If it’s his preference not to engage with you, then I think you should respect that.
Though I think he also has to respect your right to comment publicly on what he says, even if he doesn’t want to engage. Just talk about instead of to.
1 Like
I wasn’t aware that the Baptist was misquoting - I was taught that he was referencing Isaiah, just as Edward Abbey was referencing John. (I was going for all three, personally.)
Anyway, my sympathies have always been with Queen Vashti, and not with the various factions struggling to manipulate King Ahasuerus to promote their various tribes. The Esther story doesn’t work for me, other than as an interesting subject for historical research, because the setting is too complacently accepting of monarchy, sexism, slavery, and racism. Those features make a backdrop that disinclines me to draw moral values from such stories; I get too caught up in hating everyone who took advantage of Vashti’s pride.
2 Likes
I’m not suggesting that at all. I’m saying that more equality in real living conditions would eventually be reflected in currency markets. I guess I really meant it as an idle observation not a goal. Ultimately I don’t care about currency exchange rates, I just think it’s very foolish to suggest that someone who can’t afford rent and food in New York is wealthier than someone who can afford rent and food in Kenya because of currency exchanges. If living conditions were generally similar in different countries then I think currencies values would be more reflective of purchasing power, but that’s really just because some of the reasons currency prices are distorted would disappear.
I agree with that. If all your tax rates go up 1% then you’ll have less. But if you move to a country with a higher tax rate, you’ll find a lot of things are different, not just the tax rate. How to get from one place to another is a good question, but generally I think higher tax rates than the ones in the US (and Canada where I actually live) are better.
And that I expect. Warren Buffet argues he should have to pay more tax, but he doesn’t voluntarily do so. A big part of the problem is that the system is just too much of a game to be played. You are supposed to go hunting for deductions. But even when people game the system outside of the rules it seems our governments don’t really do anything about it if they have too much money. I think taxes ought to be higher, but even more than that extremely rich people who cheat on taxes ought to be prosecuted for doing so.
And I can understand that. I don’t think turning ours minds to violence every time we are frustrated is necessarily healthy or harmless escapism. That’s different than there being a real threat to the world’s wealthiest citizens from equality-minded forces. “Equality-minded” forces that have actually killed people in power and taken over in the past haven’t really ended up believing in equality very much when they get there anyway.
4 Likes
If Bernie doesn’t win the primary, start planning your emigration.
Yeah, I thought it was Cory before I checked.
Hardly! The only terrestrial reptilians are the unnatural-born reptilian overlords produced in the cloning vats under Area 51 by Majestic 12 xenofertility specialists.
1 Like
Me too! It has this fiery call-to-action thing going on that I’ve come to think of as Corey’s signature.
I’m in almost the same boat. It’s a pretty sweet place to be, as long as I avoid thinking about retirement. I guess I’ll probably inherit enough to get by on by then, though.
Dude, my senator is Darth Feinstein. I win this contest.
3 Likes
Sorry about the delayed response – you gave me a lot to think about.
Nor did I. I am posing hypotheticals for purely* philosophical reasons.
I was about to agree with you, but after some thought, I’m not so sure it’s so out of place. Arguably, the carceral state is the largest human rights disaster in the US today, and it’s a relatively new thing. Is the US judiciary system really better today than it was in, say, 1975? By what measures? We lock up a greater proportion of people for longer periods of time; more people are subjected to solitary confinement, which I believe would easily meet any reasonable definition of “cruel and unusual”. The use of prison labor is expanding. There have been at least a few cases where judges were taking payola from prison companies to fast track convictions and increase the severity of sentencing, and the for-profit prison companies relentlessly lobby Congress (and presumably state legislatures) to similar ends.
I might agree that the 20th century was the peak of fairness in judicial systems, but I’m not sure the last 40 years have continued the trend. And I have this sneaking suspicion that to the extent that the judicial system was as fair as ever in human history, it was in a direct response to the threat of mob justice in the form of the Labor and Civil Rights movements. I think we need to at least consider the possibility that the only way to make the “official” legal institutions more fair is for the mob to threaten to take matters into its own hands.
I disagree. Business regulations are laws that pertain to businesses. They’re even passed by Congress in the form of bills (or enacted by organizations instituted by Congress for that purpose).
Edit: This seems like an unproductive line of argument – it seems like splitting hairs to me. It seems to me that regulations serve the same social purpose as laws; if you disagree, I think the onus is on you to spell out the relevant distinctions.
*OK, not purely. I think this is something we’re going to have to work out collectively in the relatively short term if we don’t want our current age of “not quite as horrible as all those other times” to turn into a dark age ruled by warlords. I also think that if humans ever get it right – ie “actually quite nice” as opposed to “not quite as horrible” – it will be because they understood philosophical issues like this, discussed them like adults, and came up with reasonable solutions.
5 Likes
you said most of that better than i ever could have. i take issue, though, that every situation is one of moral superiority. ( unless you want to reduce everything by definition to a single motivation like ayn rand and selfishness. )
in most situations i think people are doing the best they can, given the information and experiences they have, to make good choices.
that’s why i fundamentally believe change can happen. not because the “good people” win out over the “bad people” – but because we can find common ground, and because we can change peoples minds by talking.
at the same time, there are people who knowingly take actions which enrich themselves at the direct expense of others – that’s what i call immoral, and that’s the category which i think applies to our current “1%”.
1 Like
every era is new, each in their own way. the part that resonates with me in what @ubuuntu said was –
Best we can do is regulate better - have broader bans on “tax evasion” (whatever the mechanism), so at least the healthy part of the system can do something about this - most importantly seize all the money and prosecute.
changing our culture is truly the best action. laws ( and the ways we enforce those laws ) are ( theoretically ) are an expression of our culture, a line in the sand we draw. if we see people getting prosecuted for their financial crimes, then that’s a telling sign our culture is changing.
but: the work is never done, because the times and the challenges are always changing. utopia really is no place.
1 Like
wait. but aren’t you already taxed more in tokyo? i thought there was a city tax? in the us there are municipal, state, and federal taxes: because each region has different needs.
[ granted, with commuting, telecommuting, and… amazon… the equation of work, residence, tax, and service doesn’t always work so well any more. ]
( edited to add: )
I dont want to be at because it would automatically trigger a higher tax band that would mean I earn less.
wait. what!? that’s not how progressive taxation works!
your whole income isn’t taxed at the higher rate. only the part that falls into the next band. you always earn more when your salary goes up. ( and, if you don’t: hire a better accountant! ) it’s the rate at which you gain that drops.
2 Likes
The winner gets voted ONTO the island… a very remote island, with no way off.
1 Like
Technology could allow this type of aggregation. For us peons though, it is more friction then we want to deal with given the amount we have at stake.
If you pay 10x in taxes what a peon makes in income, somewhere around there you will be willing to pay tax consultants to help you plan better.
Taxation still relies on a system that was largely developed to deal with tangible goods and entities that were inexorably tied to their geography.
You’re just not rich enough! 
1 Like
We’re all just a bunch of envious low achievers, apparently.
I think I’d rather have a mob representing the 99% than a mob representing the 1%.
1 Like
