oh yes! \nThe owners of a basketball team and the poor." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "No. I meant that (even if everyone else earned the same\namount and paid the same in taxes) I would still see the\nbenefit of shared space and goods." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But we don't pay the same amount in taxes. The top 5% pay 60% of the taxes. \nThat is situation Wolfe was portraying in tDiaF." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "For one thing, there is the economy of scale,\nas for example when building a rail system, as well\nas collective bargaining power. How many trains could you build yourself? \nAnd it's cheaper than paying for a second car and gas." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No passenger train has ever paid for itself. That's why its \"cheaper\". You \npay it in higher costs of everything you buy. Even if the government gave \nthe land and the materials, if the riders where charged the real cost to use \nit, they would get a second car. (I live in Austin, TX where three private \nrailway systems have started and failed in the last 120 years)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "If I had to pay for everything\n(everything---think no health insurance)\nat (free) market rates, my family and I would starve and die." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You're paying in higher costs, lower salaries, and lost opportunities. So am \nI. There is no perpetual motion machine and there is no free lunch. The only \nthing the Market does is tell you the real value and cost of things.\n\nLook I don't understand why this is so hard to get. You understand that if \nyou want more electric cars, you need to subsidize them, right? If you want \nfewer people to smoke, you tax the activity. Why is it so hard to understand \nthat if you want more of your populace to be financially independent, you \nneed to stop punishing them for it.\n\nJ.\n " } ] } ] }