|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 2, 2014 10:56:43 GMT
No, I have never broached the subject of racism in the workplace with my friend; but it is certainly not a function of my simply not having the "time" to do so, as you suggested. (She is pretty candid; and, although she is not entirely sanguine with all the mandatory overtime that is called--she has actually worked several seven-day weeks recently--she has never suggested that race is in any way a factor.) I cannot cite a single source, as regarding the mobility of the bottom quintile of income earners in America. However, I have heard this from both George Will and Charles Krauthammer (on FNC); and Thomas Sowell has made the very same point. I would resist the temptation (that seems to seduce so many on the left) to imagine that the economic pie is fixed; a.nd that one person's receiving a particularly large slice of this pie automatically translates into others receiving smaller slices of it. This is sometimes referred to as the politics of envy; and it is entirely inaccurate in its view of how the economy works, in my opinion.
I didn't mean to imply that you didn't have the time but merely mentioned it might be a good idea to take the time to discuss racism with your African-American friend. From what little you've said I believe she would be a good source of information because she could feel that she could be candid with you. Often blacks don't feel comfortable discussing racism with their white friends because of our lack of compassion. Would you accuse her of having a "victim" attitude if she told you some things about racism? I'm not implying you would but I seem to recall you have expressed a belief that if a black person complains about racial discrimination then they're playing the "victim" card.
So I merely suggest that perhaps it's a good subject to discuss but do so without preconceptions. Just listen without making any judgments about what she might be willing to share. Realize that it won't be easy for her to share because she's probably aware of your political ideology and she doesn't want to place you in an uncomfortable position because she is a good friend. In short just listen with a very open mind and be inquisitive as opposed to judgmental. You could learn a lot. If George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and Thomas Sowell are not citing sources then they are expressing opinion and not fact. Sometimes even the information being provided is highly deceiving. For example I've read that the percentage of people moving from the bottom quentile to the top quentile has remained relatively unchanged over time but realize this is a very small percentage of people. We can also read statistics about blacks moving up economically but, upon examination, that only relates to middle income blacks and not to those mired in the bottom 50% of all blacks. The bottom 50% of blacks are actually worse off today than they were in the 1960's.
I don't agree with the "fixed pie" belief either. If low income households receive more in income then they spend more on goods and services which increases the size of the pie. Where the pie doesn't increase in size is when the wealthy receive more in income because they don't spend that income on goods and services but instead invest it. Investments don't increase the GDP which is based upon the goods and services being consumed. That's a primary reason we're not seeing much of an expansion in the economy today. 95% of the "increase in income" since 2009 has gone to the top 1% and they don't spend that additional money on consumption so the "pie" isn't expanding.
One of the great misconceptions of the "right" is that they believe that poor people envy the wealthy and that really isn't the case. Most people are really very satisfied with just enough income to live comfortably on and really have no actual desire to be wealthy. Yes, they might dream of winning a Powerball jackpot but it really doesn't affect their satisfaction with life if they are simply living comfortabley. They don't really envy the wealthy because they really don't have the desire to be wealthy. Most people just want a good job that provides a reasonable income and that's all. They're not driven by greed but instead seek personal satisfaction with their own life.
Only a "greedy" person believes that someone with less would envy them because they're the ones that envy those with more wealth.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 2, 2014 11:07:25 GMT
If I can I'd like to return to the topic because recent "numbers" related to Obamacare are shocking. I understand that the insurance premiums for individuals enrolled through the insurance exchanges will be increasing from between about 8% to possibly as much as 20% for 2015. From what I understand this is exactly as predicted because not enough "low risk" people have enrolled yet so the costs are considerably higher than they should be if everyone enrolled.
It's still a huge financial hit and if we consider that the federal subsidies were based upon what a household could afford to pay then the household can't be expected to be able to pay even more in 2015. The only way this can be addressed is by increasing the subsidies to cover the increase in costs. That's going to impose a huge additional financial burden on the federal budget.
I don't know if it take Congressional action or not to increase the subsidies because I don't know the details of the law. I'm going to assume that it does though because it's an "expenditure" that must be authorized by Congress. That being the case is Congress going to authorize the increase in the subsidies or will Congress simply throw the people that took out insurance under Obamacare under the bus?
Do you have any thoughts on what Congress may do because of the huge increases in the costs of the insurance under Obamacare for 2015? So far I haven't seen any Congressional activity on this which indicates Congress may just throw the Americans affected under the bus.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 2, 2014 23:39:45 GMT
No, I have never broached the subject of racism in the workplace with my friend; but it is certainly not a function of my simply not having the "time" to do so, as you suggested. (She is pretty candid; and, although she is not entirely sanguine with all the mandatory overtime that is called--she has actually worked several seven-day weeks recently--she has never suggested that race is in any way a factor.) I cannot cite a single source, as regarding the mobility of the bottom quintile of income earners in America. However, I have heard this from both George Will and Charles Krauthammer (on FNC); and Thomas Sowell has made the very same point. I would resist the temptation (that seems to seduce so many on the left) to imagine that the economic pie is fixed; a.nd that one person's receiving a particularly large slice of this pie automatically translates into others receiving smaller slices of it. This is sometimes referred to as the politics of envy; and it is entirely inaccurate in its view of how the economy works, in my opinion.
I didn't mean to imply that you didn't have the time but merely mentioned it might be a good idea to take the time to discuss racism with your African-American friend. From what little you've said I believe she would be a good source of information because she could feel that she could be candid with you. Often blacks don't feel comfortable discussing racism with their white friends because of our lack of compassion. Would you accuse her of having a "victim" attitude if she told you some things about racism? I'm not implying you would but I seem to recall you have expressed a belief that if a black person complains about racial discrimination then they're playing the "victim" card.
So I merely suggest that perhaps it's a good subject to discuss but do so without preconceptions. Just listen without making any judgments about what she might be willing to share. Realize that it won't be easy for her to share because she's probably aware of your political ideology and she doesn't want to place you in an uncomfortable position because she is a good friend. In short just listen with a very open mind and be inquisitive as opposed to judgmental. You could learn a lot. If George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and Thomas Sowell are not citing sources then they are expressing opinion and not fact. Sometimes even the information being provided is highly deceiving. For example I've read that the percentage of people moving from the bottom quentile to the top quentile has remained relatively unchanged over time but realize this is a very small percentage of people. We can also read statistics about blacks moving up economically but, upon examination, that only relates to middle income blacks and not to those mired in the bottom 50% of all blacks. The bottom 50% of blacks are actually worse off today than they were in the 1960's.
I don't agree with the "fixed pie" belief either. If low income households receive more in income then they spend more on goods and services which increases the size of the pie. Where the pie doesn't increase in size is when the wealthy receive more in income because they don't spend that income on goods and services but instead invest it. Investments don't increase the GDP which is based upon the goods and services being consumed. That's a primary reason we're not seeing much of an expansion in the economy today. 95% of the "increase in income" since 2009 has gone to the top 1% and they don't spend that additional money on consumption so the "pie" isn't expanding.
One of the great misconceptions of the "right" is that they believe that poor people envy the wealthy and that really isn't the case. Most people are really very satisfied with just enough income to live comfortably on and really have no actual desire to be wealthy. Yes, they might dream of winning a Powerball jackpot but it really doesn't affect their satisfaction with life if they are simply living comfortabley. They don't really envy the wealthy because they really don't have the desire to be wealthy. Most people just want a good job that provides a reasonable income and that's all. They're not driven by greed but instead seek personal satisfaction with their own life.
Only a "greedy" person believes that someone with less would envy them because they're the ones that envy those with more wealth.
If my African-American friend were to complain of racism, I would be very surprised, indeed. She is not a complainer. In fact, she is less of a complainer and more of a hard worker than I have ever been. And she has never (even remotely) acted or spoken in a manner that might suggest she views herself as any sort of victim. She is probably aware (roughly, at least) of my center-right political leanings--not because of any serious discussions we have ever had about political philosophy, but because whenever she comes by and turns on the TV, it is very likely to be tuned to Fox News Channel--not to MSNBC (or even CNN). You are certainly free to dismiss the numbers cited by George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and Thomas Sowell, for lack of any sourcing, if you wish. But I would like to just make another point relevant to the discussion at hand: Thomas Sowell has noted that one trick often used by left-of-center theorists is to refer to steadily diminishing "household" income. But households are typically smaller than they were just a generation or two ago; so lesser "household" income does not necessarily translate into harder times for the residents of those households. And I really do not know why you might suppose that only "the top 1%" tend to invest a large portion of their money. My own income is only about 36k per year--does that make me a one-percenter, in your opinion?--yet I save my entire Social Security check each month; and I have invested in several different financial instruments (including, but not limited to, some lifetime annuities). Oh, I do agree, however, that the main thing is just to live comfortably--not to be incredibly wealthy. If $100 million were suddenly to fall into my lap--for good measure, make that $100 million after taxes--I simply cannot imagine how that might alter my life in any meaningful way. (I have not the slightest desire to reside in a mansion--that would simply swallow me--or to vacation in Bora Bora, or to do anything else that one ordinarily associates with the uber-rich.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 3, 2014 9:26:16 GMT
If my African-American friend were to complain of racism, I would be very surprised, indeed. She is not a complainer. In fact, she is less of a complainer and more of a hard worker than I have ever been. And she has never (even remotely) acted or spoken in a manner that might suggest she views herself as any sort of victim. She is probably aware (roughly, at least) of my center-right political leanings--not because of any serious discussions we have ever had about political philosophy, but because whenever she comes by and turns on the TV, it is very likely to be tuned to Fox News Channel--not to MSNBC (or even CNN). You are certainly free to dismiss the numbers cited by George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and Thomas Sowell, for lack of any sourcing, if you wish. But I would like to just make another point relevant to the discussion at hand: Thomas Sowell has noted that one trick often used by left-of-center theorists is to refer to steadily diminishing "household" income. But households are typically smaller than they were just a generation or two ago; so lesser "household" income does not necessarily translate into harder times for the residents of those households. And I really do not know why you might suppose that only "the top 1%" tend to invest a large portion of their money. My own income is only about 36k per year--does that make me a one-percenter, in your opinion?--yet I save my entire Social Security check each month; and I have invested in several different financial instruments (including, but not limited to, some lifetime annuities). Oh, I do agree, however, that the main thing is just to live comfortably--not to be incredibly wealthy. If $100 million were suddenly to fall into my lap--for good measure, make that $100 million after taxes--I simply cannot imagine how that might alter my life in any meaningful way. (I have not the slightest desire to reside in a mansion--that would simply swallow me--or to vacation in Bora Bora, or to do anything else that one ordinarily associates with the uber-rich.)
I don't believe that your friend would "complain" of racism and act like a victim but that doesn't imply she's unaware of it. Why is it that so many on the "right" believe that addressing racial discrimination is a "complaint of a victim" as opposed to just addressing reality? I'm not a victim of racial discrimination, in fact I've probably benefited from it, so obviously I'm not a victim and yet I still point out it exists. The problem is with those that believe that pointing out racial discrimination is reflective of complaints of a victim because blacks aren't playing the "victim" card at all. There pointing out facts that adversely affect them that they've been, like your friend, fighting to over come. When they tell us "the mountain is steep" it doesn't reflect that they're not trying to scale the mountain even when they reach a cliff they cannot climb. They keep on trying even though the task is far greater for them than it is for someone like me. I truly admire many of them because of their persistance against great adversity. Your friend is an example of that but she's been very fortunate to overcome many obsticles where others fail but that failure is not for lack of trying.
Once again you misunderstand. A person is very likely to invest income above what is required for them to "live comfortably" regardless of their comfort level. But realize that the top 1% often have far more income than they could even imagine spending on their personal comfort. You might have a windfall income and decide to take a trip to Europe or buy a new car. That would result in an increase in your spending on goods and services that fuels economic growth and create jobs. The super-wealthy are already taking the trips to Europe and buying new cars with their existing income so more income to them does not increase their spending so it doesn't create economic growth and create jobs. They simply end up with more money to invest and not to spend.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 3, 2014 18:09:58 GMT
If my African-American friend were to complain of racism, I would be very surprised, indeed. She is not a complainer. In fact, she is less of a complainer and more of a hard worker than I have ever been. And she has never (even remotely) acted or spoken in a manner that might suggest she views herself as any sort of victim. She is probably aware (roughly, at least) of my center-right political leanings--not because of any serious discussions we have ever had about political philosophy, but because whenever she comes by and turns on the TV, it is very likely to be tuned to Fox News Channel--not to MSNBC (or even CNN). You are certainly free to dismiss the numbers cited by George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and Thomas Sowell, for lack of any sourcing, if you wish. But I would like to just make another point relevant to the discussion at hand: Thomas Sowell has noted that one trick often used by left-of-center theorists is to refer to steadily diminishing "household" income. But households are typically smaller than they were just a generation or two ago; so lesser "household" income does not necessarily translate into harder times for the residents of those households. And I really do not know why you might suppose that only "the top 1%" tend to invest a large portion of their money. My own income is only about 36k per year--does that make me a one-percenter, in your opinion?--yet I save my entire Social Security check each month; and I have invested in several different financial instruments (including, but not limited to, some lifetime annuities). Oh, I do agree, however, that the main thing is just to live comfortably--not to be incredibly wealthy. If $100 million were suddenly to fall into my lap--for good measure, make that $100 million after taxes--I simply cannot imagine how that might alter my life in any meaningful way. (I have not the slightest desire to reside in a mansion--that would simply swallow me--or to vacation in Bora Bora, or to do anything else that one ordinarily associates with the uber-rich.)
I don't believe that your friend would "complain" of racism and act like a victim but that doesn't imply she's unaware of it. Why is it that so many on the "right" believe that addressing racial discrimination is a "complaint of a victim" as opposed to just addressing reality? I'm not a victim of racial discrimination, in fact I've probably benefited from it, so obviously I'm not a victim and yet I still point out it exists. The problem is with those that believe that pointing out racial discrimination is reflective of complaints of a victim because blacks aren't playing the "victim" card at all. There pointing out facts that adversely affect them that they've been, like your friend, fighting to over come. When they tell us "the mountain is steep" it doesn't reflect that they're not trying to scale the mountain even when they reach a cliff they cannot climb. They keep on trying even though the task is far greater for them than it is for someone like me. I truly admire many of them because of their persistance against great adversity. Your friend is an example of that but she's been very fortunate to overcome many obsticles where others fail but that failure is not for lack of trying.
Once again you misunderstand. A person is very likely to invest income above what is required for them to "live comfortably" regardless of their comfort level. But realize that the top 1% often have far more income than they could even imagine spending on their personal comfort. You might have a windfall income and decide to take a trip to Europe or buy a new car. That would result in an increase in your spending on goods and services that fuels economic growth and create jobs. The super-wealthy are already taking the trips to Europe and buying new cars with their existing income so more income to them does not increase their spending so it doesn't create economic growth and create jobs. They simply end up with more money to invest and not to spend.
And what is wrong with one's having "more money to invest," rather than with one's actually spending it? (If I were to have an enormous "windfall," I might-- might--purchase a new vehicle, since my current one is 10 years old; although I could really do that now, if I wished, by just paying cash for it. And I would have no desire to visit Europe--or any other exotic place--just by myself; that strikes me as an incredibly lonely venture.) Note: I will be absent for a few days--my friend and I will be going to visit her mother for the Fourth of July weekend--so I will be unable to make any posts until after I return; which should be sometime Sunday evening. I just wanted to give you a heads-up, so you will know why I am tardy in responding to your posts between Friday and Sunday. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 6, 2014 13:02:09 GMT
And what is wrong with one's having "more money to invest," rather than with one's actually spending it? (If I were to have an enormous "windfall," I might-- might--purchase a new vehicle, since my current one is 10 years old; although I could really do that now, if I wished, by just paying cash for it. And I would have no desire to visit Europe--or any other exotic place--just by myself; that strikes me as an incredibly lonely venture.) Note: I will be absent for a few days--my friend and I will be going to visit her mother for the Fourth of July weekend--so I will be unable to make any posts until after I return; which should be sometime Sunday evening. I just wanted to give you a heads-up, so you will know why I am tardy in responding to your posts between Friday and Sunday.
I hope you had a great 4th of July mini-vacation.
A little personal information about me that I don't mind sharing. My mother is a Daughter of the American Revolution (DAR) and she spent about 20 years doing research to document her family linkage to the American Revolution. She completed that when I was in my 30's and it was only then that I became deeply interested in the history of the American Revolution and more importantly in the Declaration of Independence (DOI). My favorite words in the DOI are those that express the Inalienable Rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" because that is really what life is all about. As you know I'm a "libertarian" which is based upon the belief in the Right of Liberty of the Person.
With that said several years ago I began ordering $2 bills from my bank because Thomas Jefferson is on the face and the signing of the Declaration of Independence is on the back. They are symbolic of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" and I use them for tipping purposes exclusively. Normally I order either $200 or $400 worth because it's really a pain in the butt for the bank to order them (they have to order $2,000 worth and then return whatever I don't take). I often take the time to explain to the person I tip why I use $2 bills for tips because it is a pleasure to share that American history and the ideals of America with them. That is never more pleasurable than on the 4th of July.
Back to your question about investing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an individual investing and, as you are aware, my privatization of Social Security proposal is based upon investing. Everyone working in American should have enough income to be able to live on without assistance so that they actually have a few dollars left over to invest.
My point would be that investment needs to be balanced with consumption because consumption creates the jobs that create the wealth for investing. Most investments, contrary to the popular belief, don't even fund enterprise but instead are secondary financial instruments. Even when the person purchases stock it rarely funds enterprise because they're just buying the stock from someone else and not from the corporation. Almost all investment in enterprise is from the profits of the enterprise created by the consumption of the goods and services the enterprise provides.
Consumption is the key to the expansion of the economy while investment is key to the expansion of individual wealth. They accomplish two different things. If we're talking about economic growth were talking about consumption driving it. If we're talking increasing personal wealth (beyond what our labor provides) then we're talking about investments. Of course without economic growth it imposes a severe limitation on increasing personal wealth. We need the economic growth because it creates the wealth. Investments just provide a secondary distribution of the net wealth being created by the workers. The workers have peremptory right to the wealth they create and the investor that should really only be profiting after the workers are adequately compensated for the wealth they create. The "labor" is a basic cost of the creation of wealth which is why the workers have a peremptory right to the wealth they create.
Without the worker there is no wealth at all.
As I've noted (and provided documentation on) the wealth creation since 2009 has basically all been channeled to the Investors. The fact is that 95% of all of the income increase since 2009 has gone to the top 1% that are investors and not workers. This is really an "out of balance" relationship between workers and investors. The workers are not seeing an increase in income that results in consumption while the wealthy investors that are already spending all they can really spend on consumption have seen their incomes increase by about 35% and all of that additional income is being re-invested resulting in no expansion of the ecomony, no real wealth creation, and no real jobs being created. Only low income jobs are being created because the "workers" can't afford anything that costs very much. You just can't afford to buy a new car working for the minimum wage and collecting welfare.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 7, 2014 23:51:41 GMT
And what is wrong with one's having "more money to invest," rather than with one's actually spending it? (If I were to have an enormous "windfall," I might-- might--purchase a new vehicle, since my current one is 10 years old; although I could really do that now, if I wished, by just paying cash for it. And I would have no desire to visit Europe--or any other exotic place--just by myself; that strikes me as an incredibly lonely venture.) Note: I will be absent for a few days--my friend and I will be going to visit her mother for the Fourth of July weekend--so I will be unable to make any posts until after I return; which should be sometime Sunday evening. I just wanted to give you a heads-up, so you will know why I am tardy in responding to your posts between Friday and Sunday.
I hope you had a great 4th of July mini-vacation.
A little personal information about me that I don't mind sharing. My mother is a Daughter of the American Revolution (DAR) and she spent about 20 years doing research to document her family linkage to the American Revolution. She completed that when I was in my 30's and it was only then that I became deeply interested in the history of the American Revolution and more importantly in the Declaration of Independence (DOI). My favorite words in the DOI are those that express the Inalienable Rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" because that is really what life is all about. As you know I'm a "libertarian" which is based upon the belief in the Right of Liberty of the Person.
With that said several years ago I began ordering $2 bills from my bank because Thomas Jefferson is on the face and the signing of the Declaration of Independence is on the back. They are symbolic of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" and I use them for tipping purposes exclusively. Normally I order either $200 or $400 worth because it's really a pain in the butt for the bank to order them (they have to order $2,000 worth and then return whatever I don't take). I often take the time to explain to the person I tip why I use $2 bills for tips because it is a pleasure to share that American history and the ideals of America with them. That is never more pleasurable than on the 4th of July.
Back to your question about investing. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an individual investing and, as you are aware, my privatization of Social Security proposal is based upon investing. Everyone working in American should have enough income to be able to live on without assistance so that they actually have a few dollars left over to invest.
My point would be that investment needs to be balanced with consumption because consumption creates the jobs that create the wealth for investing. Most investments, contrary to the popular belief, don't even fund enterprise but instead are secondary financial instruments. Even when the person purchases stock it rarely funds enterprise because they're just buying the stock from someone else and not from the corporation. Almost all investment in enterprise is from the profits of the enterprise created by the consumption of the goods and services the enterprise provides.
Consumption is the key to the expansion of the economy while investment is key to the expansion of individual wealth. They accomplish two different things. If we're talking about economic growth were talking about consumption driving it. If we're talking increasing personal wealth (beyond what our labor provides) then we're talking about investments. Of course without economic growth it imposes a severe limitation on increasing personal wealth. We need the economic growth because it creates the wealth. Investments just provide a secondary distribution of the net wealth being created by the workers. The workers have peremptory right to the wealth they create and the investor that should really only be profiting after the workers are adequately compensated for the wealth they create. The "labor" is a basic cost of the creation of wealth which is why the workers have a peremptory right to the wealth they create.
Without the worker there is no wealth at all.
As I've noted (and provided documentation on) the wealth creation since 2009 has basically all been channeled to the Investors. The fact is that 95% of all of the income increase since 2009 has gone to the top 1% that are investors and not workers. This is really an "out of balance" relationship between workers and investors. The workers are not seeing an increase in income that results in consumption while the wealthy investors that are already spending all they can really spend on consumption have seen their incomes increase by about 35% and all of that additional income is being re-invested resulting in no expansion of the ecomony, no real wealth creation, and no real jobs being created. Only low income jobs are being created because the "workers" can't afford anything that costs very much. You just can't afford to buy a new car working for the minimum wage and collecting welfare.
First, let me say that I appreciate your sharing of the personal information. (I can certainly understand why you would wish to tip with bills showing the face of Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence.) In this regard, I should probably note that Stuart Varney (who is on Fox Business Network, and who also appears occasionally on Fox News Channel) really impressed me, just the other day, with his obvious patriotism. (He is originally from Britain, although he has resided in the US--and has been a citizen here--for quite a few years.) His enthusiasm for the Fourth of July celebrations was quite remarkable. I thoroughly agree with your observation that "[c]onsumption is the key to the expansion of the economy while investment is the key to the expansion of individual wealth." I suppose this all comes back to the inherent tension between the so-called "micro" and the "macro": What is best for the individual may be at cross-purposes with what is best for the overall economy. And I tend to come down in favor of the former, whenever the two are not the same. I do find it most regrettable, however, that our so-called "consumer economy" is predicated upon debt; which is to say, in order for it to be considered sufficiently robust, many consumers must spend money that they have not yet earned (or acquired through investments, or in any other manner). On this point, I entirely agree with the financial counselor, Dave Ramsey. (Although I am not quite so fundamentalist as Mr. Ramsey is--for instance, I do not entirely eschew all credit-card usage, as Mr. Ramsey does, irrespective of the prevailing circumstances--I do agree with him that debt is a very bad thing; and that if one is unable to pay cash for an item, one is usually better off waiting until one can do so, before purchasing it. There are a few exceptions to this general rule, I believe--if it would save a rather substantial amount of money by purchasing now (as with purchasing a house, rather than pouring money down a rat hole by paying rent); or if it is a virtual necessity (as with a reliable car or other motorized vehicle), I would prefer to avoid a hard-and-fast approach to this rule. But in most other instances, it really should apply, I believe. I just do not agree with your assessment that the "creat[ors]" of wealth have an inherent "right" to a significant percentage of their creation. If they feel that they are not being compensated fairly, they ought to simply look for a job that compensates them more satisfactorily. And if they cannot find such a job, it is probably because their respective skillsets are not very impressive; so they should then seek to upgrade those skillsets. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 8, 2014 9:19:48 GMT
First, let me say that I appreciate your sharing of the personal information. (I can certainly understand why you would wish to tip with bills showing the face of Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence.) In this regard, I should probably note that Stuart Varney (who is on Fox Business Network, and who also appears occasionally on Fox News Channel) really impressed me, just the other day, with his obvious patriotism. (He is originally from Britain, although he has resided in the US--and has been a citizen here--for quite a few years.) His enthusiasm for the Fourth of July celebrations was quite remarkable. I thoroughly agree with your observation that "[c]onsumption is the key to the expansion of the economy while investment is the key to the expansion of individual wealth." I suppose this all comes back to the inherent tension between the so-called "micro" and the "macro": What is best for the individual may be at cross-purposes with what is best for the overall economy. And I tend to come down in favor of the former, whenever the two are not the same. I do find it most regrettable, however, that our so-called "consumer economy" is predicated upon debt; which is to say, in order for it to be considered sufficiently robust, many consumers must spend money that they have not yet earned (or acquired through investments, or in any other manner). On this point, I entirely agree with the financial counselor, Dave Ramsey. (Although I am not quite so fundamentalist as Mr. Ramsey is--for instance, I do not entirely eschew all credit-card usage, as Mr. Ramsey does, irrespective of the prevailing circumstances--I do agree with him that debt is a very bad thing; and that if one is unable to pay cash for an item, one is usually better off waiting until one can do so, before purchasing it. There are a few exceptions to this general rule, I believe--if it would save a rather substantial amount of money by purchasing now (as with purchasing a house, rather than pouring money down a rat hole by paying rent); or if it is a virtual necessity (as with a reliable car or other motorized vehicle), I would prefer to avoid a hard-and-fast approach to this rule. But in most other instances, it really should apply, I believe. I just do not agree with your assessment that the "creat[ors]" of wealth have an inherent "right" to a significant percentage of their creation. If they feel that they are not being compensated fairly, they ought to simply look for a job that compensates them more satisfactorily. And if they cannot find such a job, it is probably because their respective skillsets are not very impressive; so they should then seek to upgrade those skillsets.
We do share a lot in common because I've avoided debt virtually all of my life with a mortgage being my primary "debt" with only two other major purchases (my Harley and Fiat) being the other loans I've used. I do use a credit card for the cash back rewards but pay it off every month and always have the money to do that.
I few interesting facts I'd out.
Roughly 20% of all jobs pay below what it costs for a person's basic needs and that is not going to change. If every worker obtained a PhD in physics or engineering 20% of them would be forced to work at these jobs that don't provide adequate income and they'd be forced to "beg" for assistance after they got off from work. The "burger-flipper" jobs are going to exist regardless of the skills or education of the work force and all we'd end up with are people with PhD's flipping burgers.
So we can say all we want about a person improving their skillsets but in the end 20% or so of the workers are going to be forced to live in poverty regardless of the skillsets they acquire because 20% of the jobs pay poverty level wages.
Next I'd point you towards John Locke's Second Treatise of Government Chapter V that addresses the Right of Property because it brings up a serious consideration. Income, after all, is about the Right of Property.
www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm
I won't quote Locke but I will paraphrase part of his argument's. He puts forward that in the natural state a man has a right to that which he produces with his labor and that it is man's labor provides for his survival and comfort. If a man works all day they're expending that labor to provide for their "survival and comfort" and they have a Natural Right to that survival and comfort based upon that labor. No one has a "Right" to the labor of another person and when we do employ another person then it's our responsibility to ensure that by using their labor it will provide for their "survival and comfort" because they have a Natural Right to survival and comfort based upon their labor.
Of course Locke was referring to a time when a person could choose to live off the land as opposed to working to someone else and we can no longer do that today but the principle doesn't change. The employer has to offer more than what a person could do based upon living off of nature as if the ability to live off of the land in a natural state still existed. When we talk about a voluntary employment contract it is only valid if the person were able to live off of the land and could refuse the employment contract if it didn't provide a benefit above and beyond living off of the land. Why would someone work for less than they could achieve by living off of the land?
The problem arose when we removed the ability of a person to live off of the land and it is a problem that can't be ignored because it deals with the natural (inalienable) rights of the person to provide for their survival and comfort based upon their labor. We've taken away the person's ability to provide for their survival and comfort with their labor in a natural state.
You see the issue goes much deeper with me because I'm looking at it from a fundamental "natural rights" perspective where the person is supposed to be able to live in a natural state but that natural state does not exist. The "Right" to survival and comfort based upon the labor of the person still exists.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 8, 2014 9:39:56 GMT
Getting back to the topic of this thread (that we often deviate from because no one else is here) the news on Obamacare isn't looking good. Two issues have come to the forefront recently that perhaps you will address.
First is that the anticipated rate increases for the individual health insurance policies are expected to rise between 8% to as much as 20% for 2015. That is a huge increase. When the subsidies were created they were based upon what it was anticipated the individual could pay out of pocket for health insurance and the amount that they can pay out of pocket hasn't changed. Logically the subsidies would have to be increased to cover the increased premiums because the "person" with the same income can't afford to pay anymore than they're currently paying out of pocket. If the subsidies aren't increased then logically many will be forced to drop the insurance they have.
So what's your opinion. Should Congress raise the subsidies so that these people can still afford the health insurance or should Congress ignore the rate increases and bascially through these people under the bus?
Next is a lawsuit contending that those that received the subsidies under the federal exchange are not entitled to them because the law uses the word "State" as opposed to "Act" when it addresses the subsidies. When passed the Democrats thought that the States would all create their own health care exchanges because Repulbicans always insisted that the "States" should be more responsible for taking care of the people. The "state exchange" provisions were actually included to bring Republicans on-board with the ACA but that backfired when Republican States refused to set-up their own exchanges instead dumping that responsibility on the federal government instead.
Personally the word "State" to me can mean either literally the individual state government or in a more general sense can also refer to the government in general. If it refers to an individual state then the lawsuit will succeed resulting in about 6 million Americans losing their health insurance subsidies forcing them to drop their insurance. If the general definition of "state" as referring to government in general is applied they the subsidies are legal.
What's your opinion on this. Should the wording be referenced in the context of the individual states or in the general context of referring to government at any level?
Next, if the subsidies are ruled unlawful should the Congress immediately amend the ACA so that it covers insurance through the federal exchanges or, once agian, throw the people with the insurance policies under the bus because they won't be able to afford the insurance without the subsidies?
These are pretty tough questions to answer IMO but do reflect problems with the ACA that wouldn't exist based upon my proposal that we should only have an "employer mandate" that addresses all of the workers of all enterprises based upon their labor. I know that you don't approve of my proposal but these problems wouldn't exist based upon my proposal so my proposal does have a significant advantage over the ACA related to this problems. |
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 9, 2014 0:35:17 GMT
First, let me say that I appreciate your sharing of the personal information. (I can certainly understand why you would wish to tip with bills showing the face of Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence.) In this regard, I should probably note that Stuart Varney (who is on Fox Business Network, and who also appears occasionally on Fox News Channel) really impressed me, just the other day, with his obvious patriotism. (He is originally from Britain, although he has resided in the US--and has been a citizen here--for quite a few years.) His enthusiasm for the Fourth of July celebrations was quite remarkable. I thoroughly agree with your observation that "[c]onsumption is the key to the expansion of the economy while investment is the key to the expansion of individual wealth." I suppose this all comes back to the inherent tension between the so-called "micro" and the "macro": What is best for the individual may be at cross-purposes with what is best for the overall economy. And I tend to come down in favor of the former, whenever the two are not the same. I do find it most regrettable, however, that our so-called "consumer economy" is predicated upon debt; which is to say, in order for it to be considered sufficiently robust, many consumers must spend money that they have not yet earned (or acquired through investments, or in any other manner). On this point, I entirely agree with the financial counselor, Dave Ramsey. (Although I am not quite so fundamentalist as Mr. Ramsey is--for instance, I do not entirely eschew all credit-card usage, as Mr. Ramsey does, irrespective of the prevailing circumstances--I do agree with him that debt is a very bad thing; and that if one is unable to pay cash for an item, one is usually better off waiting until one can do so, before purchasing it. There are a few exceptions to this general rule, I believe--if it would save a rather substantial amount of money by purchasing now (as with purchasing a house, rather than pouring money down a rat hole by paying rent); or if it is a virtual necessity (as with a reliable car or other motorized vehicle), I would prefer to avoid a hard-and-fast approach to this rule. But in most other instances, it really should apply, I believe. I just do not agree with your assessment that the "creat[ors]" of wealth have an inherent "right" to a significant percentage of their creation. If they feel that they are not being compensated fairly, they ought to simply look for a job that compensates them more satisfactorily. And if they cannot find such a job, it is probably because their respective skillsets are not very impressive; so they should then seek to upgrade those skillsets.
We do share a lot in common because I've avoided debt virtually all of my life with a mortgage being my primary "debt" with only two other major purchases (my Harley and Fiat) being the other loans I've used. I do use a credit card for the cash back rewards but pay it off every month and always have the money to do that.
I few interesting facts I'd out.
Roughly 20% of all jobs pay below what it costs for a person's basic needs and that is not going to change. If every worker obtained a PhD in physics or engineering 20% of them would be forced to work at these jobs that don't provide adequate income and they'd be forced to "beg" for assistance after they got off from work. The "burger-flipper" jobs are going to exist regardless of the skills or education of the work force and all we'd end up with are people with PhD's flipping burgers.
So we can say all we want about a person improving their skillsets but in the end 20% or so of the workers are going to be forced to live in poverty regardless of the skillsets they acquire because 20% of the jobs pay poverty level wages.
Next I'd point you towards John Locke's Second Treatise of Government Chapter V that addresses the Right of Property because it brings up a serious consideration. Income, after all, is about the Right of Property.
www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm
I won't quote Locke but I will paraphrase part of his argument's. He puts forward that in the natural state a man has a right to that which he produces with his labor and that it is man's labor provides for his survival and comfort. If a man works all day they're expending that labor to provide for their "survival and comfort" and they have a Natural Right to that survival and comfort based upon that labor. No one has a "Right" to the labor of another person and when we do employ another person then it's our responsibility to ensure that by using their labor it will provide for their "survival and comfort" because they have a Natural Right to survival and comfort based upon their labor.
Of course Locke was referring to a time when a person could choose to live off the land as opposed to working to someone else and we can no longer do that today but the principle doesn't change. The employer has to offer more than what a person could do based upon living off of nature as if the ability to live off of the land in a natural state still existed. When we talk about a voluntary employment contract it is only valid if the person were able to live off of the land and could refuse the employment contract if it didn't provide a benefit above and beyond living off of the land. Why would someone work for less than they could achieve by living off of the land?
The problem arose when we removed the ability of a person to live off of the land and it is a problem that can't be ignored because it deals with the natural (inalienable) rights of the person to provide for their survival and comfort based upon their labor. We've taken away the person's ability to provide for their survival and comfort with their labor in a natural state.
You see the issue goes much deeper with me because I'm looking at it from a fundamental "natural rights" perspective where the person is supposed to be able to live in a natural state but that natural state does not exist. The "Right" to survival and comfort based upon the labor of the person still exists.
Your reasoning is rather trenchant; I just do not happen to agree with your conclusion. But more about that in a moment. Yes, we do have a great deal in common, in terms of financial planning: Like you, I have all my credit cards setup for automatic debit of the full amount each month. (I principally use my Discover Card, as it gives me a little cash back every few months; although I use my Visa and MasterCard at least once a year each, in order to keep them active, just in case I come upon an establishment that does not accept Discover.) But back to your point as concerning John Locke's argumentation: I am generally a big fan of John Locke--his writings, after all, undergird our Declaration of Independence--but I would not wish to march in lockstep with anyone. Not even someone whom I very much admire. Yes, there will always be hamburger flippers--and garbagemen (sorry: "sanitation engineers"), and others of very limited skills--but if those who are doing these menial jobs in their youth were subsequently to acquire rather impressive skillsets, they could leave those jobs, in favor of much better ones; and other young people could then fill these (abandoned) jobs. And those who then would be holding these jobs--presumably, too young to be married, in most cases; and perhaps even still living with their parents--would not consider the wages to be of a poverty level. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 9, 2014 12:07:18 GMT
Your reasoning is rather trenchant; I just do not happen to agree with your conclusion. But more about that in a moment. Yes, we do have a great deal in common, in terms of financial planning: Like you, I have all my credit cards setup for automatic debit of the full amount each month. (I principally use my Discover Card, as it gives me a little cash back every few months; although I use my Visa and MasterCard at least once a year each, in order to keep them active, just in case I come upon an establishment that does not accept Discover.) But back to your point as concerning John Locke's argumentation: I am generally a big fan of John Locke--his writings, after all, undergird our Declaration of Independence--but I would not wish to march in lockstep with anyone. Not even someone whom I very much admire. Yes, there will always be hamburger flippers--and garbagemen (sorry: "sanitation engineers"), and others of very limited skills--but if those who are doing these menial jobs in their youth were subsequently to acquire rather impressive skillsets, they could leave those jobs, in favor of much better ones; and other young people could then fill these (abandoned) jobs. And those who then would be holding these jobs--presumably, too young to be married, in most cases; and perhaps even still living with their parents--would not consider the wages to be of a poverty level.
Like you I'm also a huge fan of John Locke but I also look with a critical eye at what he said. I'm very good at logical deduction and when I look at Locke's arguments, excluding his invocation of Biblical beliefs that are unnecessary and which the founders of American like Jefferson fundamentally ignored (i.e. reflected by the change from "natural" to "inalienable" rights), his arguments are compelling. What we need to understand though is that his arguments were contemporary to his time and times have changed. We need to update his arguments and our arguments need to be contemporary to our times but just as compelling.
For examply in his arguments he put forward the proposition that the acquisition of land by a person "mixing their labor with the land to make it unique to them" was limited because a person could only physically mix their labor with a very limited amount of land so that there would always be "enough, and as good as" left for all other people. He didn't account for two factors in his argument.
First if all he didn't account for the fact that technology would mulitply the effects of the labor of the person. Instead of a person using perhaps 40 acres to provide for their "survival and comfort" a person with a John Deere tractor can farm hundreds and hundreds of acres and it's not just for their survival and comfort but instead it's to reap huge profits from the surplus they can create. The large scale farmer today actually threatens the small scale farmer's ability to provide for their survival and comfort as I'm sure you're aware of.
Next is that instead of individuals claiming "one piece of land" there was a multiplier effect of the claiming of land. A person would "mix their labor" with a piece of land then sell it and claim another so instead of one they'd claimed two. The "wealthy" came along and purchased multiple pieces of land from individuals while the individuals just went out and claimed another piece of land. Watch the math on this.
Person A and Person B are each entitled to (1) piece of land under Locke's argument. Person A sells their land to Person B so Person B now has (2) pieces of land and then Person A claims another piece of land for a total of (3) pieces of land. This happens again and now Person B has (3) pieces of land and Person A, after claiming a new piece of land, has (1) for a total of (4) pieces of land but between the two of them they're only entitled to (2) pieces of land.
That is twice the land allocated per person based upon Locke's arguments and we quickly run out of available land so that not "enough, and as good as" remains in the "common" for the rest of society. When not "enough, and as good as" remains then the Rights of the Common have been violated. No Right can exist when it violates the Rights of others and the argument for the Right of Property based upon the Labor of the Person breaks down. Person B above would arguably be violating the Rights of the Common by "owning" (3) pieces of land instead of just one.
It is an interesting problem to address and it should be addressed even though I haven't come up with the right compelling argument as to what to do about it. I'm getting close though because I'm addressing the fact that a problem does exist. This doesn't even take into account the fact that people have been granted "title" to land and natural resources by our government based upon the "Divine Right of Kings" where they never mixed "labor with the land" to make it unique to them, establishing a Right of Property, under Locke's arguments.
You like Locke enough that I can give you something to think about when it comes to employment compensation. Ponder the following.
Under Locke's arguments a person has a Right to provide for their survival and comfort by expending their labor in a natural state. That could be accomplished either by the settler that claims land based upon the mixing of their labor with it or by the nomad harvesting the bounty of nature. Through their Labor, that they own, they have a Right of Survival and Comfort living in a natural state.
Now let's introduce employment. The employer does not have a Right to someone else's labor but they can offer another person an alternative to living in a natural state by working for them and being compensated for that labor. The person (prospective employee) has a choice of working in a natural state to provide for their survival and comfort or of working for someone else to provide for their survival and comfort. If the employer doesn't offer superior "survival and comfort" then the person would logically choose to live in a "natural state" as opposed to working for someone else. The key being that the person has a choice of living in a natural state to provide for their survival and comfort or of working for someone else to provide for their survival and comfort and there is no force or coersion related to their decision. They can freely make a choice between the two alternatives.
The problem today is that the choice of living in a natural state no longer exists. A person can't live a nomadic life roaming open lands surviving off of the wild game and plants because few open lands remain and they can't go out and claim 40 acres of bottomland and start farming it because the lands are all allocated. The ability to "choose freely between living in a natural state or of working for someone else" no longer exists. Because the employer no longer has to offer superior "survival and comfort" to the person that they could achieve in a natural state the "compensation" has slowly been eroding away to the point that the labor of the person no longer provides for their suvival and comfort in roughly 20% (or more) of all jobs.
The person can no longer make a decision on whether they want to work for someone or exercise their inalienable (natural) Right to provide for their own survival and comfort by living off of the land. They have to work for another person or starve.
Some people try to say that this person can simply start their own business but that is a false argument because that person is still working for others (i.e. their customers). When we refer to living in the "natural state" is living based upon nature without commerce at all.
This is why I claim that there is coercion in an employment contract today for many because they don't have the freedom to choose between living in a natural state where they can provide for their own survival and comfort but must instead always work for someone else where that employer does not provide enough compensation to provide for the person's survival and comfort.
"Coercion" violates the Law of Contract and invalidates the contract so, ultimately, we have a violation of contract law related to millions of "employment" contracts.
Once again the roots of this argument is based upon the compelling arguments of John Locke on "Property" in his Second Treatise of Government where our Rights are established based upon "natural law" because we're living in a state where the "natural laws" are being violated and that violates the Rights of the Person. We don't have any "Rights" where the "Rights" of any other person are being violated.
This is an interesting line of logical reasoning that I suggest you explore because it can dramatically alter a person's opinions. I know that it altered my opinions much to the disfavor of other libertatians.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 10, 2014 0:27:23 GMT
Your reasoning is rather trenchant; I just do not happen to agree with your conclusion. But more about that in a moment. Yes, we do have a great deal in common, in terms of financial planning: Like you, I have all my credit cards setup for automatic debit of the full amount each month. (I principally use my Discover Card, as it gives me a little cash back every few months; although I use my Visa and MasterCard at least once a year each, in order to keep them active, just in case I come upon an establishment that does not accept Discover.) But back to your point as concerning John Locke's argumentation: I am generally a big fan of John Locke--his writings, after all, undergird our Declaration of Independence--but I would not wish to march in lockstep with anyone. Not even someone whom I very much admire. Yes, there will always be hamburger flippers--and garbagemen (sorry: "sanitation engineers"), and others of very limited skills--but if those who are doing these menial jobs in their youth were subsequently to acquire rather impressive skillsets, they could leave those jobs, in favor of much better ones; and other young people could then fill these (abandoned) jobs. And those who then would be holding these jobs--presumably, too young to be married, in most cases; and perhaps even still living with their parents--would not consider the wages to be of a poverty level.
Like you I'm also a huge fan of John Locke but I also look with a critical eye at what he said. I'm very good at logical deduction and when I look at Locke's arguments, excluding his invocation of Biblical beliefs that are unnecessary and which the founders of American like Jefferson fundamentally ignored (i.e. reflected by the change from "natural" to "inalienable" rights), his arguments are compelling. What we need to understand though is that his arguments were contemporary to his time and times have changed. We need to update his arguments and our arguments need to be contemporary to our times but just as compelling.
For examply in his arguments he put forward the proposition that the acquisition of land by a person "mixing their labor with the land to make it unique to them" was limited because a person could only physically mix their labor with a very limited amount of land so that there would always be "enough, and as good as" left for all other people. He didn't account for two factors in his argument.
First if all he didn't account for the fact that technology would mulitply the effects of the labor of the person. Instead of a person using perhaps 40 acres to provide for their "survival and comfort" a person with a John Deere tractor can farm hundreds and hundreds of acres and it's not just for their survival and comfort but instead it's to reap huge profits from the surplus they can create. The large scale farmer today actually threatens the small scale farmer's ability to provide for their survival and comfort as I'm sure you're aware of.
Next is that instead of individuals claiming "one piece of land" there was a multiplier effect of the claiming of land. A person would "mix their labor" with a piece of land then sell it and claim another so instead of one they'd claimed two. The "wealthy" came along and purchased multiple pieces of land from individuals while the individuals just went out and claimed another piece of land. Watch the math on this.
Person A and Person B are each entitled to (1) piece of land under Locke's argument. Person A sells their land to Person B so Person B now has (2) pieces of land and then Person A claims another piece of land for a total of (3) pieces of land. This happens again and now Person B has (3) pieces of land and Person A, after claiming a new piece of land, has (1) for a total of (4) pieces of land but between the two of them they're only entitled to (2) pieces of land.
That is twice the land allocated per person based upon Locke's arguments and we quickly run out of available land so that not "enough, and as good as" remains in the "common" for the rest of society. When not "enough, and as good as" remains then the Rights of the Common have been violated. No Right can exist when it violates the Rights of others and the argument for the Right of Property based upon the Labor of the Person breaks down. Person B above would arguably be violating the Rights of the Common by "owning" (3) pieces of land instead of just one.
It is an interesting problem to address and it should be addressed even though I haven't come up with the right compelling argument as to what to do about it. I'm getting close though because I'm addressing the fact that a problem does exist. This doesn't even take into account the fact that people have been granted "title" to land and natural resources by our government based upon the "Divine Right of Kings" where they never mixed "labor with the land" to make it unique to them, establishing a Right of Property, under Locke's arguments.
You like Locke enough that I can give you something to think about when it comes to employment compensation. Ponder the following.
Under Locke's arguments a person has a Right to provide for their survival and comfort by expending their labor in a natural state. That could be accomplished either by the settler that claims land based upon the mixing of their labor with it or by the nomad harvesting the bounty of nature. Through their Labor, that they own, they have a Right of Survival and Comfort living in a natural state.
Now let's introduce employment. The employer does not have a Right to someone else's labor but they can offer another person an alternative to living in a natural state by working for them and being compensated for that labor. The person (prospective employee) has a choice of working in a natural state to provide for their survival and comfort or of working for someone else to provide for their survival and comfort. If the employer doesn't offer superior "survival and comfort" then the person would logically choose to live in a "natural state" as opposed to working for someone else. The key being that the person has a choice of living in a natural state to provide for their survival and comfort or of working for someone else to provide for their survival and comfort and there is no force or coersion related to their decision. They can freely make a choice between the two alternatives.
The problem today is that the choice of living in a natural state no longer exists. A person can't live a nomadic life roaming open lands surviving off of the wild game and plants because few open lands remain and they can't go out and claim 40 acres of bottomland and start farming it because the lands are all allocated. The ability to "choose freely between living in a natural state or of working for someone else" no longer exists. Because the employer no longer has to offer superior "survival and comfort" to the person that they could achieve in a natural state the "compensation" has slowly been eroding away to the point that the labor of the person no longer provides for their suvival and comfort in roughly 20% (or more) of all jobs.
The person can no longer make a decision on whether they want to work for someone or exercise their inalienable (natural) Right to provide for their own survival and comfort by living off of the land. They have to work for another person or starve.
Some people try to say that this person can simply start their own business but that is a false argument because that person is still working for others (i.e. their customers). When we refer to living in the "natural state" is living based upon nature without commerce at all.
This is why I claim that there is coercion in an employment contract today for many because they don't have the freedom to choose between living in a natural state where they can provide for their own survival and comfort but must instead always work for someone else where that employer does not provide enough compensation to provide for the person's survival and comfort.
"Coercion" violates the Law of Contract and invalidates the contract so, ultimately, we have a violation of contract law related to millions of "employment" contracts.
Once again the roots of this argument is based upon the compelling arguments of John Locke on "Property" in his Second Treatise of Government where our Rights are established based upon "natural law" because we're living in a state where the "natural laws" are being violated and that violates the Rights of the Person. We don't have any "Rights" where the "Rights" of any other person are being violated.
This is an interesting line of logical reasoning that I suggest you explore because it can dramatically alter a person's opinions. I know that it altered my opinions much to the disfavor of other libertatians.
First, let me say that I am not sure why you might imagine that there is currently just not enough land to go around, to satisfy those who would wish to purchase an acre or two (or more) of land, if only it were available. And I am also uncertain as to why you might suppose that starting one's own business is a "false" alternative to working for someone else. (Yes, the business's success is ultimately dependent upon its customers. But there are no guarantees in life; and a businessperson would be well advised to do his or her best to attract as many customers as possible, and then keep them happy.) |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 13, 2014 20:12:37 GMT
First, let me say that I am not sure why you might imagine that there is currently just not enough land to go around, to satisfy those who would wish to purchase an acre or two (or more) of land, if only it were available. And I am also uncertain as to why you might suppose that starting one's own business is a "false" alternative to working for someone else. (Yes, the business's success is ultimately dependent upon its customers. But there are no guarantees in life; and a businessperson would be well advised to do his or her best to attract as many customers as possible, and then keep them happy.)
John Locke's arguments for "Natural Rights" are based upon man living in nature and not in a world of commerce. There has to be enough (and as good as) land left for a person to go out into nature and through their labor acquire ownership of their own plot of land to live off of. It cannot be dependent upon them having to purchase it from someone else but instead must be "free land" that they could establish ownership by they labor. Additionally there must also be enough land left for the "nomad" to live off of the natural resources (plants and wildlife).
That does not exist. There isn't "enough" good free land for million of individuals to start a small family farm to provide for their needs much less enough unclaimed wilderness for hundreds of millions of Americans to live off of the natural resources (plants and animals).
Based upon Locke's arguments a person acquires land with "sweat equity" and it isn't a one-time investment to own it. It is an ongoing investment of sweat equity. It they stop farming the land then it reverts back to ownership by the "common" which is all people.
There is no "Right of Commerce" without first understanding the Right of Property as it relates to land and natural resources.
I don't think people read Locke's Second Treatise of Government Chapter V and actually try to understand Locke's arguments. They only read enough to rationalize what they want to believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by pjohns1873 on Jul 13, 2014 23:16:35 GMT
It First, let me say that I am not sure why you might imagine that there is currently just not enough land to go around, to satisfy those who would wish to purchase an acre or two (or more) of land, if only it were available. And I am also uncertain as to why you might suppose that starting one's own business is a "false" alternative to working for someone else. (Yes, the business's success is ultimately dependent upon its customers. But there are no guarantees in life; and a businessperson would be well advised to do his or her best to attract as many customers as possible, and then keep them happy.) John Locke's arguments for "Natural Rights" are based upon man living in nature and not in a world of commerce. There has to be enough (and as good as) land left for a person to go out into nature and through their labor acquire ownership of their own plot of land to live off of. It cannot be dependent upon them having to purchase it from someone else but instead must be "free land" that they could establish ownership by they labor. Additionally there must also be enough land left for the "nomad" to live off of the natural resources (plants and wildlife).
That does not exist. There isn't "enough" good free land for million of individuals to start a small family farm to provide for their needs much less enough unclaimed wilderness for hundreds of millions of Americans to live off of the natural resources (plants and animals).
Based upon Locke's arguments a person acquires land with "sweat equity" and it isn't a one-time investment to own it. It is an ongoing investment of sweat equity. It they stop farming the land then it reverts back to ownership by the "common" which is all people.
There is no "Right of Commerce" without first understanding the Right of Property as it relates to land and natural resources.
I don't think people read Locke's Second Treatise of Government Chapter V and actually try to understand Locke's arguments. They only read enough to rationalize what they want to believe.
It seems to me that regardless of what I might say, you consistently revert to John Locke's musings. (He was, indeed, a great man; and his writings certainly do undergird our Declaration of Independence. But I shall not agree to march in lockstep with anyone.) And you lament the fact there is simply not "enough unclaimed wilderness for hundreds of millions of Americans to live off the natural resources"--as mere "nomads." But why would you suppose that "hundreds of millions of Americans" wish to be "nomads"? Or that those (few) who really would prefer to be "nomads" deserve our respect and deference? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Jul 14, 2014 14:50:57 GMT
It seems to me that regardless of what I might say, you consistently revert to John Locke's musings. (He was, indeed, a great man; and his writings certainly do undergird our Declaration of Independence. But I shall not agree to march in lockstep with anyone.) And you lament the fact there is simply not "enough unclaimed wilderness for hundreds of millions of Americans to live off the natural resources"--as mere "nomads." But why would you suppose that "hundreds of millions of Americans" wish to be "nomads"? Or that those (few) who really would prefer to be "nomads" deserve our respect and deference?
You do not have to march "lockstep" with Locke but can instead offer your own arguments that establish the Right of Property instead. John Locke took the time to establish the foundation for the "Natural Right of Property" by compelling arguments that were juxtaposed to the Divine Right of Kings where "god" granted the sole Right of Property to one person (i.e. the monarch) to do with what they please. Of course it was the "monarch" that declared the Divine Right of Kings that granted they exclusively the "Right of Property" that didn't exist for anyone else except for fiat "Title" granted by the "King" that was revocable at anytime by the King.
So if you have a superior argument for the foundation of the Right of Property of the person I'd love to read it. If not then you merely have an unsupported opinion that will likely fail based upon any rational and logical evaluation.
John Locke started with the basics and that was that original man was a nomad that only took what nature provided in excess for survival and comfort. What original mankind took from nature for their survival and comfort did not diminish that which was available to others and therefore did not violate the Rights of Other Persons by their actions. No "Right" exists if the "Rights" of another person are violated and Locke addressed that point in his arguments.
What I would suggest is that you reread Locke's arguments because they are compelling. Try to understand them from a Natural Right of the Person where their actions do not violate any other Person's Rights because if a violation occurs then no "Right" exists at all. You don't have to agree with Locke but instead before disagreeing you should be able to find any flaws in his logical arguments. What does Locke state that you disagree with and why do you disagree with it?
www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm
You're a very intelligent person so your insight on what might be wrong in Locke's arguments would be interesting.
This takes us far afield of the problems with Obamacare that are worsening as we address this issue. We should return to those problems soon as I'd like your suggestions on addressing those problems such as funding problems it now faces that was the origin for this thread.
|
|
