Debates
29 Jul 10
30 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76You're being very vague. First of all, productivity and comfort and not the same and hard to define. Secondly, economists disagree quite a bit about what level of taxation gives the optimal living standard.
Efficient at achieving the maximum level of productivity and comfort of and for the maximum number of people.
30 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorrahard to define... disagree
You're being very vague. First of all, productivity and comfort and not the same and hard to define. Secondly, economists disagree quite a bit about what level of taxation gives the optimal living standard.
I never said it was easy.
That it may be difficult or impossible to completely achieve does not disqualify it as the goal.
30 Jul 10
Originally posted by sh76But that formulation is consistent with the complete lack of minimal guarantees for the few. Why not try to maximize the minimal level of productivity and comfort for all, or guarantee some minimal level of comfort for all and then tax in accord with some quasi-utilitarian distributive principle?
Efficient at achieving the maximum level of productivity and comfort of and for the maximum number of people.
30 Jul 10
Originally posted by Hugh GlassIt is not unfrequent to hear men declaim loudly upon liberty, who, if we may judge by the whole tenor of their actions, mean nothing else by it but their own liberty, - to oppress without control or the restraint of laws all who are poorer or weaker than themselves.
"Now what liberty can there be where property is taken without consent??" -- Samuel Adams, founding father and leader of the Boston Tea Party
Sam Adams
30 Jul 10
Originally posted by bbarrOkay; that's sort of what I meant... same basic difference.
But that formulation is consistent with the complete lack of minimal guarantees for the few. Why not try to maximize the minimal level of productivity and comfort for all, or guarantee some minimal level of comfort for all and then tax in accord with some quasi-utilitarian distributive principle?
30 Jul 10
Originally posted by Hugh GlassYou know Adams was talking about taxation without representation, right? You know Adams thought that the consent required for taxation to be just could be the consent of a man's representatives in government, and need not be the explicit consent of the man himself, right? You've read Adams' memorandum of December 18th, 1771, right? No? Oh, so you don't know what the hell you're talking about when you selectively quote the founding fathers.
"Now what liberty can there be where property is taken without consent??" -- Samuel Adams, founding father and leader of the Boston Tea Party
30 Jul 10
2 edits
Originally posted by bbarrMore pretentious gobbledegook.
But that formulation is consistent with the complete lack of minimal guarantees for the few. Why not try to maximize the minimal level of productivity and comfort for all, or guarantee some minimal level of comfort for all and then tax in accord with some quasi-utilitarian distributive principle?
Who are 'the few' who lack 'minimal guarantees', and what does this lack entail?
Who is able to 'maximise the minimal level of productivity and comfort for ALL'?
How can one set about establishing a 'minimal level of comfort' which applies to 'all', and what is a 'quasi-utilitarian distributive principle'?
30 Jul 10
Originally posted by sh76Agreed, but it's not clear at all to me what the goal is, according to you (regardless of how easy it is to achieve and how easy it is to determine how to achieve such a goal).
[b]hard to define... disagree
I never said it was easy.
That it may be difficult or impossible to completely achieve does not disqualify it as the goal.[/b]
30 Jul 10
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusGet an education, douchebag.
More pretentious gobbledegook.
Who are 'the few' who lack 'minimal guarantees', and what does this lack entail?
Who is able to 'maximise the minimal level of productivity and comfort for ALL'?
How can one set about establishing a 'minimal level of comfort' which applies to 'all', and what is a 'quasi-utilitarian distributive principle'?
30 Jul 10
Originally posted by Sartor ResartusJust like a typically arrogant, remedial student. Just 'cause you have a question, it doesn't mean it's a good one. Why don't you sit down for a little, and think about those questions of yours. Try to puzzle them out on your own. You know, put in a little effort to understand. And then, when you're good and tired from all that thinking, I'll clear things up for you.
You need to learn how to avoid writing gobbledegook, windbag.
The fact that you have not answered any of my questions indicates that you do not know what you are talking about.
31 Jul 10
Originally posted by bbarrYou do not appear to have the ability to 'clear up' your own mind, let alone the ability to 'clear things up' for me or anyone else.
Just like a typically arrogant, remedial student. Just 'cause you have a question, it doesn't mean it's a good one. Why don't you sit down for a little, and think about those questions of yours. Try to puzzle them out on your own. You know, put in a little effort to understand. And then, when you're good and tired from all that thinking, I'll clear things up for you.
Kant's Critique of Pure Reason makes easy reading compared with your drivel.
31 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrOne might argue that maximizing comfort and productivity already implies such a minimum guarantee, considering people generally don't like to witness poverty and deprivation, and it takes relatively few resources to make such a guarantee. Furthermore, improving social mobility also increases labour productivity since the talented who are born poor will find it easier to find productive jobs.
But that formulation is consistent with the complete lack of minimal guarantees for the few. Why not try to maximize the minimal level of productivity and comfort for all, or guarantee some minimal level of comfort for all and then tax in accord with some quasi-utilitarian distributive principle?
31 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFFMF, the man who 'has travelled the world' and imagines he knows all about everything, meet bbar, the man who posts gobbledegook to impress gullible clowns.
bbar, one of the smartest and most thought provoking people on this web site, meet Sartor Resartus, one of its dimmest and most predictable.