How the U.S. government really works

[Bonam]

You fashion yourself an admirer of Ayn Rand?

Without an answer, you certainly seem to follow an Objectivist point of view. This would explain much, and would also explain why we seem to bump heads so often since i suppose one could call me a proponent of altruism as well as not agreeing with laissez-faire capitalism. I also believe that self-interest is at the root of much of the world's preventable human suffering & environmental destruction.

edit: altrium = altruism

Not really, BC2004 doesn't at all espouse an Objectivist point of view. His point of view really does arise from the premise that "economics trumps virtue" as stated in his signature. That is, he is disinterested in morality. Objectivism, on the other hand, is one of the most innately moralistic philosophies out there. It's based on a different set of principles than most other sources of morality out there, but it takes its notions of morality as paramount. Rand certainly did not hesitate to make moral judgments of other people, organizations, and philosophies.

[Pliny]

Keep in mind i'm not saying Nader is the almighty and i agree with his other views, i'm saying he's pretty bang on in what he says in the video. I'm not even that aware of many of his positions.

Well, Russian television certainly doesn't have America's interests at heart and Nader only serves to erode it's principles of small government in favour of a collectivist government.

Yes, coercion (taxes) seems the most effective way to spread wealth within a state, as far as i know. I don't agree with the comparison to slavery. It's coercion. Generally, slaves are people who are legal property of others, with little or no rights for themselves.

Is that why in Canada the rich are getting richer and the poor poorer?

You see no connection between slavery and people paying 50% of their wages in taxes with the threat of jail for non-compliance? Or future generations paying the debts of the current generation?

How are taxes exacted? How much coercion is ok? Were Stalin, Mao and Castro too coercive? Mussolini? Hitler? Where's the fine line between ok coercion and not ok coercion? Give someone an inch and they will take a mile. Power corrupts and all that.

How about coercion against criminality and threats to the sanctity of person and property? Are the "haves" criminals to be coerced? The have-nots do not need to be coerced since they have nothing to take away. They can live at the whim of the State, I guess. Or on the streets in anarchy trying to avoid the happiness of the state.

Besides the communist countries, aren't most of the countries you mentioned having financial problems because of their debt? They obviously didn't balance the books well.

Why didn't they balance the books well? Could it be entitlements and unfunded future liabilities that politicians sold as "rights" in order to buy votes? Aren't you yourself voting for the party that will maintain your "rights"?

There are many industrialized democratic countries with socialist elements that have done fantastic under a system of capitalism mixed with a substantial welfare state.

A system of capitalism mixed with a substantial welfare state? Looks like capitalism exists only in name as a means to supply the State? Sounds like...omg...fascism

A way to judge whether or not the State is too large is whether or not the country is known for it's people or it's government. When people are talking about the government of a nation and it's benefits and celebrating that rather than the people, it's culture and it's products then there is too much government there. Canada is sort of middle of the road on that.

Obama is working hard to have the State define America and Americans becoming more like a European nation. You know, getting in line with the other compassionate countries in the world. Slipping into the same mediocrity and descending into an inevitable economic oblivion.

These countries always seem to consistently be at the top of the Human Development Index rankings every year. Though i wouldn't describe myself as a "Utilitarian", this system seems the best system to ensure "the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people".

The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people would be a good description of the purpose of society. The interests of those who compile statistics and offer them up in things like the Human Development Index are measuring numbers that national governments supply them. The more that governments provide their citizens the better off the citizens are. Or so it seems. Most of those nations are killing the willingness to be productive though and couldn't provide a thing if there were no production.

What person should have the distinction of supplying happiness, determining who should be supplied some and who should work to supply it? Stalin? Mao? Castro? - Coercion is the best way to redistribute wealth, remember.

I'd replace it with something more democratic. Where the number of consenting people, not number of dollars, determines policy. I don't have the solution to do this, but it would start with changing some of the campaign/party finance & lobbying laws.

More democracy? You mean more diverse special interests voting for their "rights"?

[eyeball]

The "environment" cannot be destroyed.

It's ability to produce the things we need sure can be.

What's really amazing though is how the economy can so blithely ignore that.

[Pliny]

It's ability to produce the things we need sure can be.

What's really amazing though is how the economy can so blithely ignore that.

Luckily we didn't run out of whales before we discovered coal. Hopefully we will discover _______ before we run out of oil.

It is isn't being ignored. Alternate energy sources are being researched. Our society would collapse if we moved out of fossil fuels altogether without an equivalent alternative

[Bonam]

Luckily we didn't run out of whales before we discovered coal. Hopefully we will discover _______ before we run out of oil.

Indeed. The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone.

[dre]

Where's the fine line between ok coercion and not ok coercion? Give someone an inch and they will take a mile. Power corrupts and all that.

The line is where stability is. In a democracy you will only have stability for long if that line is in the right place. If taxation is too progressive youll get instability and if its too regressive youll get instability. If your economic system concentrates wealth in too extreme a fassion youll get instability, and if its too redistributive youll also get instability.

[Moonlight Graham]

Agreed....as I would hold that "human suffering" is just part of the human condition regardless of meta-ethical concerns.

Yes, all humans suffer. But there are vast differences in the suffering and quality of life of different people within and between states. A significant portion of human suffering can be reduced or prevented. I believe in the Golden Rule, and the more people who follow it the more humanity as a collective will prosper.

The "environment" cannot be destroyed.

Tell that to Grand Moff Tarkin and the people of Alderaan.

[Moonlight Graham]

You see no connection between slavery and people paying 50% of their wages in taxes with the threat of jail for non-compliance?

Then you see all taxes as slavery? Even if taxes are 5%, you are legally forced to pay or punished by the state.

How are taxes exacted? How much coercion is ok? Were Stalin, Mao and Castro too coercive? Mussolini? Hitler? Where's the fine line between ok coercion and not ok coercion? Give someone an inch and they will take a mile. Power corrupts and all that.

The people you named were dictators. Under a democracy, it's the people who decide how much coercion is ok.

Why didn't they balance the books well? Could it be entitlements and unfunded future liabilities that politicians sold as "rights" in order to buy votes?

In many circumstances yes. It's the same here in Canada. But if people are too stupid, selfish, and short-sighted to see the unsustainability of that, eventually they (or their grandkids) will have to deal with the consequences. I bet a country like Greece will likely be much more vigilant in the future about paying for the things they can't afford, just like a relative of mine is after they went into big credit card debt by charging for luxuries they couldn't afford.

A system of capitalism mixed with a substantial welfare state? Looks like capitalism exists only in name as a means to supply the State? Sounds like...omg...fascism

No, it's called a social democracy.

Why do you deal with things so much in black and white. If it's not laissez-faire capitalism or a libertarian state then it's fascism or communism?

What person should have the distinction of supplying happiness, determining who should be supplied some and who should work to supply it? Stalin? Mao? Castro? - Coercion is the best way to redistribute wealth, remember.

Again, those are all dictators. Like I said before, in a democracy it's up to the people to determine this, not 1 person.

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes, all humans suffer. But there are vast differences in the suffering and quality of life of different people within and between states. A significant portion of human suffering can be reduced or prevented. I believe in the Golden Rule, and the more people who follow it the more humanity as a collective will prosper.

No, the disparity you describe is actually defined by the magnitude of prosperity. "Poverty" is a very relative term. If you want to save the world, do it on your own dime.

Tell that to Grand Moff Tarkin and the people of Alderaan.

Their "environment" was changed, not destroyed.

[M.Dancer]

Their "environment" was changed, not destroyed.

I had to google that....

Ummm....do you feel that "environment" is like energy? Or for that matter (matter?) that deep space, the sun, volcanoes and the moon all have environments?

Would it then be more correct to say "the current environment will be destroyed"?

[Moonlight Graham]

Their "environment" was changed, not destroyed.

So basically you reject the entire word "destroy/destroyed" and its definition. Got it. Name me one thing that can be destroyed?

[bush_cheney2004]

So basically you reject the entire word "destroy/destroyed" and its definition. Got it. Name me one thing that can be destroyed?

Fake Star Wars analogies.

[Pliny]

The line is where stability is. In a democracy you will only have stability for long if that line is in the right place. If taxation is too progressive youll get instability and if its too regressive youll get instability. If your economic system concentrates wealth in too extreme a fassion youll get instability, and if its too redistributive youll also get instability.

Doesn't Barack get it then? I know you view taxation as a method of controlling the populace. It should not be used for this purpose. The cost of government, in a socially democratic society, is relative to what it can vote itself in entitlements. In the end it is not the decision of politicians or individuals in government that will be the final arbiter. It will be the ability of the people to produce wealth.

If you see controlling the populace through taxation as being one of it's purposes then you are defeating the self-determinism of the voting public, something a democracy will not tolerate.

It is not so much that government will determine the level of taxation but what the economy will tolerate. Government is the slave to the economy and must adjust it's taxation level accordingly. If it doesn't, as in the case of our social democracies, because it can't, as the people will not reliquish their rights, then it is in trouble.

[bush_cheney2004]

Doesn't Barack get it then? I know you view taxation as a method of controlling the populace. It should not be used for this purpose. The cost of government, in a socially democratic society, is relative to what it can vote itself in entitlements. In the end it is not the decision of politicians or individuals in government that will be the final arbiter. It will be the ability of the people to produce wealth.

Agreed....I think your point is often lost in the tactical discussion. Sans sustainable economic vitality, government cannot make such wealth transfers for very long.

[Moonlight Graham]

The line is where stability is. In a democracy you will only have stability for long if that line is in the right place. If taxation is too progressive youll get instability and if its too regressive youll get instability. If your economic system concentrates wealth in too extreme a fassion youll get instability, and if its too redistributive youll also get instability.

I agree with this. As pliny eluded, if a system is too redistributive and able-bodied people can live comfortable lives without working very hard (or not working at all), you corrode the incentive to work and produce, and in a way corrode people themselves, and will have a net negative effect economically and socially.

There is definitely a line, for a "just" yet prosperous society in my opinion, where there is enough of a welfare system to provide for those genuinely in need or to ensure basic rights (some believe healthcare is one), yet still make it necessary for healthy, able-bodies people to work in order to enjoy a decent standard of living, and also to ensure one the fundamental aspects of capitalism, being that if you are smart/talented and hardworking you can make a hell of a lot more money than if you aren't.

[GostHacked]

Then you see all taxes as slavery? Even if taxes are 5%, you are legally forced to pay or punished by the state.

One can look at it as a form of slavery. The general population is on the hook to pay back the loans to the world bank and IMF. QE1 and QE2 (and the soon to be QE3) just puts the country deeper into debt while the dollar is devalued. The USA has borrowed a lot of money to keep it afloat for a short while. Borrow-print-devalue-increase taxation. The government borrows from the Fed, and I think the Fed borrows from the World Bank and IMF. So essentially, the population slaves away to pay back the debts to the international central banks. So Americans are stuck paying the bill, and will continue to pay the bill. The debt keeps piling on, it never shrinks. The deficits might shrink, but the debt keeps growing.

I would have prefered to let those big banks fail. The bail outs are only a short term solution with no long term gains. The entities that got the bail out money are still in some trouble and that will be why QE3 is just around the corner and the taxpayer will be on the hook for that as well.

In many circumstances yes. It's the same here in Canada. But if people are too stupid, selfish, and short-sighted to see the unsustainability of that, eventually they (or their grandkids) will have to deal with the consequences. I bet a country like Greece will likely be much more vigilant in the future about paying for the things they can't afford, just like a relative of mine is after they went into big credit card debt by charging for luxuries they couldn't afford.

I doubt Greece will be able to pull out of it. The country I do have hope for at the moment is Iceland. Some regulations were taken out so the bankers could borrow lots of money from the likes of the world bank and the IMF. Iceland quickly got into trouble and was on the verge of needing a bail out. But now growing movements within Iceland are telling the world bank and IMF to go away and re-regulating their banking system. It may hurt short term but long term better monetary policy will emerge. Greece I think is still in trouble, and since then several EU member states have received bail outs. So it may seem more of a global problem than just any individial country. I guess that is more in part of the 'global economy' now.

[TimG]

The government borrows from the Fed, and I think the Fed borrows from the World Bank and IMF.

WTF? The Fed is central bank. It does not borrow money from anyone. It creates it from thin air. The consequence is inflation (more supply == less value).

I would have prefered to let those big banks fail.

The banks should have been bailed out but the shareholders should have been wiped out (i.e. the government gets all shares which it then sells to recoup its losses). The idea that private investors should be entitled to keep anything after a public bailout is nonsense.

[Moonlight Graham]

Not really, BC2004 doesn't at all espouse an Objectivist point of view. His point of view really does arise from the premise that "economics trumps virtue" as stated in his signature. That is, he is disinterested in morality. Objectivism, on the other hand, is one of the most innately moralistic philosophies out there. It's based on a different set of principles than most other sources of morality out there, but it takes its notions of morality as paramount. Rand certainly did not hesitate to make moral judgments of other people, organizations, and philosophies.

I disagree. You say he's disinterested in morality, but he actually denies it within himself altogether, since he told me in another thread that he was "no sense of morality". Which is, of course, absurd. Unless he's the Tin Man from the Wizard of Oz or something. His focus on rational self-interest is his own morality. Rational self-interest is right/good, sacrificing my own self-interest for the benefit of others is wrong/bad.

He has criticized me for being "selectively moral", which is valid. Anyone actively trying to "do the right thing" or judging as "wrong" will always encounter things that go against this and they aren't acting on or judging, whether they are aware of them or not. But I'll argue it's better to try and do the right thing and be labeled a hypocrite, than to be consistent at not trying at all.

I'll counter this by saying that BC is "selectively amoral". Amoral rational self-interest dictates he must steal, cheat, lie, murder, rape etc. when the benefits outweigh the risks. I doubt this is the case. If "economics trumps virtue", then he must be consistent in this, therefore supporting slavery, economic imperialism, war, genocide, ethnic cleansing etc. if there is net economic benefits to him that outweigh the disadvantages. Again, doubtful...but beyond the realm of possibility

[GostHacked]

WTF? The Fed is central bank. It does not borrow money from anyone. It creates it from thin air. The consequence is inflation (more supply == less value).

The banks should have been bailed out but the shareholders should have been wiped out (i.e. the government gets all shares which it then sells to recoup its losses). The idea that private investors should be entitled to keep anything after a public bailout is nonsense.

If I run a business and it ends up failing, should I get a bail out from the Fed as well? If I had horrible book keeping and kept cooking the books and partake in shady very risky investement deals, should I get a bail out? But even if the government takes it over and wipes out shareholders, and then sells those shares to recoup it's losses from the bail out, the taxpayers are STILL on the hook to pay it all back in some way. Taxes used to bail out the bank, and then the government takes those shares and sells it to the public again which ends up to be taxpayers. As a taxpayer you are bailing out the bank, and then buying the shares in the troubled bank. It's not the investors that are the problem here (for the most part), it is the banks that take these huge risks because some regulations were axed which allowed the banks to get involved in things they should not have in the first place.

So no I don't agree with bailing them out. Let businesses with bad practices fail.

[TimG]

If I run a business and it ends up failing, should I get a bail out from the Fed as well?

Did you notice the caveat I put in there about shareholders? If I made the decisions and the government had to bail you out you would not have a business anymore - it would belong to the government who would sell it to other people to recoup the bail out money.

What people don't understand is the banking system is special and whether we like it or not governments cannot let a major banking crisis go unchecked. Total economic collapse could follow.

[Pliny]

What people don't understand is the banking system is special and whether we like it or not governments cannot let a major banking crisis go unchecked. Total economic collapse could follow.

Special? Yes, it's a legal monopoly. Naturally, if the monopoly is gone there is nothing left.

Economic collapse is imminent but govenrments will attempt to save it by giving us only three or four currencies, that is, essentially cutting down the number of players in the current cartel. We will all be befuddled by it as the government debt is absorbed in the valuation of the new currencies and once again - all is well. The power brokers have concentrated power by consolidating their hold on the global economy. They will have to somehow get people to accept the new currencies and they will be made fiat while possibly outlawing the private ownership of gold and silver, and that happened before when FDR outlawed the private ownership of gold. Who would have thought that possible in America? I still don't believe they were able to sell that without a revolt. Gold was returned to the Rockefeller and JP Morgan banks - how nice.

[Pliny]

I'll counter this by saying that BC is "selectively amoral". Amoral rational self-interest dictates he must steal, cheat, lie, murder, rape etc. when the benefits outweigh the risks. I doubt this is the case. If "economics trumps virtue", then he must be consistent in this, therefore supporting slavery, economic imperialism, war, genocide, ethnic cleansing etc. if there is net economic benefits to him that outweigh the disadvantages. Again, doubtful...but beyond the realm of possibility

I believe you and BC are looking at the same thing from opposite sides.

Economics does trump virtue; almost always when the risks outweigh the benefits. Virtue is only considered in the equation when one can afford it.

The consequences of raping, cheating, stealing, lying, murdering, etc. have far greater economic risks than most are willing to face, even without government. One can only afford these risks in an absence of justice - hence we have an agency to ensure it - governments. It does not mean they need to make things equal by redistributing wealth, basically allowing it to lie, cheat, steal and murder in order to deliver on it's mandate of justice. Only to prevent those individuals who have no sense of economics from acting. Economics means a person is not acting in a world by himself, it means he has to co-operate and keep his exchange in. Economics is a natural regulator of virtue. Governments are a further regulation and insurance of virtue. But when it fails to deliver justice it fails it's basic mandate, and redistributing wealth by coercion is itself a corruption of justice and allows corruption to spread. The result is a failed society or civilization.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Pliny