Can Bob and Tom vote to rape Jane?

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Yes. It still sounds silly. You are trying to use the tax system to punish people. If you want to punish people convict them in a court and fine them.

It isn't punishment, it is holding people accountable for their actions.

I don't see why it is so silly. Republicans voted for GW. GW caused the second Iraq war. The second Iraq war did not impact the U.S.A. in any positive way. The second Iraq war drove up the debt significantly.

Therefore, why is it silly to say that anyone who voted for GW should have to contribute more, to pay for their mistake? Its no different than the "loser pays" system in litigation. If the war had actually helped matters, then great, everyone can pay for it. But since it was a stupid mistake, why should those that were opposed from the get go have to pay for it?

I find something fundamentally wrong about the idea that someone who was vehemently opposed to GW, and the war in particular, should have to contribute to the debt as much as someone who was pro-war and pro-Bush.

I understand that this doesn't necessarily apply to the wealthy, since many wealthy individuals were anti-war and anti-Bush, but in a general sense what is so silly about holding people accountable? When adults make decisions, they should have to face the consequences. To force everyone to contribute equally to pay for the overt mistakes of a few seems to undermine the whole idea of being an adult. Now, some people don't have to face the consequences, and others are dealing with consequences of decisions they never made. Its like turning the notion of responsibility upside down.

And when I say "overt" I mean a huge portion of the population didn't agree with those decisions at the time. So any comparison to things like insurance isn't accurate, because that is ( ideally ) everyone paying for the accidental mistakes of a few. I have no issues with telling smokers and the morbidly obese that they should have to pay into health insurance more than someone who is otherwise healthy. So why aren't taxes the same? Why don't the "premiums" go up for people that make bad decisions at the voting booth?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Seriously, guys, I don't think Bob and Tom ever pay taxes and now they wanna get away with it and at the same time have a threesome with Jane.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Nope, didn't know that. So now you have a Ferrari and own studios -- all you need is a wife that is Asian, and you will have the life I want.

( A joke, I am happy with my wife, even though she is not Asian. Although she tells me she won't ever let me near Japan, just in case. )

So what's stopping you from creating your own stuff? There has never been a more opportune time.

Quote:

Sounds like Valve.

Valve has a reputation among developers as being a kind of model studio for the environment you describe.

Valve is an unbelievable unique environment but I'm not Gabe I do know the guy though. We do try and emulate what we can from their practices.

Quote:

Well, anyone that can be bothered to look at the factual data from industry over the last 150 years, for one.

There are so many studies and real world examples illustrating that creativity and innovation increase under the model you describe, it boggles my brain that there are still management structures fighting so hard against it.

Lots of companies are run with a "we need x number of butts in seats" and they look at people as interchangeable parts. I look at it from the perspective that the products we create will be a reflection of the interests and creativity of our team. This is very similar to the Valve model although we aren't quite as loose as them because... well they basically have unlimited money at this point.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

To derail the thread back towards the topic:

So Bob and Tom could vote to set a 20% tax on sex. Jane is free to rock and roll with whomever she pleases 4 times out of 5, but every 5th time she must sleep with persons decided by the political agenda.

I suppose this would be the effective result on an income tax on prostitutes, no? If they need to work X number of extra tricks to have the same level of income you could argue that the taxes are causing them to turn extra tricks. Kind of a weird thought though.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

It isn't punishment, it is holding people accountable for their actions.

I don't see why it is so silly. Republicans voted for GW. GW caused the second Iraq war. The second Iraq war did not impact the U.S.A. in any positive way. The second Iraq war drove up the debt significantly.

Therefore, why is it silly to say that anyone who voted for GW should have to contribute more, to pay for their mistake? Its no different than the "loser pays" system in litigation. If the war had actually helped matters, then great, everyone can pay for it. But since it was a stupid mistake, why should those that were opposed from the get go have to pay for it?

I find something fundamentally wrong about the idea that someone who was vehemently opposed to GW, and the war in particular, should have to contribute to the debt as much as someone who was pro-war and pro-Bush.

I understand that this doesn't necessarily apply to the wealthy, since many wealthy individuals were anti-war and anti-Bush, but in a general sense what is so silly about holding people accountable? When adults make decisions, they should have to face the consequences. To force everyone to contribute equally to pay for the overt mistakes of a few seems to undermine the whole idea of being an adult. Now, some people don't have to face the consequences, and others are dealing with consequences of decisions they never made. Its like turning the notion of responsibility upside down.

And when I say "overt" I mean a huge portion of the population didn't agree with those decisions at the time. So any comparison to things like insurance isn't accurate, because that is ( ideally ) everyone paying for the accidental mistakes of a few. I have no issues with telling smokers and the morbidly obese that they should have to pay into health insurance more than someone who is otherwise healthy. So why aren't taxes the same? Why don't the "premiums" go up for people that make bad decisions at the voting booth?

Sorry, I still think this is silly. The tax system should be used to fund the government, not punish or reward people.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

That's not what I am saying.

I am saying that the value of IP is just as inextricably linked to society as everything else.

Just because code doesn't get shipped on trucks doesn't mean business profit generated from code is exempt from taxation to fix up the roads, in other words.

Although ideally that would be reflected in the price of shipping -- if shippers had to pay huge taxes for their trucks using roads, they would charge the video game manufacturer more, which would cut into the developer's profits, and everything would just work out. So perhaps that is a good argument for why taxes aren't the answer, but since things are never "ideal" I dunno what else could be done.

So what though? Without modern society we all starve. Does that mean food should be more expensive because it relies on the rest of society to function?

Basically what you are arguing for here sounds more to me like usage fees for infrastructure. Honestly, I don't have a particular problem with charging people based on miles traveled and how much damage they do to a road. I would argue that for the most part gas taxes can do a good enough job of this and in fact this is how we fund a lot of this kind of stuff. Shippers than charge what they need to charge and people shipping things do pay for a lot of the infrastructure.

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

I recently was informed that I can't even write a novel.

What ? Why ?

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Therefore, why is it silly to say that anyone who voted for GW should have to contribute more, to pay for their mistake? Its no different than the "loser pays" system in litigation. If the war had actually helped matters, then great, everyone can pay for it. But since it was a stupid mistake, why should those that were opposed from the get go have to pay for it?

Because in a democracy you are responsible for your government, even if you didn't vote for the guy.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Belz...

What ? Why ?

He works at a company that creates intellectual property. These large public companies tend to be very protective of any IP and don't want to let their talented employees create IP value "on the side" for various reasons.

They don't actually stop you from writing though, they just claim ownership of it if you do.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by Belz...

Because in a democracy you are responsible for your government, even if you didn't vote for the guy.

Yeah but we don't live in a democracy, so that is a moot point.

We live in an ultra-special-interest-influenced-republic. Not only do I not get to vote on specific policies at the federal level, making it a republic rather than democracy, but that republic is influenced by money and power to an almost comical extent.

So your statement should really read "because in an ultra-special-interest-influenced-republic you are responsible for the decisions that run counter to your own interest, even if you were overtly opposed to those decisions."

Doesn't that seem a little messed up?

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Sorry, I still think this is silly. The tax system should be used to fund the government, not punish or reward people.

The only reason you are saying it is "punishment" is because the money is already gone and a debt is being paid.

Do you claim it is "punishment" when people have to pay back any sort of loan?

If instead of funding wars with loans, we waited until we had the cash on hand, would it be different? For example if GW wanted a war, and had to front the cash first, would it still be "punishment" to tell taxpayers that if they want the war they need to pay more in taxes, and if they oppose the war, they get to pay less in taxes. Would that still be "punishment?" Because to me it seems to be the same idea.

[ratcat]

I really wanted to play. Wish I'd been here for the beginning. Much too late now.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

The only reason you are saying it is "punishment" is because the money is already gone and a debt is being paid.

Do you claim it is "punishment" when people have to pay back any sort of loan?

If instead of funding wars with loans, we waited until we had the cash on hand, would it be different? For example if GW wanted a war, and had to front the cash first, would it still be "punishment" to tell taxpayers that if they want the war they need to pay more in taxes, and if they oppose the war, they get to pay less in taxes. Would that still be "punishment?" Because to me it seems to be the same idea.

Yes, it's still punishment. As much as you don't like it our government ostensibly represents every single individual. If the the government screws up and puts us into massive debt we *all* have to repay that debt.

This is one of the reasons government power is dangerous and should be curtailed as much as possible.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Yeah but we don't live in a democracy, so that is a moot point.

We live in an ultra-special-interest-influenced-republic. Not only do I not get to vote on specific policies at the federal level, making it a republic rather than democracy, but that republic is influenced by money and power to an almost comical extent.

So your statement should really read "because in an ultra-special-interest-influenced-republic you are responsible for the decisions that run counter to your own interest, even if you were overtly opposed to those decisions."

Doesn't that seem a little messed up?

And one of the reasons people will invest millions in influencing politicians is that they have the keys to the billions if not trillions. Political power needs to be checked so that lobbyists can't syphon trillions.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

So what though? Without modern society we all starve. Does that mean food should be more expensive because it relies on the rest of society to function?

No, it just means that food producers have the same vested interest in keeping modern society alive that everyone else does.

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Basically what you are arguing for here sounds more to me like usage fees for infrastructure. Honestly, I don't have a particular problem with charging people based on miles traveled and how much damage they do to a road. I would argue that for the most part gas taxes can do a good enough job of this and in fact this is how we fund a lot of this kind of stuff. Shippers than charge what they need to charge and people shipping things do pay for a lot of the infrastructure.

Yes.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Yes.

It's funny, when I first talked to you I thought you sounded kind of like a communist. But when we get to specifics I get a more libertarian vibe.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

This is one of the reasons government power is dangerous and should be curtailed as much as possible.

Well I agree 100% with that sentiment, but at the same time is the alternative any better?

The way I see it, humans are still kids. Maybe in a few hundred or thousand years things will be different, but we are still just apes that got smart enough to be powerful apes.

So if there is a playground full of kids, what happens?

You throw in a teacher to make sure the kids don't bully each other and hurt each other.

If that teacher is corrupt, and favors certain kids over others, and is influenced by the certain kids, you have two choices. Either get rid of all teachers, or find a better teacher.

If you get rid of all teachers we are looking at a Lord of the Flies situation. Kids will just naturally aggregate into groups on their own, and the power problems manifest themselves all over again.

Until we grow up I honestly think the only solution is to just find a better teacher.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Well I agree 100% with that sentiment, but at the same time is the alternative any better?

The way I see it, humans are still kids. Maybe in a few hundred or thousand years things will be different, but we are still just apes that got smart enough to be powerful apes.

So if there is a playground full of kids, what happens?

You throw in a teacher to make sure the kids don't bully each other and hurt each other.

If that teacher is corrupt, and favors certain kids over others, and is influenced by the certain kids, you have two choices. Either get rid of all teachers, or find a better teacher.

If you get rid of all teachers we are looking at a Lord of the Flies situation. Kids will just naturally aggregate into groups on their own, and the power problems manifest themselves all over again.

Until we grow up I honestly think the only solution is to just find a better teacher.

How about instead we have 50 teachers. They all work together under a united set of basic rules but they can all run their playgrounds with slightly different local rules. Then kids can decide which teacher they would like to have. The teachers who's rules work better attract more kids. The teachers with bad rules have kids leave them until they have nobody left.

Market competition. It works and it's how the USA was setup from the beginning. By centralizing too much power we remove the competition element. I say strip the federal government of most of it's power and let the states compete for citizens.

[Lithrael]

It sounds good on paper but most people aren't actually that mobile.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Lithrael

It sounds good on paper but most people aren't actually that mobile.

Who says? America has a long track record of people moving around, sometimes in large numbers, to find a better place to live.

I simply don't buy it. In fact living in this area it seems like there are very few people who grew up here. People came here for Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon etc because there was good work here.

The simple fact is that we aren't a farming agrarian society and you need to be mobile to be successful. If people aren't willing or able to be mobile then they will only have the opportunities where they live which means they may miss out on a lot.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

It's funny, when I first talked to you I thought you sounded kind of like a communist. But when we get to specifics I get a more libertarian vibe.

I am fundamentally libertarian or even Randian objectivist. But I am also a student of history and human nature, and I don't know that the ideals of libertarianism are realistic given human nature. And the problem is that a libertarian situation is very unstable. The difference between a libertarian utopia and a corporate dystopia is elusive and fleeting -- is it worth taking the chance?

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

How about instead we have 50 teachers. They all work together under a united set of basic rules but they can all run their playgrounds with slightly different local rules. Then kids can decide which teacher they would like to have. The teachers who's rules work better attract more kids. The teachers with bad rules have kids leave them until they have nobody left.

Market competition. It works and it's how the USA was setup from the beginning. By centralizing too much power we remove the competition element. I say strip the federal government of most of it's power and let the states compete for citizens.

Ok, lets play this game.

What happens when one state makes a secret agreement with its neighbors to reject any residency applications from them, and vice versa, because none of the state governments like the fact that the residents are so mobile?

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Ok, lets play this game.

What happens when one state makes a secret agreement with its neighbors to reject any residency applications from them, and vice versa, because none of the state governments like the fact that the residents are so mobile?

There is no residency application. They are part of the USA, open borders, move there if you want to, just like now. That's the whole point of the base rule set otherwise known as the constitution.

What I'm saying we should do is keep the current system and cut the federal government back to the bone as was originally intended.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

What happens when one state makes a secret agreement with its neighbors to reject any residency applications from them, and vice versa, because none of the state governments like the fact that the residents are so mobile?

The "residency applications" themselves are struck down as unconstitutional, along with any attempt to ration benefits based on those applications.

[JJM 777]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

I suppose this would be the effective result on an income tax on prostitutes, no? If they need to work X number of extra tricks to have the same level of income you could argue that the taxes are causing them to turn extra tricks.

It isn´t quite the same, because the tricks remain as a freely chosen profession all the time, out of 10,000 other professions that the person could freely choose for earning every single penny that she earns.

A politically decided sex tax, go to bed with the lonely in 20% of the times you go to bed with anyone, is a very close analogy to the voting scenario in the OP, and the monetary taxation analogies that others responded with.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by JJM 777

It isn´t quite the same, because the tricks remain as a freely chosen profession all the time, out of 10,000 other professions that the person could freely choose for earning every single penny that she earns.

A politically decided sex tax is a very close analogy to the voting scenario in the OP, and the monetary taxation analogies that others responded with.

Yes but by it's very definition income tax *does* apply to sex. If that is your chosen profession and you pay taxes you are certainly having to work more to handle the tax burden no?

I mean it applies to anything you do that creates income, right?

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

There is no residency application. They are part of the USA, open borders, move there if you want to, just like now. That's the whole point of the base rule set otherwise known as the constitution.

What I'm saying we should do is keep the current system and cut the federal government back to the bone as was originally intended.

Ok that works for my lame counterexample, but what about cases where the constitution either no longer applies or isn't up to date?

For example, there were no abortions when it was written. Neither was there IP.

How would a bare bones federal government handle the cases where states disagree on things like that? Is there something in the constitution that says if a woman wants an abortion, and her state doesn't allow it, so she has it done in another state, her state of residency isn't allowed to punish her for it?

Or are you saying its ok if the fed steps in for extreme cases like that, as long as it is only for extreme cases?

In which case I would ask, who gets to dictate what constitutes "extreme?" It seems like in every case there is a slippery slope that leads back to a more powerful federal government and it just can't be avoided.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

The "residency applications" themselves are struck down as unconstitutional, along with any attempt to ration benefits based on those applications.

But isn't that based on how the supreme court rules, and isn't that highly political?

I refuse to accept that the old farts who get to sit on the supreme court until they wither up into sand are capable of fully understanding how the constitution should be interpreted in current times. Not after all the absurd rulings that are split along party lines.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Ok that works for my lame counterexample, but what about cases where the constitution either no longer applies or isn't up to date?

For example, there were no abortions when it was written. Neither was there IP.

There was IP. That's why the constitution allows copyright.

Abortion is just a crazy issue. I think I could be convinced either way (e.g. make an amendment that it's allowed or relegate it to the states).

Quote:

How would a bare bones federal government handle the cases where states disagree on things like that? Is there something in the constitution that says if a woman wants an abortion, and her state doesn't allow it, so she has it done in another state, her state of residency isn't allowed to punish her for it?

As I said above it could go either way, as could almost any issue.

Quote:

Or are you saying its ok if the fed steps in for extreme cases like that, as long as it is only for extreme cases?

In which case I would ask, who gets to dictate what constitutes "extreme?" It seems like in every case there is a slippery slope that leads back to a more powerful federal government and it just can't be avoided.

I do think the constitution needs some updating to clarify some issues.

The sad part is that the original document isn't really that unclear. We've just slowly chipped away at it allowing the feds to get away with more things. The commerce clause has been utterly and completely abused for example.

So I agree that there is a slippery slope and we are standing at the bottom of it. I never said it was perfect, but competition amongst the states is a powerful concept we should take more advantage of. Right now it's hard because so much is forced on them from the feds. We basically send all of our money to DC and then they bribe us with it. It's mega stupid.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

But isn't that based on how the supreme court rules, and isn't that highly political?.

Nope.

It wouldn't ever make it to SCOTUS. Something this obviously unconstitutional would be decided at the District Court level, and then affirmed without opinion all the way up.

Besides, your view of the court is inaccurate. As political as it may be, most cases are quite clear-cut and decided 9 to 0 without serious contention. All nine of those Justices really do try their best to apply the Law.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Nope.

It wouldn't ever make it to SCOTUS. Something this obviously unconstitutional would be decided at the District Court level, and then affirmed without opinion all the way up.

Besides, your view of the court is inaccurate. As political as it may be, most cases are quite clear-cut and decided 9 to 0 without serious contention. All nine of those Justices really do try their best to apply the Law.

Hmmmm.

So the contention is just blown out of proportion by the media?

[NewtonTrino]

I don't agree that the supreme court isn't political. To me they've obviously stretched the hell out out of the constitution.

[rocketdodger]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Who says? America has a long track record of people moving around, sometimes in large numbers, to find a better place to live.

I simply don't buy it. In fact living in this area it seems like there are very few people who grew up here. People came here for Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon etc because there was good work here.

The simple fact is that we aren't a farming agrarian society and you need to be mobile to be successful. If people aren't willing or able to be mobile then they will only have the opportunities where they live which means they may miss out on a lot.

In my opinion the realtor racket does a great deal to stifle the mobility of middle and upper class families in our country.

Eating 5-6% of the profit on my home every time I sell? That is just absurd, given how little value realtors add these days. The last two homes we bought I found myself online, the only thing I needed the realtor for was opening the lockbox for a showing and filling in the blanks in their template contract. And the last home I sold, we only showed the house once and that ended up being the offer we accepted. I need to pay the realtor $12,000 for a single showing? Huh?

And then there are moving costs. Moving related expenses on my last move totaled over $9,000. My employer paid for part of that, but not all, and either way it is a non-trivial sum of cash.

So total that up and just my last job move cost over $21,000. It isn't a huge amount, but it was certainly enough to keep me from changing jobs until things started to really go sour where I worked, or I saw a mega-difference in opportunity with the new job.

Moving around isn't as easy as it should be. If it was, I bet the job market would be different. People only move these days if there is a significant factor prompting them to, and that doesn't lead to the mobility induced "competition" you are talking about. For the free market to work, it has to be genuinely free, not just "free as long as you are willing to deal with hardships."

That being said, all this only applies to people with lots of material possessions. It is really easy to move if you live in a cheap apartment without a long lease and don't have much stuff. But are those the people that are driving the job market? Are those the people that employers and states would be competing with each other to attract?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by rocketdodger

Hmmmm.

So the contention is just blown out of proportion by the media?

Isn't that pretty much tautological?

Yes. Yes it is.