tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post7316367272878789817..comments2024-02-16T22:11:10.153-08:00Comments on The Temple of Zenarchy: An open letter to Keith Olbermann and Rachel MaddowChance J. Feldsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09640824562790000442noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-14614268729576144542011-10-28T05:50:44.049-07:002011-10-28T05:50:44.049-07:00Chris, I'm not saying that government funding ...Chris, I'm not saying that government funding of artists and educational institutions is or isn't a good thing - that's a completely separate argument and not really relevant for me here. What I *am* saying is that this is something our government has been doing for quite a while, and I don't see it changing any time soon. So if it's a given that it's going to occur, the recipients should have to make their work freely available to the same public who financed them. Makes sense, doesn't it?<br /><br />I think the difference between your arguing style and mine is that while I'm trying to figure out some practical solutions for the worst abuses in our government, you're trying to construct an ideal government that you'd consider to be perfect. While I enjoy that approach when arguing for its own sake, it's not really all that helpful when we're revising a document that's supposed to be used for actual reform purposes. It would be unrealistic to try to change too many things about our government, too radically, all at the same time... so while art grants might be a problem, they should really take a back seat to corporations buying votes from politicians.<br /><br />Your solution to this problem, by the way, comes off way more naive than Sara's. Who gets to decide whether legislation favors a contributor of one of the co-sponsors? What are the criteria for deciding on what favors a certain person? Making it subjective like this would create far worse abuses and loopholes than anonymizing the money. Sure, when dealing with money there's always the chance someone will steal it or misroute it... but there's also the chance the sun will go red giant and engulf the earth tomorrow, and you don't see us making plans based on that possibility either.Chance J. Feldsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09640824562790000442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-45750246822355198312011-10-27T21:22:15.028-07:002011-10-27T21:22:15.028-07:00I offer a counter-proposal: to prevent buying favo...I offer a counter-proposal: to prevent buying favors from a politician, we try this. All people and organizations that contribute money must do so openly. Any organization that does so may be acknowledged for its contribution, but no executive, lobbyist, appointee, or individual providing funds or representing such a party providing funds may be appointed to a federal position, and whoever the politician who wins may be may not produce or support any legislation which individually favors his/her supporting donors. That way, people and companies can donate money, but can only do so if they morally agree with who they support and know they can't accept any political repayment as a result. Would this be an effective solution?Chris G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05440537640534853346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-67841287351701423962011-10-27T21:21:32.616-07:002011-10-27T21:21:32.616-07:003. On preventing corporate influence: I think the ...3. On preventing corporate influence: I think the three of us could agree that corporate influence is a major problem in the political environment. At the same time, it's important to realize the necessity of recognizing freedom of expression while trying to prevent that expression from creating influenced power control.<br /><br />Sara, you seem to be on the right track, but unfortunately, your solution is too easy to bypass. First off, but forcing contributions to be made anonymously through the FEC, it allows any corrupt individual in the FEC to reroute that money to a differing cause. If you, for instance, wanted to contribute $1,000 to Edwin P. Noflebinger, but the Distribution Manager in the FEC lost paperwork (or worse, was bribed to act in favor to Gertrude Snodgrass), it could mean that, despite your desire to express yourself toward Boflebinger, you could inadvertently support Snodgrass. Even then, all it would take it a person or company to contribute so much money anonymously through the FEC, and then, regardless of who won the election, for the company to lie and claim they put forth money. <br /><br />Instead of limiting how people contribute money, maybe the better solution would be to diminish their rewards for doing so?Chris G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05440537640534853346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-245790074839094602011-10-27T21:20:20.910-07:002011-10-27T21:20:20.910-07:002. One of the major differences I've noticed b...2. One of the major differences I've noticed between my form of argument and yours is this: I do not take precedent as an acceptance of the morality of a view, whereas you seem to. Examples include your statements of "Are you somehow unaware that we *already* fund artists and universities with public money?", and "(already made illegal in the pending health care bill)". These appear to be statements advocating that, because the government approved of them, they should be considered moral statutes. My concern, however, is not "what has been previously approved", so much as "is it something we should be approving?"<br /><br />After all, it has been previously approved and considered more by many politicians in history that homosexuality should be deemed immoral and against the law (and sadly, there are many advocates still spewing this nonsense.) Now, while you and I both would be disgusted by that notion, it shouldn't be enough that the precedent set by others should be enough vindication that anti-gay legislation be supported. That's a complete violation of the very inherent vision set forth by those who truly want peace and freedom for their fellow people. For this same reason, I can't fathom why you would allow the precedent that we financially support artistry and universities with federally mandated taxes, or even something as recent as legislation preventing insurance companies discriminating against sick people, should be taken as valid argument. Yes, we can debate whether homosexuality should be criminalized (though we wouldn't), or whether art and education should be federally funded (which we could) or whether whether insurance companies should be forced to fund pre-existing conditions (which I'm divided on), but the merits of that debate does not appear to be, at least from what you've stated so far, your main reason for supporting your cause. Instead, you seem to have presented your cause, at least for art, education, and insurance, as being that it's already been approved, therefore it shouldn't be questioned. If that's how you feel, I do have to say, in the interest of honest debate, whether you would allow legally approved precedent to be taken into equal consideration in such matters as environmentalism, gay rights, and Christian education policies. It's not he beliefs I'm question, so much as the tactics.Chris G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05440537640534853346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-84091070734832267752011-10-27T21:19:31.764-07:002011-10-27T21:19:31.764-07:00Hey hey. My apologies for the lengthy delay in my ...Hey hey. My apologies for the lengthy delay in my response, but between my move to a new place and several time-consuming projects at work, I've not had a good chance to sit down and get involved in anything political for a bit. I didn't lose interest, just didn't have a chance to apply it. <br /><br />That said, I'm still heavily distracted by other matters, but having had a chance to finally take a look at where we've gone so far, I'd like to continue, though it may be a few days before I can do so. Given that, I'd like to hold off on most of it at the moment (until I'm settled into my new place) and just quickly address three points. <br /><br />1) First off, I apologize if what I am coming across as is "deliberately trying to misunderstand" you. This isn't the case at all. I have no desire to misinterpret, and in any case I have done so, I apologize. I do come from a school of thought, however, that attempts to fill in any blanks that are not taken into consideration in a debate on any matter, and I think that may be what's happening here. Whenever I'm presented with an argument from any mindset, the first thing I attempt to think of is "what additional information has not yet been considered?" and often I add this unceremoniously to my counterarguments when I make them. This will play a heavy part later, but for now, it's the only part of my responses I've seen that might be construed as "misunderstanding". This isn't to say I don't think I'm incapable of misunderstanding, but one of the grand benefits of our debate has been some good first-hand experience on how two opposing parties interpret each others' data. That being said, there's no deliberate misinterpretation, but I'd be happy to correct any misinterpretation I've mistakenly made.Chris G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05440537640534853346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-67899346957614892292011-10-14T09:08:28.311-07:002011-10-14T09:08:28.311-07:00Sara, that idea is brilliant. I am stealing it. An...Sara, that idea is brilliant. I am stealing it. Anonymizing the money would allow unlimited contributions without revealing the identity of the donor... and is a higher form of tzedakah besides.Chance J. Feldsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09640824562790000442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-75342175439873606872011-10-14T08:39:55.778-07:002011-10-14T08:39:55.778-07:00So, I have a lot of comments on what you've sa...So, I have a lot of comments on what you've said. I'll try to address them one by one. First, campaign finance reform:<br /><br /><br />Here you seem to be arguing that political speech should enjoy significantly less protection than other kinds of speech. Notice that the 1st amendment guarantees that: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … or the right of the people … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”<br />There is simply no way to tell someone that they cannot give money to further their own viewpoint that doesn’t, ultimately, abridge their freedom of speech. I don’t think you actually mean to say that you think someone shouldn’t be able to spend their own money to publicize their political views. (ie, to fund their own campaign)<br />There are two essential tensions in campaign finance. The first is a tension between secrecy (no one knows who’s really behind a candidate) and vote-buying (in which candidates are indebted to contributors). Personally, I think that vote-buying is a more serious problem. I think that we actually need LESS transparency in campaign finance, not more. I recommend a system like that advocated by Ackerman and Ayers. In this system, no one can donate directly to a political campaign, but rather all donations are sent to the FEC. You tell the FEC who to give your money to. The FEC then make lump sum payments to each candidate, without disclosing the names of the donors. This prevents elected officials from being indebted to their contributors.<br />The second central tension is between freedom of speech and equality of access. It’s clear that the 1st amendment guarantees citizens the right to express their political views in the public forum. Here to, I think secrecy of donation allows for the maximum amount of freedom (say anything you want) with the maximum amount of equality (politicians don’t know who said what). The problem here, is obviously, that whoever shouts loudest gets heard, no matter the value of what they have to say. Gee…campaign finance reform is hard, and I don’t think there is an easy solution.The Professorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08496516038405576606noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-808405310420659022011-10-14T07:39:11.997-07:002011-10-14T07:39:11.997-07:00"...insurance companies should only be allowe..."...insurance companies should only be allowed to retain their nonprofit status if they adjust their fees to a level that only covers their own labor and supply costs for treatment"<br /><br />Insurance companies currently make millions upon millions of dollars of profit by discriminating against sick people (already made illegal in the pending health care bill) and finding loopholes to breach their contracts with their members and deny claims for needed medical services. Those are the actions of a company that wants profit, not a company who's there to help sick people. Most of that profit goes toward bonuses for executives in the end, so while it looks like they haven't made a profit in a given year, the executives are laughing all the way to the bank. This is much the same as what recording companies do to recording artists to avoid paying them - manufacture huge "unrecouped losses" on paper, so that any money the artist makes never reaches the artist.<br /><br />But the difference is record companies are for-profit corporations; insurance companies behave like for-profit corporations, but are somehow still allowed to retain their tax-exempt status. This is unacceptable. A perfect example: In Pittsburgh, UPMC recently closed the UPMC Braddock hospital, which is in one of the poorest areas of the state. Why did they close it? Not because people weren't using it - they absolutely were - but because it *wasn't making enough money*. As a result, Braddock now has no hospital and more people will die being transported to a hospital that's further away... all because more people in Braddock can't pay "non-profit" UPMC for medical services. The mayor of Braddock tried to have UPMC's non-profit status taken away for that, but sadly UPMC's lawyers are far better at this sort of thing than a cash-strapped borough's could be.<br /><br />That being said, you do make a good point about surpluses. I'll need to revise that language a bit. I have no problem with insurance companies using their profits to build new hospitals or buy new equipment... but if it's getting paid out in bonuses, that by definition makes them not non-profit.Chance J. Feldsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09640824562790000442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-54093073078860105932011-10-14T07:38:58.763-07:002011-10-14T07:38:58.763-07:00Chris, I'm really trying to be patient here, b...Chris, I'm really trying to be patient here, but it seems like you're deliberately trying to misunderstand what I'm saying. Please stop reading things into what I've written and just take my words at face value. I'm going to respond to your criticisms point-by-point.<br /><br />"Elections must be publicly funded. All candidates... should start with the same modest amount of money from the federal, state or city government, depending on what jurisdiction level the position is."<br /><br />It doesn't matter whether you would publicly support the funding of a candidate you disagree with. It is in the public interest to have as many different viewpoints - no matter how extreme or insane - represented by candidates as possible. The ones who are foaming at the mouth will have no trouble hanging themselves. Equal funding of all candidates does not equal government endorsement of any particular candidate, but it *does* help to prevent candidates from being bought by corporations.<br /><br />"We additionally demand that Congress reinstitute the fairness doctrine for television news"<br /><br />Impartial journalism is a public utility. People have the right to have the news reported with as little slant as possible, which is how things were done before the fairness doctrine went out the window. *News* is not the same thing as *editorial*, which can be as slanted and biased as the station wants. I took journalism in high school, and that is the difference right there - in news you just report the facts, while in editorial you're able to insert your own personal opinion (or the opinion of your employer). To call something "news" which is actually editorial is false advertising, which is already illegal.<br /><br />"...as well as meaningful privacy protections and public accountability from government-funded artists and universities.", "Publicly funded art...", "Publicly funded universities...", "any university or artist funded with our tax dollars..."<br /><br />This is where it seems to me you're going out of your way to start being difficult. Are you somehow unaware that we *already* fund artists and universities with public money? Does it really strike you as so unreasonable that those artists and universities should have to make what they produce freely available to the same public whose money funded them? It certainly seems messed up to me that they currently get to make a profit from it while getting to keep it proprietary.<br /><br />Read the FairTax proposal. All it suggests is using a national sales tax to replace the income tax. No additional taxation for new services or any of the stuff you seem to feel the need to catastrophize about, and I didn't say that stuff either. I think you thought you were reading between the lines, but in fact you were really just putting words in my mouth. Words I didn't intend.<br /><br />"we demand free ... access to any and all substances...", "Access to good health care is a basic human right..."<br /><br />Free as in "freedom", not free as in "free beer". The government doesn't have to hand us drugs at no cost... it just has to stop prohibiting us from spending our own money to get them. Regulation is a better idea still, because it ensures they will be safe and pure.Chance J. Feldsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09640824562790000442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-40145678100242872392011-10-14T07:37:55.845-07:002011-10-14T07:37:55.845-07:00I can't seem to post comments. This one is a t...I can't seem to post comments. This one is a test.Chance J. Feldsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09640824562790000442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-50225299464168056352011-10-14T06:57:17.333-07:002011-10-14T06:57:17.333-07:00"we demand free ... access to any and all sub..."we demand free ... access to any and all substances...", "Access to good health care is a basic human right..."<br /><br />First rule of economics: nothing is free. The cost will always be there. The question is: who must pay for it? The person who uses it, or the person who does not? This particular demand advocates that those who have money must be forced to pay for the medical treatments of others. We could come up with all sorts of examples of sick individuals with all manner of diseases we would seek to end, but the means by which we do so must be by our own consent; it is for that reason we have and can create charity foundations. The idea of charity exists in this country; from cancer to HIV to heart disease, we have multiple charities designed as channels so that those who have money can willingly give to support research, prevention, and treatments of any number of diseases. I for one largely advocate any number of causes for charity, but where the line is drawn is when such charity is required by federal mandate. There is a difference between donating to support a cause of one's own free will, and being forced to by penalty of governmental force. This is an example of indirectly forcing citizens to act in a particular way. To use myself as an example, there are 2 charities I currently donate to (sadly, 2 is all I can afford currently, until I can further supplement my income), but I specifically chose these charities because they adhere to core beliefs I have and operate in a manner I believe both constructive and ethically sound. There are other charities I do not personally donate to, because I neither consider them constructive nor ethically sound. But when money is taxed from me, and donated to charities I personally do not advocate, it is an indirect means of using money I work for to support causes I do not believe in. This deprives me not only of money I could use to supplement my own well being, but also from funding causes I personally support. In effect, it's forcing me, by virtue of the fact that I labor for my income, to fund that which I do not choose to. I'm willing to bet we could easily find the same thing with you, or with anybody. The call for free access is forceful in itself, because what is free for one is forced from others. Such access to medicine must be a matter of consent, not force. <br /><br />"...insurance companies should only be allowed to retain their nonprofit status if they adjust their fees to a level that only covers their own labor and supply costs for treatment"<br /><br />Here is an example of not only using governmental force to make nonprofit insurance companies act a certain way, but does so in a manner which makes survivability of a nonprofit insurance companies nearly impossible. Can you think of an example of any business construct that hires thousands of workers and circulates billions of dollars can do so with such precision that it generates zero profit? Let's imagine this particular policy gets implemented. What happens if there is an accounting miscalculation and a surplus is accidentally generated, despite any and all internal attempts to prevent it? Even worse, what happens when a company fails to generate the revenue necessary to cover labor and costs, and do not have surpluses to rely on to keep them above water? <br /><br />A "nonprofit" is not a company that "does not make profit". It is a company that can only use profits or surpluses to fund its own survival and expansion, as opposed to rewarding its owners or shareholders. This is a shining example of how having a powerful government that can force its will (and by extension, the will of a select citizenry) on others. When it attempts to do so under an incorrect or illogical pretense, it can be particularly harmful to the people. In this case, if a government forces nonprofits to work without surplus, it allows only two other options: stagnation or shut-down.Chris G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05440537640534853346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-30180065854211202042011-10-14T06:54:27.220-07:002011-10-14T06:54:27.220-07:00What is debated here is not the merit of the activ...What is debated here is not the merit of the activity, but the means by which it is supported. For instance, we both may advocate art, but where we appear to differ is in how we would support it. I would require art to be supported privately and by free choice, whereas you, if I'm reading the examples correctly, would require people to give up money to government for art at threat of government-imposed consequence. Most means by which you are supporting government force are indirect, in that you allow them to create or fund means to make other people adhere to your values. Below are several examples where the use of force is advocated, either directly, but requiring individuals to act or spend in a federally prescribed manner, or indirectly, but seizing the funds of others so the government can fund it itself.<br /><br />"Elections must be publicly funded. All candidates... should start with the same modest amount of money from the federal, state or city government, depending on what jurisdiction level the position is."<br /><br />Here, what's being advocated is the use of taxed money to support candidates, regardless of the candidate the individual would choose. This can negatively impact everybody, right down to the two of us. I, for example, would never willingly fund a candidate who proposes to require all schools to nationally abolish biology classes that teach evolution and mandate that all biology classes must teach Creationism, for the same reason you would never willingly fund a candidate who proposes making homosexuality illegal. Under the proposal listed above, that choice is, in part, taken from us, and money we work for and earn is seized so a federal, state, or city authority can use it to prop up candidates neither of us would ever willingly do so ourselves. <br /><br />"We additionally demand that Congress reinstitute the fairness doctrine for television news"<br /><br />Here, it is advocated that a news program must (at threat of federally imposed consequence) convey stories or bring on air guest hosts the owners and producers may not necessarily believe or are incompatible with their values. <br /><br />"...as well as meaningful privacy protections and public accountability from government-funded artists and universities.", "Publicly funded art...", "Publicly funded universities...", "any university or artist funded with our tax dollars..."<br /><br />What is implied here is that artists and universities are funded by the government using money taxed from the citizenry. There are artists and educational facilities I bet either one of us would be more than happy to fund, and others we wouldn't. However, the implication here is that our money would be taxable from us and the choice over what gets funded is given to someone we may not necessarily agree with, be it an elected representative, an appointee of an elected representative, or a staff member hired by an appointee of an elected representative. This is an indirect use of force to support decisions (in this case, decisions on art and education) that is removed from us and given to someone else, regardless of our consent.Chris G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05440537640534853346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-27529782506320155592011-10-13T23:26:00.515-07:002011-10-13T23:26:00.515-07:00If you could point out the specific parts where it...If you could point out the specific parts where it sounds like I'm advocating a government that forces people to live as I want them to, I'd appreciate it, because those parts obviously need revising.<br /><br />If it's about preventing public pictures from engaging in hate speech on national television, that really is about protecting the public welfare. You shouldn't be able to say "Go kill some niggers!" any more than you should be able to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater (which is already illegal).Chance J. Feldsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09640824562790000442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-70759810764055667612011-10-13T22:02:24.364-07:002011-10-13T22:02:24.364-07:00A thought just suddenly struck me. You identified ...A thought just suddenly struck me. You identified the two us as two distinctly alternative mindsets. While you misidentified me as a Libertarian, I'm more than happy to overlook that in favor of a much more interesting observation.<br /><br />While you identify that the two of us as having alternative solutions to the troubles of society, I notice a distinctive difference between our selected tactics. Both of us, in recent discussions, have expressed a desire for a better future, and claim peace as one of our motivations for our desire. <br /><br />Our difference is this: you would advocate a government that would force your views on others, and I would advocate a government that would protect our ability to live within our own individual views as long as it does not violate the individual views of others. You advocate governmental force to make people live to your standards, I advocate governmental protection of people living to their own. <br /><br />I bring up the same argument I made from the beginning. You advocate peace, but you advocate a government that would forgo peace to force your views on other. I advocate peace, and advocate a government whose sole purpose is to protect our ability to live as we choose. <br /><br />We're still at the beginning. Do you want peace, or do you want a government that can use force to make people live as you want them to? Can you explain to me how you can have peace and force simultaneously?Chris G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05440537640534853346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-33380093528417192112011-10-13T20:08:26.429-07:002011-10-13T20:08:26.429-07:00Taxation used to cover infrastructure, health care...Taxation used to cover infrastructure, health care, education, and other services that benefit every single citizen is always a lesser evil.Chance J. Feldsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09640824562790000442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-27068195299432193222011-10-13T20:07:18.238-07:002011-10-13T20:07:18.238-07:00Answer: I didn't advocate zero taxation, I adv...Answer: I didn't advocate zero taxation, I advocated taxation only in circumstances where taxation is a lesser evil. Try again?Chris G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05440537640534853346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-56590748445830483882011-10-13T20:04:51.070-07:002011-10-13T20:04:51.070-07:00Yeah... you're a libertarian and I'm a soc...Yeah... you're a libertarian and I'm a socialist. We're never going to agree.<br /><br />Can you point to even one historical government that was successful without taxation? What you're describing is a Temporary Autonomous Zone, not a country.Chance J. Feldsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09640824562790000442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-91614335280349915302011-10-13T19:17:18.812-07:002011-10-13T19:17:18.812-07:002. As far as the right of the people to alter or a...2. As far as the right of the people to alter or abolish the government, the DoI was very specific in regards to what circumstances the people have a right to do this, and the protesters are partially right on the matter. The DoI established that the purpose of governments among men were to secure and protect the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, and should the government in question be destructive to those ends, and those ends specifically, it was not only the right, but the duty, for the people to alter and abolish the government so they can reestablish a government designed to re-secure those rights. While our government has certainly stepped out of bounds and has become less and less concerned with those three very particular rights, those of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, the form of government that you and the protestors appear to be supporting is not designed for the protection of those rights. In particular, the inalienable right of Liberty, the right that every person may choose to live as they wish, so long as it does not deprive another of their ability to do the same, is not taken into consideration with the form and function of government you recommend. <br /><br />Taxation is a forceful, non-peaceful means of acquiring the property of an individual, and while the ability to levy taxes on the citizenry was allowable under the Constitution, it was only allowable for very strict, very minimal functions that were designed solely to protect the citizenry from those who would seek to limit their inalienable rights, from both foreign threats and internal. Such minimal functions generally meant the common defense of the people; in modern times, it could also apply to such matters as disease control and environmental protection. It did not allow taxes to be levied, for instance, to fund elections. It did not allow taxes to used for funding art, education, religious institutions, and certainly not to fund bailouts for failing companies. The very reason for this set up was to maximize the amount of liberty every individual had, by minimizing the need to take their funds for only bare essentials, and only to do so in cases where taxing their wealth was the lesser evil. This is why the most ignored amendment in the Constitution in recent decades, the 10th Amendment, was placed in. People were meant to make decisions on their own lives on as localized a means as possible, from education to business to art. They were not meant to be taken from for causes they did not support simply because someone, 10 states away, wanted it. If a town, or a county, or a state of people collectively agreed that the people of that town, county, or state should adhere to various laws, taxes, and lifestyles as behooved them, it was their option, and not that of an overseeing government. If one set of lifestyles and laws did not work for a citizen of that town, county, or state, he had the ability to move on to another that was more compatible. <br /><br />This is why I do not understand the desire to nationalize these types of decisions, as you and the OWS protestors appear to advocate. It not only contradicts the very notion of peace by forcing everyone in the nation to be saddled with the burden of these collective desires, but it also breaks apart what may be the most easily observable political experiment of all time: a nation that powerfully protects the rights of its citizens with minimal interference, and allows them to live freely under their own decisions on such matters of laws, taxes, and lifestyles. <br /><br />Can I clarify or expand on anything here?Chris G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05440537640534853346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-6641147165562127152011-10-13T19:17:03.932-07:002011-10-13T19:17:03.932-07:00You weren't misunderstanding my question, but ...You weren't misunderstanding my question, but we are coming at this issue from different angles. If I'm reading this correctly, your angle is the peaceful means by which these protests are happening, whereas my angle is the form of government you and the protestors are advocating. I have two arguments in that regard.<br /><br />1. One of the wisest things I've ever heard was the phrase, "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong."<br /><br />What I am seeing is a contradiction in two matters you support. The first is your love of peace. The second is your advocacy of a government that would be empowered to use non-peaceful methods (in this case, taxation, which is inherently coercive) to operate and/or fund causes you support. <br /><br />In this regard, I'm calling into question the incompatibility of two your motivations: your desire to support peace, or your desire to support a powerful government.Chris G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05440537640534853346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-14333103627138407542011-10-13T04:56:53.761-07:002011-10-13T04:56:53.761-07:00You're right, they definitely don't. Much ...You're right, they definitely don't. Much the opposite: The opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence say that when faced with such a government, it's the right of the people to alter or abolish it. Which is exactly what Occupy Wall Street is about... instituting new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its power in such form as to them seems most likely to effect their safety and happiness.<br /><br />Unless I'm misunderstanding your question. It seems like you and I may be coming at this issue from very, very different angles.Chance J. Feldsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09640824562790000442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-28239789537241120282011-10-12T19:44:40.690-07:002011-10-12T19:44:40.690-07:00Alrighty... it may just be because I'm brain-d...Alrighty... it may just be because I'm brain-dead tired at the moment and hitting the sack, but I fear I'm not sure where you're coming from. Would you mind, when you have an opportunity, elaborating on your response? I fear I'm not entirely certain how the opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence support an establishment of a government that has expansive power over the people it represents, nor how it bridges a dedication to peace with an allowance of a government that can coerce its people to live by a prescribed manner or to sacrifice that which is owned or earned, or face the consequences the government would impose. If you could clarify for me, I'd greatly appreciate it.Chris G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05440537640534853346noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-88460280076293683762011-10-12T18:58:21.987-07:002011-10-12T18:58:21.987-07:00Good questions. I think the Founding Fathers put i...Good questions. I think the Founding Fathers put it best when discussing this very issue in the Declaration of Independence. I'd like to answer your questions with their words, at least for now:<br /><br />"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.<br /><br />"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."Chance J. Feldsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09640824562790000442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3521975688667535978.post-85412919142616262672011-10-12T17:50:47.595-07:002011-10-12T17:50:47.595-07:00There's quite a bit here, and much to ponder. ...There's quite a bit here, and much to ponder. Some I agree with, some I don't, and some I would need clarification on. But for now, I'd like to ask just two questions, with the rest on the back burner for the time being. <br /><br />Both in this article, and in previous discussions, you appear to be an advocate of nonviolence, of peace. You also appear to advocate many powers you believe a government should be allowed to have. Such powers, in a government, boil down to a dictate to the citizenry that they must live or act in a certain way, or refrain from living or acting in another way. When a government with the power to enforce such powers, the ultimate message from government to citizen is "Do as we say, or we will remove you from your life of choice, by force if necessary." Or, to put it more simply, "Do as we say, or face the consequences we will impose on you."<br /><br />My first question: do you believe a government than can enact this message, this message of "Do as we say, or face the consequences we will impose on you", is compatible with your love of peace? <br /><br />My second question: if you allow a government the power to enforce this message, and to dictate to the citizenry what it must or must not do and what it must or must not give up, how do you hold the government accountable? Or restrained? We have heard of how power tends to corrupt... what do you do when an empowered government removes from you the means to stop it?Chris G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05440537640534853346noreply@blogger.com