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

[Shryke]

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.

Would you care less about your garbage pick-up service if you paid no local taxes? Would you care less about your child's schooling then too? Would you appreciate your parks less? Would you care less about streets with tons of potholes?

[Shryke]

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.

This is the big one for me.

Government or Unions or other forms of large scale organization are the only tools the larger populace has to enforce it's will.

Most individuals have little to no power to push back against the forces that effect their lives on their own.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Would you care less about your garbage pick-up service if you paid no local taxes? Would you care less about your child's schooling then too? Would you appreciate your parks less? Would you care less about streets with tons of potholes?

Maybe? Don't know.

[ants]

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.

Got to admit this one worries me too on a world scale. Too many people, not enough resources, not enough jobs. Except for the last century, the historical way to solve that was to go kill your neighbours and live where they did. Not something I really want to see return. Yet the west's level of consumption is unsustainable and it is impossible for many other countries to join us at our standard of living. So what does that mean for the world and for those of us in the West?

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 Australia this is not done through taxation, but by having compulsory voting and teaching that voting is a responsibility, not just a right.

[Guest Raidne]

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

Agreed. Do you think people feel more invested in their state and local governments? If so, do you think it's for that reason? It's true for me - I'm sort of a DC local government embezzlement watcher, because I am really wondering where the fuck the extra 8-10% I pay in local DC income taxes is going. I can't wait for the opportunity to vote Gray out of office and I think Fenty was actually doing a good job. I really didn't feel like I had the lay of the land well enough to vote in the mayoral election without screwing it up last time, because you can't trust local reporting at all - you really have to read between the lines and watch the city. The local system is wholly infected with corruption the whole way through.

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

That would be the entire post of Zabz's that I quoted. If you find her points to be unpersuasive, the traditional thing to do is respond to them. This may be news to you, but they do not become "no support" just because you don't agree with them. Even in high school debate, that's a just a loser, as it is blatantly factually incorrect in the face of several paragraphs of argument.

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.

Here, I will give you an example. I find this position hard to understand because it rests on unsound premises. Yet, I will take the time to state the unsound premise: it is that people who receive obvious tangible benefits actually understand what the government does for them. This is an empirical claim - you would need empirical evidence to show this. That need is particularly strong here, because there are a number of hypothetical reasons to think the opposite: the poor voting record of those who receive government benefits; the correlation between lower education and receipt of government benefits; and the fact that of the people who do vote, many vote Republican, and in favor of cutting the very benefits they receive, thereby indicating that they may not so much understand the relationship between the benefits that they receive and what the government has to do with it.

Lastly, the largest problem is that you gamed your whole argument from the get go by limiting your subject to "tangible obvious benefits" so you can backdoor some sort of defense in after any critique is levelled against your hypothesis.

This is the worst sort of sophistry, and exactly the kind of thing that I'd really prefer we not do here. So, (1) actually state an argument against someone else's point when you don't agree with it (vs. simply declaring it "ludicrous"), (2) clearly state your own points and support them with evidence and reasoning, to the extent feasible given the time limitations that we all face, and (3) avoid rhetorical tricks and sophistry, like failing to define to your terms so you can limit your argument out of harm's way after the fact.

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?

Because that's where the money comes from. Because people have an inherent understanding of the correlation between rights and duties. Because, as Mrs. Schroeder says in Boardwalk Empire "charity degrades those who receive it, and hardens the hearts of those who give it." If everyone chips in, each according to what she or he can afford, then those benefits aren't charity. I bet we can find a study from a behavioral economist to support this, no? Any help on that?

[TerraPrime]

What I said in the politics thread:

Yes, there's a group of people who do not feel that they are stakeholders in the political process. However, the way to fix that is not to make them pay into the system. The way to fix it is to stop marginalizing them in the first place, i.e., remove reduce the influence of money on politics. If we insist that money buys political access (see Citizens United), then you are absolutely going to have a group of people who feel that they don't have a say, because they don't. If we shorten the gap of power differential between the two groups, you will, I predict, get more people to think of themselves as stakeholders, whether you make them pay 5% of their income in tax, or not.

[Guest Raidne]

TP, that is an interesting point. You seem to be saying that if we eliminate the undue influence of special interests and the wealthy, people who currently do not participate in the political process will. I have some doubts about this because of public choice theory, which holds that a special interest will generally win over the general population simply because they consitute a focused group of people who really care about that issue vs. a diffuse group of people who have a diffuse and poorly understood interest in that issue. Like, okay, everyone understands abortion and sexual orientation, so people have opinions about that. People do not really have a good understanding of gun regulations, etc., and so the NRA kills on that, except when crime rates shot up so high that the general public starting seeing that interest as very personal, indeed. To use an example that came up the other day, a company that builds ships for the navy has a definite interest in the Navy buying lots of ships. If the Navy says we're cutting our order this year because of the added expense of transitioning to biofuel, then that company has a strong interest in killing the Navy's program to switch to biofuel. The general public has a very diffuse, poorly understood interest in switching to biofuel. Two guesses as to how that will play out?

That is only because of money to the extent that money influences. There are still other ways to influence people. I can't see how your idea would hurt though, that's for sure.

[Fez]

Well its not like this thread hasn't been teasing me all day long.

I'm a liberal institutionalist. I believe government should have the power to promote equality of opportunity, provide a safety net in case people fail (but not ensure equality of outcome, that's a very different thing), and otherwise stay out of people's lives*. Granted, the promotion of equality of opportunity can mean a great deal of action being taken, but government shouldn't try to interfere with peoples' bodies (and this means more than just abortion) or bedrooms. I also believe that the US government is only responsible to the citizens of the US, and should only factor in other nations' reactions to US policy insofar as it will impact the US.

I'm not a registered Democrat because in Virginia you can't register party affiliation, but in general I'm a far-left (in US terms) Democrat (on that test a while back I was matched most closely with Obama; even more than with JIll Stein who it seemed almost everyone else had as their number 1). I sometimes break with party orthodoxy when I feel policy warrants it, but I usually don't criticize the party because they are all that stands in the way of the Republican corporatist theocracy.

And I really don't care about the civil liberty violations of the past 12 years. I really, really don't. Privacy is not a big deal to me and there's such bigger issues that need to be dealt with.

So, bring it.

As far as the current tax debate goes, I don't even know where to start there's so much I could say. To prevent myself from writing another thesis paper all I will say is that I see taxes as a sufficient but not necessary element to be a stakeholder in the public policy making process.

ETA: *Well, also the government should protect the continued viability of public goods; but I mostly see that as an offshoot of equality of opportunity. Its a very broad phrase.

[ants]

TP, its not money. Anyone who wants to vote for a third party is effectively throwing their vote away in the USA. How is that meant to get them involved in politics? In one of the older US politics thread there was that questionnaire to see which party people were affiliated with, and many were getting the Green nominee. Who we didn't even know.

A system which forces you to vote for what you perceive as the lesser of two evils rather than your preferred choice is always going to reduce participation and a feeling of having a stake.

[sologdin]

stop marginalizing them in the first place

stakeholder is a nasty proprietary metaphor, absolutely inapplicable.

the relationship of citizen to state is jurisdictional, rather than commercial. to allow the metaphor is to surrender the conclusion of the debate: how else to be a stakeholder but by virtue of market mechanisms?

[ants]

One general question. How do people see privacy? I think there is a strong argument that it protects people doing bad things (so much of violence occurs in the home) and it allows people to project a public image of conformity while secretly being outside "normality" - which strengthens traditions while reducing change and acceptance.

Is there a real benefit of privacy? I ask this in the context of Fez's views on privacy and how that fits with civil liberties.

[Fez]

stop marginalizing them in the first place

stakeholder is a nasty proprietary metaphor, absolutely inapplicable.

the relationship of citizen to state is jurisdictional, rather than commercial. to allow the metaphor is to surrender the conclusion of the debate: how else to be a stakeholder but by virtue of market mechanisms?

The etymology of stakeholder suggests nothing of the sort. It is the status of having a stake, or interest (of any sort), in the outcome of an action. Furthermore, the etymology of action is accioun, which is (was?) french for lawsuit, which suggests a jurisdictional basis. The fact the corporate world has appropriated the use of the word stakeholder in most contexts does not diminish what its actual meaning is.

Or, as Michael Bolton says in Office Space: "Why should I change [my name]? He's the one who sucks"

[Spoony]

I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with being outside normality.

Personally -- I think a lack of privacy or an invasion of privacy is aesthetically, a rather ugly sort of thing.

People are entitled to share as much of their private lives as they wish to the public sphere, but I don't think there is any good case to be given to people or organizations violating the personal information and space of other people without having any good cause to do so. Some people might not acknowledge it, but that sort of violation is not entirely dissimilar from physically violating a person's body -- as long as you acknowledge that there are extensions of ourselves that are greater than our physical forms.

[Spoony]

The fact the corporate world has appropriated the use of the word stakeholder in most contexts does not diminish what its actual meaning is.

I like your rebutal -- but the point that Sologdin was making was that the corporate world HAS appropriated this term in a very broad context.

I suppose you can say you are using it in a generalized sense - without an eye towards how market forces are effecting and shaping the social and political context of our lives. But I think others would point out that even if that wasn't your conscious intent, that the word stakeholder is being descriptively contextualized by a society that is very concentrated on market forces - and that this contextualization - if nothing else - is unfortunate and somewhat crass.

That being said -- it is hard to find another word as suitable to the intent of your argument as stakeholder - and there is nothing wrong with fleshing out your argument with appropriately descriptive words.

And if Sologdin is hellbent on picking at you based entirely on your choice of words, he might only become satisfied when you start drawing us pictures instead.

And if it comes to it -- I would very much like to see you draw for us a pony.... preferably wearing a silly hat.

[sologdin]

The etymology of stakeholder suggests nothing of the sort. It is the status of having a stake, or interest (of any sort), in the outcome of an action. Furthermore, the etymology of action is accioun, which is (was?) french for lawsuit, which suggests a jurisdictional basis.

must respectfully disagree. "interest" is proprietary, as is "action," to the extent that actions at law may be valuable properties that can generally be alienated. the important exception are the fundamental rights of citizenship, which are generally not alienable (i doubt that the law will permit the sale of citizenship, the sale of persons, the sale of life, &c.). not seeing therefore the jurisdictional connection to citizen/state (as opposed to the judiciary's limited jurisdiction to adjudicate a particular case).

ancient etymology:

stake (n.1) "pointed stick or post," O.E. staca, from P.Gmc. *stakon (cf. O.N. stiaki, Du. staak, Ger. stake), from PIE root *steg- "pole, stick." The Germanic word has been borrowed in Spanish (estaca), Old French (estaque), and Italian stacca) and was borrowed back as attach. Meaning "post upon which persons were bound for death by burning" is recorded from c.1200. Stake-body as a type of truck is attested from 1907. stake (v.) early 14c., "to mark (land) with stakes," from stake (n.1). Hence, to stake a claim (1857). Meaning "to risk, wager" is attested from 1520s, probably from notion of "post on which a gambling wager was placed," though Weekley suggests "there is a tinge of the burning or baiting metaphor" in this usage. Meaning "to maintain surveilance" (usually stake out) is first recorded 1942, American English colloquial, probably form earlier sense of "mark off territory." Related: Staked; staking. stake (n.2) "that which is placed at hazard," 1530s, from stake (v.). Plural stakes, as in horse racing, first recorded 1690s (cf. sweepstakes). To have a stake in is recorded from 1784.

hold (v.) O.E. haldan (Anglian), healdan (W.Saxon), "to contain, grasp; retain; foster, cherish," class VII strong verb (past tense heold, pp. healden), from P.Gmc. *haldanan (cf. O.S. haldan, O.Fris. halda, O.N. halda, Du. houden, Ger. halten "to hold," Goth. haldan "to tend"), originally "to keep, tend, watch over" (as cattle), later "to have." Ancestral sense is preserved in behold. The original pp. holden was replaced by held beginning 16c., but survives in some legal jargon and in beholden.

Hold back is 1530s, trans.; 1570s, intrans.; hold off is early 15c., trans.; c.1600, intrans.; hold out is 1520s as “to stretch forth,” 1580s as “to resist pressure.” Hold on is early 13c. as “to maintain one’s course,” 1830 as “to keep one’s grip on something,” 1846 as an order to wait or stop. To hold (one's) tongue "be silent" is from c.1300. To hold (one's) own is from early 14c. To hold (someone's) hand "give moral support" is from 1935. Phrase hold your horses "be patient" is from 1844. To have and to hold have been paired alliteratively since at least c.1200, originally of marriage but also of real estate.

[Shryke]

Maybe? Don't know.

Really? Seriously?

You are telling me you wouldn't give a shit how bad your kid's school was or how horrible your roads were so long as you paid no taxes? I don't buy it.

[sologdin]

roads are generally for poor people, who are too lazy to work hard enough to afford a suburban assault vehicle, personal rotary wing aircraft, or training in cants of transposition. duh.

[Spoony]

The etymology of stakeholder suggests nothing of the sort. It is the status of having a stake, or interest (of any sort), in the outcome of an action. Furthermore, the etymology of action is accioun, which is (was?) french for lawsuit, which suggests a jurisdictional basis.

must respectfully disagree. "interest" is proprietary, as is "action," to the extent that actions at law may be valuable properties that can generally be alienated. the important exception are the fundamental rights of citizenship, which are generally not alienable (i doubt that the law will permit the sale of citizenship, the sale of persons, the sale of life, &c.). not seeing therefore the jurisdictional connection to citizen/state (as opposed to the judiciary's limited jurisdiction to adjudicate a particular case).

ancient etymology:

Unless people are arguing over the origin and history of words - etymology very rarely proves the point.

People have a broad social agreement on word meanings, but what is more important than the overarching history of how a word has been used is how it is currently being used and the intent of it's use.

So, could we respectively step away from this line of argument towards something more substantive, and markedly less petty?

Edit -- unless we can all agree that fez drawing pictures for us would be a better use of our time than what we are currently up to.

[Bronson]

roads are generally for poor people, who are too lazy to work hard enough to afford a suburban assault vehicle, personal rotary wing aircraft, or training in cants of transposition. duh.

Sologdin what in heaven's name are you talking about? :stunned:

[Spoony]

Sologdin what in heaven's name are you talking about? :stunned:

He is saying that some of the guys are getting together later to read Last of the Mohicans -- pass it on!