Maximum role of Government?

[ascent]

Just because you consider your arguments in high regard, doesn't mean that I consider them worth responding to.

You are entitled to your brand of fringe politics and the blinders you think it's ideology entitles you to wear.

[1714189381]

1714189381

[1714189381]

1714189381

[1714189381]

1714189381

[1714189381]

1714189381

[1714189381]

1714189381

[MoonShadow]

Just because you consider your arguments in high regard, doesn't mean that I consider them worth responding to.

You are entitled to your brand of fringe politics and the blinders you think it's ideology entitles you to wear.

Yes, I am.  As are you.  And thus, this ongoing political "conversation" is mostly a waste of time for both of us.  Both sides are pretty sure of themselves.  It's like trying to argue religious doctrine on a forum frequented by both Catholics and Mormons. 

[MoonShadow]

I'd wager that you don't think that your political ideologies are "fringe".

[AyeYo]

Do or do not citizens have the financial power to influence big business, namely to keep big business from turning tyrannical?

In theory, they do, but they don't have the unity, or collective organization, or motivation to make it happen. A government does, however, if some fraction of the citizens convince the government to.

They're also missing another key factor: information.  Big business has a massive information advantage.

And, in fact, this is exactly what a proper government is.  It is citizens united to give themselves collective bargaining power against those entities more powerful than themselves.

This is actually one of the better arguments for your 'benevolent statism' position.  And, speaking historicly, it's true.  The Internet has been systematicly undermining the 'leverage' of superior data gathering long held by large organizations for centuries.  We are all already in uncharted territory, and continue down this same path with each passing day.  Bitcoin is just one piece in that great puzzle, but it's already true that a person transplanted from 1980 couldn't have predicted the reality of 2011.  Twelve year old girls regularly get a new cell phone for their birthday, although not necessarily their first cell phone.  Furthermore, cell phones are only called such for historic reasons, as talking upon them is just one application of the tiny & portable computers with multiple built-in digital radios, all of which have bitrates that would have cost a fortune for a wired connection in 1980.  If that person from 1980 was even aware of the Internet, what the average middle class fourth grader has access to would have still floored him.  If he was an academic, Wikipedia would have made him fear for his tenure; and if he was a member of the military officer's core, Google Earth would have scared the crap out of him even after learning about the complete collapse of the Soviet Union.

While I agree in part, the internet will never give you the one thing you most need to know: what goes on beyond closed doors.

[NghtRppr]

It's like trying to argue religious doctrine on a forum frequented by both Catholics and Mormons.

Arguing is fine and dandy but what if Catholics started pointing guns and arresting Mormons? I think that's the real issue here. I couldn't care less if these statists agreed with me. I just want them to stop trying to rob me at gunpoint.

[ascent]

And thus, this ongoing political "conversation" is mostly a waste of time for both of us.

I'm in total agreement with you there.

[AyeYo]

And, in fact, this is exactly what a proper government is.  It is citizens united to give themselves collective bargaining power against those entities more powerful than themselves.

This may be the one time I actually agree with something you say. The only stipulation I would add is that it should be voluntary.

If it's voluntary then it's not a government.  That's like having optional no smoking signs. 

But voluntary unification would still meet your requirements.

No, it wouldn't.  If your order and rules are voluntary, they're useless.

[MoonShadow]

It's like trying to argue religious doctrine on a forum frequented by both Catholics and Mormons.

Arguing is fine and dandy but what if Catholics started pointing guns and arresting Mormons? I think that's the real issue here. I couldn't care less if these statists agreed with me. I just want them to stop trying to rob me at gunpoint.

I chose those two denominations intentionally, because they both have a history of using force against non-believers.

[patvarilly]

I've got some really bad news for you.  I'm taxed each year on the amount of my tax return check from the previous year by the state of Kentucky.  By some legaleze magic, they don't consider it double taxation.  The only way to avoid it is to owe the state each year, which is very difficult to do.

Well, then I've got some really good news for you (or bad, as you wish): you've been overpaying your taxes.  Here's how it works:  at the federal level, you only need to report a *taxable* state and local income tax refund (line 10 of Form 1040) if you itemized your deductions for the previous year (page 21 of the instructions: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf).  If you itemized and claimed a deduction for state income tax, reporting the refund in line 10 is equivalent to reducing the amount of deduction you claimed the previous year.  So at the federal level, it works as I claimed, and all is well.

At the Kentucky level, if you have to report a federally taxable state income tax refund on line 10 (so that it adds to your Federal Adjusted Gross Income), then you get to deduct it from your Kentucky Adjusted Gross Income by writing the same amount in line 9 of Schedule M (http://www.revenue.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/3B102252-D017-420C-9CEF-7B7DB2B5FAF2/0/ScheduleMFillin10_Final_0003.pdf), so that you don't pay Kentucky state taxes on it again.  So no double taxation there either.

But don't take my word for it, here's a CPA at bankrate.com on the issue: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/tax_adviser/20070215_state_tax_refund_a1.asp

Now, you live there and I don't (I'm just reading the instructions carefully, which seem pretty clear and reasonable to me).  But if I'm wrong, the burden's on you to show me why you think you're being double-taxed here.  Otherwise, my claim stands.

[myrkul]

And, in fact, this is exactly what a proper government is.  It is citizens united to give themselves collective bargaining power against those entities more powerful than themselves.

This may be the one time I actually agree with something you say. The only stipulation I would add is that it should be voluntary.

If it's voluntary then it's not a government.  That's like having optional no smoking signs. 

But voluntary unification would still meet your requirements.

No, it wouldn't.  If your order and rules are voluntary, they're useless.

I've bolded your statement to draw attention to it. You mention nothing about rules and order.

[AyeYo]

I've got some really bad news for you.  I'm taxed each year on the amount of my tax return check from the previous year by the state of Kentucky.  By some legaleze magic, they don't consider it double taxation.  The only way to avoid it is to owe the state each year, which is very difficult to do.

Well, then I've got some really good news for you (or bad, as you wish): you've been overpaying your taxes.  Here's how it works:  at the federal level, you only need to report a *taxable* state and local income tax refund (line 10 of Form 1040) if you itemized your deductions for the previous year (page 21 of the instructions: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf).  If you itemized and claimed a deduction for state income tax, reporting the refund in line 10 is equivalent to reducing the amount of deduction you claimed the previous year.  So at the federal level, it works as I claimed, and all is well.

At the Kentucky level, if you have to report a federally taxable state income tax refund on line 10 (so that it adds to your Federal Adjusted Gross Income), then you get to deduct it from your Kentucky Adjusted Gross Income by writing the same amount in line 9 of Schedule M (http://www.revenue.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/3B102252-D017-420C-9CEF-7B7DB2B5FAF2/0/ScheduleMFillin10_Final_0003.pdf), so that you don't pay Kentucky state taxes on it again.  So no double taxation there either.

But don't take my word for it, here's a CPA at bankrate.com on the issue: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/tax_adviser/20070215_state_tax_refund_a1.asp

Now, you live there and I don't (I'm just reading the instructions carefully, which seem pretty clear and reasonable to me).  But if I'm wrong, the burden's on you to show me why you think you're being double-taxed here.  Otherwise, my claim stands.

Bitched slapped with reality again.  He's got to be more careful making these claims...

[ascent]

I've got some really bad news for you.  I'm taxed each year on the amount of my tax return check from the previous year by the state of Kentucky.  By some legaleze magic, they don't consider it double taxation.  The only way to avoid it is to owe the state each year, which is very difficult to do.

I've got some news for you. You're not double taxed by the state of Kentucky on the amount of your federal tax refund. However, if you itemized your deductions, then when you receive your state income tax return, you will have to pay federal taxes on it because you did not pay taxes on it the year before.

I think you're confused. Research it.

[ascent]

I didn't see the above posts. Darn! I was hoping to be the first to point out his overly smug assertion.

[FredericBastiat]

It's like trying to argue religious doctrine on a forum frequented by both Catholics and Mormons.

Arguing is fine and dandy but what if Catholics started pointing guns and arresting Mormons? I think that's the real issue here. I couldn't care less if these statists agreed with me. I just want them to stop trying to rob me at gunpoint.

I chose those two denominations intentionally, because they both have a history of using force against non-believers.

I'd be interested to see some references to back that claim of yours. And just as a side note, I'd like to be sure it wasn't some rogue religious nut who wasn't out of his mind or gone "off the reservation". What I mean exactly is this, has either the church/religious organization, as a general case, believed that it was within their rights to use force against non-believers. Say like the leaders, their writings, and other similar supporting documentation. Last I checked they were fairly benign pacifiers. Are these their basic belief system? Do they specifically advocate violence against nonmembers, etc.?

[myrkul]

It's like trying to argue religious doctrine on a forum frequented by both Catholics and Mormons.

Arguing is fine and dandy but what if Catholics started pointing guns and arresting Mormons? I think that's the real issue here. I couldn't care less if these statists agreed with me. I just want them to stop trying to rob me at gunpoint.

I chose those two denominations intentionally, because they both have a history of using force against non-believers.

I'd be interested to see some references to back that claim of yours. And just as a side note, I'd like to be sure it wasn't some rogue religious nut who wasn't out of his mind or gone "off the reservation". What I mean exactly is this, has either the church/religious organization, as a general case, believed that it was within their rights to use force against non-believers. Say like the leaders, their writings, and other similar supporting documentation. Last I checked they were fairly benign pacifiers. Are these their basic belief system? Do they specifically advocate violence against nonmembers, etc.?

I donno about the Mormons, but... remember these guys?

[patvarilly]

I think you'd really find Herman Daly's work to be interesting. He says a lot of interesting things that just make sense. As an example, one of the things he says is the error economists commit when they add the cost of cleanup into the GNP (i.e. a firm engages in environmental cleanup by selling its services, and by virtue of the fact that those services are consumed, then they are a part of the GNP). Daly argues that these things should actually be subtracted from the GNP, as they do not represent growth at all.

He's got some really interesting viewpoints. They're worth reading - not just skimming.

Interview with Seed Magazine: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/

Steady State Economics and the fallacies of growth: http://dieoff.org/page88.htm

The Irrationality of Homo Economicus: http://www.iisd.org/didigest/special/daly.htm

Essay on growth: http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/85/herman-daly.html

Opportunity cost of growth: http://steadystate.org/opportunity-cost-of-growth/

And a video (part 3 among several): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmkw2qSpHsc&feature=related

By the way, thanks for pointing these links out, ascent.  I've started reading some of them, and they're really quite interesting.

[ascent]

I think you'd really find Herman Daly's work to be interesting. He says a lot of interesting things that just make sense. As an example, one of the things he says is the error economists commit when they add the cost of cleanup into the GNP (i.e. a firm engages in environmental cleanup by selling its services, and by virtue of the fact that those services are consumed, then they are a part of the GNP). Daly argues that these things should actually be subtracted from the GNP, as they do not represent growth at all.

He's got some really interesting viewpoints. They're worth reading - not just skimming.

Interview with Seed Magazine: http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/

Steady State Economics and the fallacies of growth: http://dieoff.org/page88.htm

The Irrationality of Homo Economicus: http://www.iisd.org/didigest/special/daly.htm

Essay on growth: http://www.adbusters.org/magazine/85/herman-daly.html

Opportunity cost of growth: http://steadystate.org/opportunity-cost-of-growth/

And a video (part 3 among several): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmkw2qSpHsc&feature=related

By the way, thanks for pointing these links out, ascent.  I've started reading some of them, and they're really quite interesting.

You're welcome! I'm glad there are at least some people here interested in the material.

[FredericBastiat]

As far as I can tell, the only forceful act anybody could "lawfully" exert against his fellow man and his property would be in the situation in which he is defending himself and his property against invasion. That is the only "involuntary" force one could apply, all other acts would be voluntary and/or mutual.

Conflict tends to change the landscape of the laws and their application in adverse ways. Laws should only consider those cases when one man and his property are in conflict with another. If there is no conflict, no aggression, no force, no fraud, nor breach of contract, then no law should arise to mitigate it.

My being able to defend myself is obvious, likewise, if I choose -of my own free will- to delegate that activity to another man or organization, this is also quite obvious. If on the other hand you say that I cannot choose how I wish to be defended, then you have used force and coercion against me, thereby breaking the basic rules of choice, agency, liberty and freedom. You have placed yourself in the God/parent/nanny/greater-than-thou class of persons. There is nothing obscure, crazy, fringe, or nonsensical about that fact. It just is what it is.

The only curious question or discussion that could come about from all of this scuttlebutt, would be what exactly is the law? What standard do we use? How do we use equity in application of this law or laws and not commit/initiate acts of aggression? The law can not destroy it's own purpose that it serves.

Competition for the definition of laws is not like competition for definition of the laws of nature. Nature, viz. physics just is what it is. If we can't explain it, it doesn't change the effect of natural laws. They remain what they are. Human laws are theoretical concepts (based upon what is right and wrong) that can give us varying degrees of freedom. I'm of the belief that there can be a lot more freedom than that which we're experiencing right now.

So back to the beginning, why don't we answer the real question. What is Law? Once you figure that one out, then you can focus on what type or form of governing that best protects our lives, liberties, and properties. Conversely, and more importantly to me, what law best prevents injury/murder, enslavement, and plunder?

Whattya say we fix it? Do your best.

[MoonShadow]

 But if I'm wrong, the burden's on you to show me why you think you're being double-taxed here.

No, it's not.

  Otherwise, my claim stands.

No, it doesn't.  Your example is so far away from what I just stated it the reality that it's not even in the same tax code.  I never said that Kentucky taxes the federal return.

[MoonShadow]

While I agree in part, the internet will never give you the one thing you most need to know: what goes on beyond closed doors.

The greatest irony of that statement, is that most of what the Internet does is show other people what goes on behind closed doors.