U.S. policy and political philosophy thread I: what are you and what is that?

[Spoony]

I'm a progressive with anarchist leanings. I believe in re-focusing social attention towards issues of societal improvement, which to me usually comes down to education, social equality, and an emphasis on research and technological innovation.

I am for individual choice as long as it does not reasonably impede the choices and freedoms of other people.

The three largest dangers to the future of American democracy would be:

1. Free-market fundamentalism

2. Religious fundamentalism

3. Military Jingoism and increasing authoritarianism.

But I would say that the biggest threat to our survival and prosperity as a species is uncontrolled growth, in population, but also in regards to a consistent expansion of GDP. Part of this issue is ideologically rooted, in that growth is considered to be almost wholly positive and necessary - and part of the problem is that people either do not recognize or understand the consequences of their individual, much less collective actions.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

The three largest dangers to the future of American democracy would be:

1. Free-market fundamentalism

2. Religious fundamentalism

3. Military Jingoism and increasing authoritarianism.

I'm curious. Everyone else has listed threats to "American Prosperity", but you say democracy. Do you believe that free-market proponents, the religious, and the jingoists actually threaten the vote and majority rule?

[TrackerNeil]

Dude. Someone has to be on the team with the slowest-moving kid. You're close to them, so, take one for the team? :P

All right, but if we have to take Altoona County we get to annex San Francisco even though it is non-contiguous.

[TerraPrime]

All right, but if we have to take Altoona County we get to annex San Francisco even though it is non-contiguous.

You drive a hard bargain.

[Guest Raidne]

Accident of birth, social inequity, poor education - these things also make people, for all practical purposes, unfree.

In American political thought, a distinction has generally been made between freedom and equality of opportunity. Freedom has not traditionally included freedom from the constraits of the circumstances of your birth - and, when you think about it, you're not entitled to your genes either, and yet nobody's advocating that the government do anything about that in order to make us all "free."

That's why I don't mind the equality of opportunity distinction, because it separates out the genetic issues - your environmental opportunities will be the same. And I think both freedom of choice (e.g. to work more for less time and more money, or to work less for more time and less money) and equality of opportunity (e.g. quality public education) are necessary conditions for any state that wants to say it's citizens enjoy the right of the pursuit of happiness.

I have long been a proponent of breaking the US up into at least seven smaller nations, grouped roughly along regional culture borders.

Don't you think they'd go to war with each other? I mean, Michigan and Ohio did over Toledo. And no, not over who would get stuck with it. Doesn't seem like it would take much.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Don't you think they'd go to war with each other? I mean, Michigan and Ohio did over Toledo. And no, not over who would get stuck with it. Doesn't seem like it would take much.

As it is we go to war with everyone else. At least then we'd be keeping the violence contained to ourselves. What keeps the European states from warring against each other?

[Guest Raidne]

The European Union? Sheer fatigue?

[Guy Kilmore]

As it is we go to war with everyone else. At least then we'd be keeping the violence contained to ourselves. What keeps the European states from warring against each other?

After their helter skelter teen age years of the middle ages, their hormones have now settled, and they are of an age where they are content at sniping at their neighbors with barbed comments about fiscal policy and the upkeep of their castles?

[TerraPrime]

After their helter skelter teen age years of the middle ages, their hormones have now settled, and they are of an age where they are content at sniping at their neighbors with barbed comments about fiscal policy and the upkeep of their castles?

Johnny Depp, is that you?

[Ser Greguh]

I'm an independent that leans strongly liberal and that caucuses with the Democratic party, so to speak. I think the three greatest threats to the future of American democracy are:

1) The rise of anti-government sensibilities that are marketed as pro-freedom but that are in fact calculated to maximize power transfer from systems containing checks and balances on power to those without, largely accomplished through the establishment of a plutocracy.

2) Religious fundamentalism, and in particular Christian fundamentalism, which abhors secular rule and consistently works to undermine democracy.

3) The drug war.

[Guest Raidne]

A philosophical/policy question - in the other, as an example of an idea that I don't agree with but nevertheless have respect for, I mentioned that "a conservative suggested to me that everyone should have to pay some taxes, even if it's not very much, just so everyone feels like a stakeholder."

Zabzy wrote a very good explanation of the position, which I'll just quote in full as it's better than anything I'm going to come up with:

I actually have a lot of sympathy for this position. I completely understand the argument that everybody pays taxes. I got it. Trust me. I really do. However, to think about the issue more specifically:

1. We have a Federal system. Therefore there are different levels of government. Sales taxes are state and local taxes, not National taxes. I would like people to pay some amount at every level. Consumers don't "feel" sales taxes in the same way as income taxes - they are part of the purchase price of the goods and services they use every day. Yes, it's an add-on. Yes, it counts. But it doesn't hit all the points that I think are necessary to get the result Raidne alludes to.

2. But, you say, everybody who works pays Medicare and Social Security Taxes. True. Absolutely true. I do not deny this at all. Nor do I deny that it's a reduction to take home pay which in some sense "feels" like a tax. However, those taxes, at least notionally, support services/payments to which the payor will later be directly entitled. It's not a payment that's (again, notionally) going to the general fund.

3. I am personally very ok with a progressive income tax system. It SHOULD be progressive. (I'm not ok, btw, with a capital gains preference, but that's a complete digression). Nor do I think that the "wealthy" (high-income earners/tax payers) have "more" of a stake in government and the political process. I think Shryke definitely has a point that people who benefit more from services provided by government may feel like they have a larger stake in government. But, in fact, in this sense the progressive income tax is a wealth transfer, which means that people benefitting from the transfer as a result of particular programs do feel more invested in the continuation of those particular programs, and people whose money net goes away from them, without getting what they feel is a corresponding benefit, might make them feel less invested in the process. Having a "price of entry" at all levels of government, I think might be a positive thing to make sure that the "stake" felt in government on both sides of the transfer equation is felt.

What do we say about this? Is there merit to the idea that everyone should psychologically feel like they have some skin in the game? Would this strengthen the social contract, if everyone, in order to get the rights/benefits that come from general fund tax dollars, also had to commit to the duty of paying taxes into the general fund? Even if that amount was only nominal?

[emberling]

Freedom has not traditionally included freedom from the constraits of the circumstances of your birth - and, when you think about it, you're not entitled to your genes either, and yet nobody's advocating that the government do anything about that in order to make us all "free."

If I follow my train of thought in certain science-fictional ways I can come up with some pretty neat dystopias. I mean, it's a very short step from my premises to a society that eliminates the family as we know it as inherently inequitable.

'Freedom from one's own genetics' isn't a stretch I'd be willing to make, though, outside of e.g. debilitating disease, or an adult's voluntary self-determination. At some point you have to say, no, that's not an external factor oppressing you, that's just you. This kind of thing is an excellent example (if more dramatic than anything in reality) of why I prefer to think in terms of freedom (self-determination) rather than prosperity or happiness, because if we're manipulating genes in order to reach maximum prosperity or maximum happiness...well that's a dystopia.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

What do we say about this? Is there merit to the idea that everyone should psychologically feel like they have some skin in the game?

Yes, I believe so. I also believe that income tax withholding should be eliminated and the deadline for filing income taxes should be the Friday before the national elections. If anyone has to pay anything, everyone should have to pay something, and pay it all at once.

[Guy Kilmore]

A philosophical/policy question - in the other, as an example of an idea that I don't agree with but nevertheless have respect for, I mentioned that "a conservative suggested to me that everyone should have to pay some taxes, even if it's not very much, just so everyone feels like a stakeholder."

Zabzy wrote a very good explanation of the position, which I'll just quote in full as it's better than anything I'm going to come up with:

What do we say about this? Is there merit to the idea that everyone should psychologically feel like they have some skin in the game? Would this strengthen the social contract, if everyone, in order to get the rights/benefits that come from general fund tax dollars, also had to commit to the duty of paying taxes into the general fund? Even if that amount was only nominal?

In regards to sales tax, at the very least, this should count towards "having skin in the game" at the local and state level.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I'm a pro free market liberal. I too pro government to be a libertarian; I believe the the power of government to effect positive change through infrastructure, education, eliminating externalities and tragedy of the commons, and regulation (though probably to a lesser extent than most people here other than Tormund.)

As for the greatest threats to American prosperity:

1. Convergence between US wages and the rest of the world's. This isn't so much a threat as an inevitability.

2. Global warming/ resource shocks. I'm not a peak oil proponent, but water, food, minerals all may present troubles in the near future.

3. Complete shift in economic paradigm. I think it's a little funny when people ask when the good paying manufacturing jobs are coming back. It's like asking when the family farm comes back. The economy's changed, and if we can get past the resource problem, then it's changed permanently. And this time, with automation affecting almost every class of job and 3d printing on the rise, I'm not sure what can replace it. I don't think that in the future there will be enough jobs for everyone.

[Shryke]

A philosophical/policy question - in the other, as an example of an idea that I don't agree with but nevertheless have respect for, I mentioned that "a conservative suggested to me that everyone should have to pay some taxes, even if it's not very much, just so everyone feels like a stakeholder."

Zabzy wrote a very good explanation of the position, which I'll just quote in full as it's better than anything I'm going to come up with:

What do we say about this? Is there merit to the idea that everyone should psychologically feel like they have some skin in the game? Would this strengthen the social contract, if everyone, in order to get the rights/benefits that come from general fund tax dollars, also had to commit to the duty of paying taxes into the general fund? Even if that amount was only nominal?

I find the idea ludicrous and have seen no support for the contention.

If anything, I'd say it's people receiving tangible obvious benefits from the government who have the most "skin in the game" because they are the ones who actually understand what the government does for them.

People don't really associate paying taxes with the government doing shit for them or having a say in government or any of that. And really, why should they?

Paying taxes has never made anyone feel like a "stakeholder" in their nation.

[Spoony]

I'm curious. Everyone else has listed threats to "American Prosperity", but you say democracy. Do you believe that free-market proponents, the religious, and the jingoists actually threaten the vote and majority rule?

A society can be prosperous and undemocratic. The two aren't mutually exclusive, even if the trend in free-market fundamentalism is to somehow equate the two.

The trends I have listed are dangerous to the very principles of our democracy -- perhaps to any democracy. As are any dilutions to the efficacy and utility of majority rule in any governmental process that holds itself up to being a democratic system.

Are individuals in and of themselves dangerous to a democracy? Perhaps -- but that would depend on the individuals in question. But that question (if these individuals themselves are dangerous) is a narrowing of the broader topic at hand, and the trends I have listed are larger than the sum of their individual parts.

[SerMixalot]

Just want to point out some things with regards to the non payment of federal income taxes discussion.

31: Percent of nonpaying American households making $10,000 or less per year in 2010 (PDF link to study). An American household of any size making this amount of money, including just one person, is automatically under the poverty threshold.

61: Percent of nonpaying American households making $20,000 or less per year.

87: Percent of nonpaying American households making $40,000 or less per year.

$22,050: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' 2009 definition of the poverty threshold, for a family with two children living in the 48 contiguous states or the District of Columbia.

1964: The last year the minimum standard of living defined as below the poverty level was updated, for the purpose of government definitions. A number of things that are required by job-seekers and at-home workers, and that are considered vital parts of American life now, were not included because they did not exist -- things such as computers, cellphones, and Internet access.

$29,600: One proposal for what the poverty line for a family of four should be reset to, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The proposal corrects for a number of statistical quirks in the original, including the assumption that all senior citizens would eat less.

$11,500: The standard income tax deduction for a married couple with two children. The deduction is $9,500 for a couple and $1,000 for each child, as of the tax law change in 2003.

$5,036: The Earned Income Tax Credit granted to a family with two children, according to the 2010 IRS 1040 form. The EITC is a tax break granted to people who work for a living, which grants substantially more to families with children.

16.3: Percent of their incomes that the bottom 20 percent of American earners paid in all forms of taxes combined, on average, in 2010. Some taxes, like state, local, sales, and payroll taxes, take a larger percentage of poor people's income than they do the top 1 percent's.

26.9: Percent of America's net worth owned by the entire bottom 90 percent of American earners, including home equity.

4: Job seekers for every job opening in the United States.

http://news.yahoo.com/numbers-47-percent-pay-no-income-tax-look-170500327.html

[Mlle. Zabzie]

In regards to sales tax, at the very least, this should count towards "having skin in the game" at the local and state level.

I agree with that.

People don't really associate paying taxes with the government doing shit for them or having a say in government or any of that. And really, why should they?

Paying taxes has never made anyone feel like a "stakeholder" in their nation.

I completely disagree with this. I associate my city taxes with clean water, trash pickups, good police and fire coverage, clean streets and excellent parks. I associate my property taxes with the option to apply to decent magnet schools. I associate my state taxes with local roads, the various state direct programs that exist the administration of justice, a social safety net and, well, a certain amount of corruption. I associate my federal taxes with all sorts of things. I also feel like I pay a damn lot of money into the system, and honestly, it gives me an extra incentive to vote and to be interested in politcs at all levels. I care, and care deeply, because I'm paying, and paying, and paying.

[ants]

I'd probably describe myself as a liberal pragmatist. So generally I lean left, but I generally think the pragmatic solution is the best. But when I say pragmatic, I mean it in a very particular context. That context is what is the pragmatic move that is best for the good of society, looking at both the here and now and the long term future, considering all the externalities. So for example I'm all for individual freedoms, except that yes I'd force people to wear seat belts and remove access to common law for personal injury and introduce no fault compensation schemes. Because they're cheaper and produce better outcomes overall for society regardless of whether they infringe on rights. Same with abortion. But bloody strong due process laws and checks and balances on police. No death penalty as we can't be sure they're not innocent.

I'm generally be for gun control except the USA where that horse has bolted, all for capitalism with bloody steely eyed well funded oversight with real powers and penalties, government funded childcare, gay rights, social liberalisation, etc. Tell Iran that sure they can make a nuclear bomb, and if they use it or a terrorist group uses it inside Israel we'll turn Tehran into a plate of glass even if it means 8 million civilians dead. And make sure they bloody understand we mean it. Strong environmental protection laws and carbon taxes so that all those externalities are captured in the price. Strong consumer protection laws. Very strict laws around commissions. Legalise drugs since I think the war on drugs has failed utterly. Generally try and regulate and control "health issues" such as alcohol, drugs, prostitution rather than force any of them underground and into the criminal realm. Run surpluses in the good times (except for infrastructure) and deficits in the bad times. Wealth taxes moreso than income taxes. Freedom of belief until it means imposing your beliefs on your employer/others. Promote a sense of whistle blowing. Strong funding of academia, but at the same time shake up that system to give it some more life and fairness.

I believe a more egalitarian society is happier, and I'd promote happiness over growth/consumption. So maximise equality of opportunity.

I believe elections should include compulsory attendance (you don't have to vote for anyone if you don't want to, but you do need to turn up) and easy voting, be fully public funded with limited private funding, preferential voting, and houses of parliament (or equivalent) that balances local representation and the share of the state/country wide vote. Electoral seats drawn up by independent bodies with strict rules.

I gave myself the title at the top of a liberal pragmatist, but I don't really know what I am. That just seems like the best description I've come up with yet.

Edit: Oh, and I would definitely move away from caveat emptor. Way too much detailed decisions to make this the system of exchange - its a historical anachronism that has passed its use by date in this complicated modern world.