5 ms·

Thank you for the response - sincerely. I supposed it is unconventional. I'm still struck by a few ideas. The first is that economic leveling needs to be done

Thank you for the response - sincerely. I supposed it is unconventional. I'm still struck by a few ideas. The first is that economic leveling needs to be done by force through the state. The second being that any new program needs to be funded by the wealthy - also by force of the state. I would think using incentives would be the better approach? For example, let corporations repatriate overseas cash with a lower penalty and use that money to fund green R&D

tivert 8y ago
> I'm still struck by a few ideas. The first is that economic leveling needs to be done by force through the state. The second being that any new program needs to be funded by the wealthy - also by force of the state. We can't count on noblesse oblige to do it, and involving the state is how we involve democracy in the process. > I would think using incentives would be the better approach? For example, let corporations repatriate overseas cash with a lower penalty and use that money to fund green R&D In some ways that may depend too much on noblesse oblige to work (i.e. that the corporations won't subvert the goals of the incentives to benefit themselves) and in other ways be too much like a command economy (government closely directing private industry).
- anarchimedes 8y ago
  Could you kindly expound on how the incentive example I described would be like a command economy? And how would that be different from the capital gains tax rates we have now ( in the sense the government providing an incentive for investment)? With regards to: >We can't count on noblesse oblige to do it, and involving the state is how we involve democracy in the process. I believe it's the democratic part that bothers me - as, and excuse me if this is a poor analogy, like 3 wolves an one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. I don't want you to think that I am ignorant of the fact that we do need some level of economic leveling for a well functioning society. My concern is how to best achieve that while preserving an individual liberty. Again, appreciate the response.
- wpietri 8y ago
  > We can't count on noblesse oblige to do it Exactly the problem. If the people with the big resources were taking care of the big problems, government would have a lot less to do. And although I get that the taxation system is ultimately undergirded by the threat of force, so is most property ownership. E.g., consider John McCcain's 4-8 houses. [1] He obviously could only be in 1 at a time. If homeless people took the rest over, they would be ejected by force. Government force in specific. That's how democracy works: we come to agreements on how things should be run, and people who disagree sufficiently end up complying at the point of a gun. Libertarians who get the vapors at the violence underlying taxation but not property are not actually concerned about violence. [1] https://www.politico.com/story/2008/08/mccain-unsure-how-many-houses-he-owns-012685 https://www.politico.com/story/2008/08/mccain-unsure-how-man...
- andrenth 8y ago
  > In some ways that may depend too much on noblesse oblige to work Why are you suspicious on the noblesse of people who run companies but not on that of people who run governments? Bureaucrats are not noble angels who came from heaven to help us. They are people acting on their own self-interest like everyone else.
ryguytilidie 8y ago
Why does the state exist if not to "use force" to make the lives of the people in the state better? Also why are all these people who object to use of "of force" to levy and collect taxes but not you know, literally everything else that the state uses force to do?

tivert 8y ago

> I'm still struck by a few ideas. The first is that economic leveling needs to be done by force through the state. The second being that any new program needs to be funded by the wealthy - also by force of the state. We can't count on noblesse oblige to do it, and involving the state is how we involve democracy in the process. > I would think using incentives would be the better approach? For example, let corporations repatriate overseas cash with a lower penalty and use that money to fund green R&D In some ways that may depend too much on noblesse oblige to work (i.e. that the corporations won't subvert the goals of the incentives to benefit themselves) and in other ways be too much like a command economy (government closely directing private industry).

anarchimedes 8y ago
Could you kindly expound on how the incentive example I described would be like a command economy? And how would that be different from the capital gains tax rates we have now ( in the sense the government providing an incentive for investment)? With regards to: >We can't count on noblesse oblige to do it, and involving the state is how we involve democracy in the process. I believe it's the democratic part that bothers me - as, and excuse me if this is a poor analogy, like 3 wolves an one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. I don't want you to think that I am ignorant of the fact that we do need some level of economic leveling for a well functioning society. My concern is how to best achieve that while preserving an individual liberty. Again, appreciate the response.
wpietri 8y ago
> We can't count on noblesse oblige to do it Exactly the problem. If the people with the big resources were taking care of the big problems, government would have a lot less to do. And although I get that the taxation system is ultimately undergirded by the threat of force, so is most property ownership. E.g., consider John McCcain's 4-8 houses. [1] He obviously could only be in 1 at a time. If homeless people took the rest over, they would be ejected by force. Government force in specific. That's how democracy works: we come to agreements on how things should be run, and people who disagree sufficiently end up complying at the point of a gun. Libertarians who get the vapors at the violence underlying taxation but not property are not actually concerned about violence. [1] https://www.politico.com/story/2008/08/mccain-unsure-how-many-houses-he-owns-012685 https://www.politico.com/story/2008/08/mccain-unsure-how-man...
andrenth 8y ago
> In some ways that may depend too much on noblesse oblige to work Why are you suspicious on the noblesse of people who run companies but not on that of people who run governments? Bureaucrats are not noble angels who came from heaven to help us. They are people acting on their own self-interest like everyone else.

ryguytilidie 8y ago

Why does the state exist if not to "use force" to make the lives of the people in the state better? Also why are all these people who object to use of "of force" to levy and collect taxes but not you know, literally everything else that the state uses force to do?