Tea Party Movement

[reesezpiecez103]

<p>Just popping in to point something out:</p>

<p>Socialism is not Communism. All Socialists do NOT advocate for systems where the government redistributes ALL wealth from the hardworking rich to the “dirty” and lazy poor so that everyone is “equal.” That’s a common generalization, but it isn’t true. It really bothers me when people throw the word socialism around like it’s the coming of the apocalypse.</p>

<p>I agree with capitalism and I fully support capitalism as our economic system. However, I think that the basic premise of socialism - that capitalism concentrates all the riches into the hands of a few wealthy people - has merit, although I don’t agree with their solution for dealing with it.</p>

<p>It offends me when people generalize all Socialists as terrible people who want to ruin everything America stands for. That’s my main issue with the Tea Partiers: they exaggerate and fearmonger, without fully knowing what they’re talking about. They listen to Sarah Palin’s logic, which is in itself questionable, but I’ll let that go for now.</p>

<p>I live in a very conservative town. I love to see the look on people’s faces when I tell them that my great-great-grandfather was the leader and presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America. ;)</p>

[BIGeastBEAST]

<p>Somehow, your lack of political common sense leads me to doubt the claim that you’ve read any philosophical text I can cite.</p>

<p>But, supposing you have, you’d understand that individuals in society don’t operate on a strictly autonomous level – what would be the point of forming a society then? Rather, the members of society agree to a certain social contract where the individual gives up certain rights in order for the collective benefit of the whole. None of this is revolutionary ideology, and, as such, to claim that you’re only responsible for yourself and I’m only responsible for myself is ignorant. We’re both inevitably accountable for the well-being of society in general. ~ The ascendancy</p>

<hr>

<p>Well, I guess my degree must not be in Political Science like I thought it was?</p>

<p>The problem is that in your model of the social contract, it’s forced upon members of society to redistribute wealth, which = shakedown.</p>

<p>People pay taxes for basic government services (law enforcement, public works, defense, education), but trying to take their money and hand it over to some one who hasn’t earned it, is not part of the social contract.</p>

<p>You are basically stating you want people like me (taxpayers) to stand on a corner and pass out $20 bills.</p>

<p>That is not part of the social contract.</p>

[BIGeastBEAST]

<p>But, supposing you have, you’d understand that individuals in society don’t operate on a strictly autonomous level – what would be the point of forming a society then? Rather, the members of society agree to a certain social contract where the individual gives up certain rights in order for the collective benefit of the whole. None of this is revolutionary ideology, and, as such, to claim that you’re only responsible for yourself and I’m only responsible for myself is ignorant. We’re both inevitably accountable for the well-being of society in general. ~ The Ascendancy</p>

<hr>

<p>Well, no one has asked me to give up any rights - what rights do you give up?</p>

<p>However, you are assuming that the social contract must require the exchange of money, from one person who has it to one person who doesn’t.</p>

<p>Flawed logic.</p>

[TheAscendancy]

<p>

Well, no one has asked me to give up any rights - what rights do you give up?</p>

<p>However, you are assuming that the social contract must require the exchange of money, from one person who has it to one person who doesn’t.</p>

<p>Flawed logic.

</p>

<p>You consented to the social contract when you joined this society and enjoyed its benefits. For example, I can’t willingly disobey traffic laws on a whim. I’ve given up the right to drive as freely as I want in order to ensure general safety for society. </p>

<p>There’s no flawed logic.</p>

<p>Nowhere did I say that a social contract was strictly ‘the exchange of money’. In fact, the rights the individual surrenders are much more sociopolitical than they are economic. That said, by consenting to our specific social contract, you DID also consent to taxation and the general benefits that follow. For example, tax money supports clean water, safety regulations, public education, and so on. </p>

<p>What’s more, all of this is basic political philosophy. I would expect someone who’s read any text I can cite to understand that much.</p>

[TheAscendancy]

<p>

The problem is that in your model of the social contract, it’s forced upon members of society to redistribute wealth, which = shakedown.</p>

<p>People pay taxes for basic government services (law enforcement, public works, defense, education), but trying to take their money and hand it over to some one who hasn’t earned it, is not part of the social contract.

</p>

<p>If you don’t want to abide by the social contract, then you’re free to leave society (and consequently surrender all the benefits that come with it). It’s not forced. Taxation is an understood part of the social contract. And welfare is also a societal benefit. Can you imagine the streets littered with the homeless and impoverished? Crime would likely increase, along with contagious epidemics.</p>

[BIGeastBEAST]

<p>I already made a comment about paying taxes to support things like law enforcenment, education and public works, so I don’t think we are in disagreement on that issue, because I’m certainly not an anarchist, nor do I think you are.</p>

<p>However, in my opinion there is no constitutional way (or moral way) to redistribute wealth they way you propose (forcefully, by government mandate).</p>

<p>As I stated before, I also feel that individuals who have the resources to help others should - but I also feel they should have the freedom to make that decision on their own, not by you or the government.</p>

[BIGeastBEAST]

<p>If you don’t want to abide by the social contract, then you’re free to leave society (and consequently surrender all the benefits that come with it). ~ The ascendancy</p>

<hr>

<p>Ummm, no.</p>

<p>Because no where in the “American” social contract are we forced to redistribute our wealth.</p>

<p>P.S. Stop trying to tie in taxes to redistribution of wealth, they are two separate topics and you know it.</p>

[BIGeastBEAST]

<p>And welfare is also a societal benefit. Can you imagine the streets littered with the homeless and impoverished? Crime would likely increase, along with contagious epidemics. ~ The Ascendancy</p>

<hr>

<p>Or those people who are capable of working would just get jobs, or die - either way, I’m fine with it.</p>

[NonAntiAnarchist]

<p>

Election is the only direct means of getting…elected […] no politicians will get elected if they don’t serve the interest of their constituents.

</p>

<p>I’m not sure how to interpret the first sentence. If I want to eat and apple, then I must eat an apple. Sure, but I’m talking about the indirect means (maybe that wasn’t clear). </p>

<p>If a politician wants to get elected, he doesn’t necessarily have to “serve” the interests of his constituents; he only has to appear as if he is doing so. If I’ve done nothing for my constituents, but I get a ton of funding from corporations and can run millions of adds saying I have, couldn’t my constituents be tricked?</p>

<p>

This applies to a well-educated and specialized labor force. But, should social stratification become more pronounced, there will be no scarcity of labor, which will be provided by low-income workers. Moreover, technology says nothing about how a corporation will distribute its wealth. Yes, it could use its pay increases to develop safety standards and increase worker pay, but those are all viewed as additional costs. If it weren’t for safety regulations and minimum wage, the low-income worker’s life would be a lot more difficult in the face of corporate greed.

</p>

<p>

I’m too lazy to type out the entire theory, but, in short, it’s premised on the veil of ignorance argument wherein society agrees in its social contract for some means of self-protection through distribution of wealth.

</p>

<p>I’ll come back to these later, as this deserves a longer reply than what I can give at the moment. </p>

<p>

LOL, that’s a clear logical fallacy. I thought you were a philosophy major.

</p>

<p>I guess you skipped over this part:

I didn’t mean to say we could be certain of who he was advocating for; we can’t.

</p>

<p>I wasn’t claiming a logical proof. I assumed the conclusion. That was the point.</p>

<p>

Politicians in democratic governments don’t have a monopoly. In the end, the voters can kick them out if they’re not satisfied. Now the politicians can market themselves misleadingly - just like a business can. Politicians are charged with working for the people; businessmen are charged making money at the expense of other. Who’s more likely to be interested in the well-being of the people?

</p>

<p>The institution has a monopoly. It’s existence does not depend it’s citizens wishes. However, a business can go bankrupt. As for the latter part of your post, it seems like you had some kool-aid, and you forgot the point of the discussion: “who’s more accountable”. Not “who’s more interested in the well being of the people”.</p>

<p>

And in a true communistic society everyone has all the resources they need.

</p>

<p>My proposition has decades of thought and literature behind it. I can link you to it, and then you can refute it as fiction.</p>

[TheAscendancy]

<p>

Because no where in the “American” social contract are we forced to redistribute our wealth.</p>

<p>P.S. Stop trying to tie in taxes to redistribution of wealth, they are two separate topics and you know it.

</p>

<p>How is taxation not an example of redistribution of wealth? You pay a certain percentage of your income to the government, which then uses this revenue to fund welfare programs such as Medicare/Medicaid and unemployment insurance. No, you’re not directly giving your money to the poor, but the benefits they received are funded by tax money.</p>

<p>Moreover, the tax codes are on both the national books and the state books – as ‘American’ as you can get.</p>

<p>

However, in my opinion there is no constitutional way (or moral way) to redistribute wealth they way you propose (forcefully, by government mandate).

</p>

<p>It’s written in the Constitution that the national government can levy taxes. Morally speaking, it’s a dubious issue, but Rawls’s argument makes perfect sense as to why redistribution of wealth is also morally sound.</p>

<p>

Or those people who are capable of working would just get jobs, or die - either way, I’m fine with it.

</p>

<p>Those capable of working likely fail to find work due to harsh competition by a burgeoning lower class. Do you honestly think anyone who’s capable of working is willingly unemployed? Very few people are that lazy – rather, it’s a structural or cyclical issue with their employer or the economy that forces them to remain unemployed. What’s more, it’s unlikely that they’ll just starve and die – rather, driven to the point of desperation, they’ll resort to crimes (pickpocketing, extortion, murder, you name it). </p>

<p>

If a politician wants to get elected, he doesn’t necessarily have to “serve” the interests of his constituents; he only has to appear as if he is doing so. If I’ve done nothing for my constituents, but I get a ton of funding from corporations and can run millions of adds saying I have, couldn’t my constituents be tricked?

</p>

<p>Yes, but how long do you suppose this can last? A term? Two terms? All of your votes in Congress are recorded and open to public scrutiny. It doesn’t help that the media is constantly on the look out for such political scandals to fill the 6 'o clock news. </p>

<p>In the end, the only surefire way to remain in power is to serve the interest of those who elect you.</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>

I wasn’t claiming a logical proof. I assumed the conclusion. That was the point.

</p>

<p>“I just pulled something out of my ass.” Well jeez, that’s persuasive.</p>

<p>

My proposition has decades of thought and literature behind it. I can link you to it, and then you can refute it as fiction.

</p>

<p>So does communism.<br>

The institution has a monopoly. It’s existence does not depend it’s citizens wishes. However, a business can go bankrupt. As for the latter part of your post, it seems like you had some kool-aid, and you forgot the point of the discussion: “who’s more accountable”. Not “who’s more interested in the well being of the people”.

Ok, this is just silly. First of all governments aren’t permanent. On several occasions in history, governments have been overthrown in things called “revolutions.” </p>

<p>As for the point of the discussion, the point seemed to be made that power should be removed from the government’s hands as it lacks efficiency and that an increase in freedom for businesses would be beneficial.</p>

[NonAntiAnarchist]

<p>

“I just pulled something out of my ass.” Well jeez, that’s persuasive.

</p>

<p>CC doesn’t censor ass anymore, wahoo! I wasn’t trying to persuade anybody of the conclusion I came to; I was showing that you can just as easily assume Kennedy was advocating the interests of the elite as you can of him advocating the interests of the poor. </p>

<p>

Ok, this is just silly. First of all governments aren’t permanent. On several occasions in history, governments have been overthrown in things called “revolutions.”

</p>

<p>You’re calling me silly? You’re equating violent revolutions that have happened scarcely throughout history to a company going out of business… </p>

<p>

So does communism.

</p>

<p>Well, much, much less, but I know. I wasn’t calling communist theory fiction.</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>

I was showing that you can just as easily assume Kennedy was advocating the interests of the elite as you can of him advocating the interests of the poor.

</p>

<p>And I could assume that the moon is man-made, but that doesn’t make it just as credible as an idea with actual support.</p>

<p>

You’re calling me silly? You’re equating violent revolutions that have happened scarcely throughout history to a company going out of business…

</p>

<p>I wouldn’t call revolutions scarce. That being said, the point I forgot to make was that it’s silly to treat a government as an independent entity separate from the distinct individuals in it. Politicians aren’t interested in authoritarian government at their own expense.</p>

<p>

Well, much, much less, but I know. I wasn’t calling communist theory fiction.

</p>

<p>It’s certainly not empirical.</p>

[TomWolfe321]

<p>BIGeastBEAST’s argument has seriously faltered since being faced with logical opposition. You’d have to be an idiot to support the Teabaggers…what kind of political pillar is keeping the word count down on tax legislation? LOL</p>

<p>And there’s nothing wrong with socialism or communism. They’re just political theories.</p>

[reesezpiecez103]

<p>^^Thank you. You have summed up pretty much everything I ould have said.</p>

[NonAntiAnarchist]

<p>

And I could assume that the moon is man-made, but that doesn’t make it just as credible as an idea with actual support.

</p>

<p>Cool, dude, but I was saying that while Kennedy’s positions might suggest he cared for the poor, they could equally suggest that he supported having the government control recourses. I didn’t think my claim was that controversial… </p>

<p>

I wouldn’t call revolutions scarce. That being said, the point I forgot to make was that it’s silly to treat a government as an independent entity separate from the distinct individuals in it. Politicians aren’t interested in authoritarian government at their own expense.

</p>

<p>Revolutions are certainly scarce relative to business failings. </p>

<p>Let me ask this:</p>

<p>If politicians are accountable for their actions, why is their such a disparity between voter polls and elections. Why do less than 30% (the numbers change over time, but this is probably the average over the last decade) of voters approve of the members of congress and yet more than 30% of congress gets re-elected after each term (convoluted, but I think you get the point).</p>

<p>Congressman are not accountable to individual people, but to the majority or those who have influence or power over the majority. This is true both empirically (I mean seriously; no debating this one) and theoretically.</p>

<p>

It’s certainly not empirical.

</p>

<p>It certainly is. And what do you mean by this anyway. If a theory is properly deduced, an empirical counter-example is practically impossible.</p>

[TheAscendancy]

<p>

Quote:
I wouldn’t call revolutions scarce. That being said, the point I forgot to make was that it’s silly to treat a government as an independent entity separate from the distinct individuals in it. Politicians aren’t interested in authoritarian government at their own expense.
Revolutions are certainly scarce relative to business failings.</p>

<p>Let me ask this:</p>

<p>If politicians are accountable for their actions, why is their such a disparity between voter polls and elections. Why do less than 30% (the numbers change over time, but this is probably the average over the last decade) of voters approve of the members of congress and yet more than 30% of congress gets re-elected after each term (convoluted, but I think you get the point).</p>

<p>Congressman are not accountable to individual people, but to the majority or those who have influence or power over the majority. This is true both empirically (I mean seriously; no debating this one) and theoretically.

</p>

<p>The phenomenon you described is addressed in all intro polisci courses. In fact, I read a really good article about just that: “If, as Ralph Nader Says, Congress Is “The Broken Branch,” How Come We Love Our Congressmen So much?” By Richard Fenno.</p>

<p>That said, I think the point ThisCouldBeHeaven was making was that governments are not self-perpetuating entities independent of the public it serves. Rather, the individuals in government ARE subjected to the constituents they serve and, as a result, can be easily ousted when public opinion takes a turn.</p>

<p>This is certainly true, given Fenno’s explanation for why specific congressmen have such high reelection percentages when the majority of Americans disapprove of Congress as a whole. Individual congressmen service their constituency, bring home the pork, and utilize office perks to advertise – all of which prove that, in the end, democratic governments are still subordinate to their constituencies.</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>

Why do less than 30% (the numbers change over time, but this is probably the average over the last decade) of voters approve of the members of congress and yet more than 30% of congress gets re-elected after each term (convoluted, but I think you get the point).

</p>

<p>Less than 30% approve of Congress as a whole, not the members of Congress. Congressmen tend to be very popular among their own constituents. The problem is that different groups of constituents want different things and thus the congressmen that represent them want different things. There’ve been some sweeping changes in Congress in recent elections though.</p>

<p>

Cool, dude, but I was saying that while Kennedy’s positions might suggest he cared for the poor, they could equally suggest that he supported having the government control recourses. I didn’t think my claim was that controversial…

</p>

<p>To what ends? He stated that his intention was to help the poor, his policies in theory would do that, people supported those policies because of what they were supposed to accomplish, and for that reason they supported him. The idea that he may have had some other unrelated, unstated motive that has no clear benefit to him in particular is … slightly idiotic?</p>

<p>

If a theory is properly deduced, an empirical counter-example is practically impossible.

</p>

<p>And the purely communist and purely free-market societies from which these theories were developed are where? When?</p>

<p>But this is the problem with libertarians - their religious belief in free-market theory.</p>

[NastyPolitician]

<p>I’m happy there are taxes for the purpose of redistributing wealth. If not for them, the inequality and disparity between the rich and poor, the haves and have nots would unequivocally be more overwhelming.</p>

<p>I don’t think the rich are taxed enough. Tax them some more!</p>

[justtotalk]

<p>I’m no supporter of the Tea Party patriots (overall, anyways, they make some good individual points) but:</p>

<p>

what kind of political pillar is keeping the word count down on tax legislation? LOL

</p>

<p>The specific word count is arcane, but the idea is to minimize fringe costs of unnecessarily complex tax code. The more complex the tax code, the less efficient the economy–we waste money on non-value-added activities like having accountants file taxes and increase IRS funding. </p>

<p>No (reasonable) person wants this, including Obama: [On</a> Tax Day, Obama Calls For Simplifying Tax Code - Political Hotsheet - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4946766-503544.html]On”>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4946766-503544.html)</p>

<p>So I don’t think a shorter tax code is the ultimate objective. It’s just their specific method for reducing economic inefficiencies. </p>

<p>

Morally speaking, it’s a dubious issue, but Rawls’s argument makes perfect sense as to why redistribution of wealth is also morally sound.

</p>

<p>I don’t pretend to know anything about political science, or J. Rawls. So I’m not sure if I’m understanding your comment. But redistribution of wealth through taxation usually ignores the disincentives you’re placing on businesses/individuals. It’s completely fine to tax inheritance/gifts/estates at high rates: the heirs never earned the money, so there’s no disincentive for them to work more or less.</p>

<p>But when you start taxing capital gains (which affects stockholder’s incentive to invest/fund company expansion) corporations, and individuals to redistribute wealth, you have the age-old problem: you’re slowing the economy. Corporations, when deciding which projects to undertake, are going to have the same cost-benefit analysis–except the benefit is taxed at a higher rate. Less projects = less work = stagnating economy. </p>

<p>So, yes, the disparity shrinks. But the average wealth declines in the process.</p>

<p>However, I do think high taxes on wealth individuals (as opposed to corporations or capital gains) is acceptable. Redistribution of wealth is admirable, but there’s a limit to what you can do simply via taxation–high taxes don’t just make the rich people slightly less rich, they can make everyone actually become poorer.</p>