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

[Shryke]

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.

I find the traditional thing to do is to not respond to the first sentence of a post like the rest of it doesn't exist. Sorry, I meant "not fucking stupid" instead of "traditional". My bad.

I mean, you even responded to the rest of my post, so it's not like you didn't see it. This is just shoddy bullshit Raidne.

And the initial premise you forwarded still has no support. In what way does paying taxes lead to a sense of . Do all those people who don't pay income taxes not feel a connection to the USA? Do they not feel like the federal government is important to them? This isn't a premise that passes a basic eyeballing to me.

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.

No Raidne, I said "tangible" and "obvious" because it's exactly what I meant. The ability of people to not actually notice all the things their government provides them with is rather wide-spread and not obscure, which is why I use qualifiers to specify that I am not including those groups. Since the entire premise I am forwarding here rests on the idea of people acknowledging the services they receive from the government, talking about those who don't acknowledge those services is necessary.

But please, tell us more about shoddily formulate arguments. You seem well acquainted with the practice.

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?

They don't have an inherent understanding of the connection between taxes and services, nor an understanding of where that money is spent. Look at polls/surveys of what people think the government spends money on or see people advocating plans for lower taxes and more/same services and this becomes extremely obvious. Shit, starve the beast works on this very premise.

And "everyone chips in, each according to what she or he can afford" is exactly what happens NOW. Some people can't afford anything at all though. (though in reality they chip in anyway in tons of ways)

[Bronson]

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

That certainly clear things up. :cool4:

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

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.

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.

??????????????????????????????

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.

Evidence would seem to suggest that this attitude is somewhat prevalent.

[Shryke]

Evidence would seem to suggest that this attitude is somewhat prevalent.

What evidence are we talking about here?

Because it's been my experience that people care deeply about this shit. They care about it because it effects them, not because their taxes pay for it.

[Bronson]

??????????????????????????????

Evidence would seem to suggest that this attitude is somewhat prevalent.

Roads are still bring repaired and homes are still being built so what do you base that claim on?

[Fez]

??????????????????????????????

?

I don't see the contradiction in terms that you seem to. I don't believe the government should regulate marriage, abortion, illicit drugs, prostitution, nutrition (promote, but don't force), vaccines (unless its a public health issue, let the stupid fucks die off), etc. And at the same time I don't believe privacy is right, or that targeted killings against American-born enemies abroad is unconstitutional, or any of that. I think stuff like current airport security is insanely stupid, but I'm opposed to it as a waste of time and money, not because of any concern about civil liberty violations.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

What evidence are we talking about here?

People in lower income areas (people less likely to pay tax, particularly property tax which is what goes towards schooling), in general are less invested in their public schools, and are less politically involved altogether.

[Shryke]

People in lower income areas (people less likely to pay tax, particularly property tax which is what goes towards schooling), in general are less invested in their public schools, and are less politically involved altogether.

They care about, say, their food stamps or welfare though.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

They care about, say, their food stamps or welfare though.

This does nothing to refute the point.

[Shryke]

This does nothing to refute the point.

???

Then I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

Those two things I mentioned are things that taxes pay for that they care about. People often give a shit about the ways government effects their lives, regardless of whether they pay taxes or not.

I don't think the two are in any way connected to one another. Paying taxes is not any sort of prerequisite for civic engagement.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Those two things I mentioned are things that taxes pay for that they care about. People give a shit about the ways government effects their lives, regardless of whether they pay taxes or not.

The two things you mentioned are primary sources of income. People receiving them don't care where they come from, they just care that they get them so as they can live.

These same people are notoriously uninterested in the actual workings of government, and the theory being discussed is that this is partly because they are uninvested in those same workings.

[Shryke]

The two things you mentioned are primary sources of income. People receiving them don't care where they come from, they just care that they get them so as they can live.

And? They care about the part of the civic process that directly, tangibly benefits them.

These same people are notoriously uninterested in the actual workings of government, and the theory being discussed is that this is partly because they are uninvested in those same workings.

And I'm saying that theory has no support because people still care about the ways government effects their lives regardless of whether they pay taxes or not. They are uninterested in the actual workings of government because they have other concerns, don't really trust the government, don't see the benefits in those other issues the government handles, or a host of other reasons. And still many of the poor care about politics.

At the same time, I doubt anyone who is engaged in politics is gonna be happy with, say, shittier roads and schools, just because you said they don't have to pay taxes anymore.

I don't see any reason to relate civic engagement and tax burden. I think several people are confusing the correlations going on here. And, to shift points slightly, I'm starting to think that may have something to do with differing views on the meaning of taxation to differing political orientations.

[Spoony]

The two things you mentioned are primary sources of income. People receiving them don't care where they come from, they just care that they get them so as they can live.

These same people are notoriously uninterested in the actual workings of government, and the theory being discussed is that this is partly because they are uninvested in those same workings.

The idea is that even if certain segments of the population are uninterested in the workings of government, we are still very much invested in their well being and education - since regardless on how you split the pie, we are all essentially in this together, and bettering our neighbors and fellow citizens will in turn help make our society a better place to be.

Ideally, we should strive towards goals as individuals and as citizens that are larger than ourselves -- instead we exist primarily as a society of customers, which I find to be a extravagant waste of human potential.

[Sci-2]

People in lower income areas (people less likely to pay tax, particularly property tax which is what goes towards schooling), in general are less invested in their public schools, and are less politically involved altogether.

I'm curious if there's any data on this.

[Guest Raidne]

stakeholder is a nasty proprietary metaphor, absolutely inapplicable.

Really? For me, stakeholder is a term out of integrative negotiation theory - in order to reach an agreement, all stakeholders have to be a part of the negotiating process. That's not the same thing as "shareholder." It's Mirriam-Webster definition C3: "an interest or share in an undertaking or enterprise." Here, an interest in an undertaking. I've used a few other phrases - party to the social contract, person with "skin in the game."

Because it's been my experience that people care deeply about this shit.

I don't mean to keep driving the point re: your unsound or invalid arguments home or anything, but your experiences in Canada are unlikely to be relevant on the issue of what citizens of the United States care about, and under what conditions.

Anyone who has ever driven across the bridge from Detroit to Windsor can see that the disenfranchised don't exactly react to their situation in the same way across the border, and I use that example intentionally because the issues regarding selective historical disenfranchisement of racial minorities is completely and utterly different.

[Guest Raidne]

I'm curious if there's any data on this.

Truckloads.

[Shryke]

I don't mean to keep driving the point re: your unsound or invalid arguments home or anything, but your experiences in Canada are unlikely to be relevant on the issue of what citizens of the United States care about, and under what conditions.

Anyone who has ever driven across the bridge from Detroit to Windsor can see that the disenfranchised don't exactly react to their situation in the same way across the border, and I use that example intentionally because the issues regarding selective historical disenfranchisement of racial minorities is completely and utterly different.

Let's see:

1) Another accusation of "bad arguments" from you, with no actual explanation of why. Despite me making a whole reply to you and many to Tormund on the subject that go into more details.

2) "You aren't American!"

The second one especially I take as a sign you really don't have anything to say anymore.

PS - your Detroit example doesn't actually address the argument that was put forward.

[TerraPrime]

I will take pint-sized glass cat's knowledge and understanding of U.S. politics and culture, and bet against that of a randomly-picked U.S. citizen off the street any day of the week. Except Saturday. I'm too busy on most Saturdays to place bets.

Just sayin'

[Sci-2]

Truckloads.

I'm assuming, partly by the nature of what I presume would be the data, that there are correlations but no direct causal link between taxes and civic participation?

[Kalbear]

These same people are notoriously uninterested in the actual workings of government, and the theory being discussed is that this is partly because they are uninvested in those same workings.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Turns out a lot of poor people are not interested in all sorts of things. They're not interested in the stock market. They're not interested in buying a house or real estate. They're not interested in political debates. Want to know why? Well, lots of reasons - but a lack of investment is the most callous and cynical (and not particularly borne out by actual data) interpretation. A better one, one that actually has had a lot of study on it, is that poor people are monumentally stressed out about the daily workings of their life. They don't care about the actual workings of government because they don't have the time to care. They don't have the luxury of caring. Or they are deeply distrustful of the government given how much it has fucked them in the past.

As to the schools and civic population - once again, shockingly the parents that tend to have time to go to bake sales, join the PTA, take their kids all around to soccer practice, etc are often the ones with a fairly affluent background. The ones that don't? Don't. They work odd hours or long hours or are single parents or their kids are downright embarrassed to have them around. Yes, participation is low - but let's not think that the amount of time and energy everyone has is remotely equivalent. Want more parents to invest in their kids' care? Give them the time and resources to do so.