Success

[Calm]

Indeed roads, national defense, and national parks are all unmitigated evils.

One can achieve that through user fees/taxes....the first and the last. National defense needs something more whether income or property taxes of some sort. Perhaps national defense should be based on how difficult it would be to defend your land and property if an attack was made on home soil...and then use that money to ensure such an attack never took place.

And if one is so concerned about using the military to protect US interest outside of our country than those who benefit directly from such, those who have financial dealings depending on such, those who wish to travel with some sense that the US is there for me through the Embassy system (which must be very expensive, especially if security is sufficient)...one should be paying for such rather than forcing the individual who would prefer the US keep its military focused on protecting its own borders or using it to deal with internal disasters, etc. like the National Guard.

It would be very nice to have a tax system where one didn't hate what the government was using one's own taxes/donations money for. Where if one felt that abortion was a great evil, they knew their taxes weren't going to that area and instead could direct their taxes into decreasing the cost of adoption or setting up better foster care systems and giving the family court system the resources they need to do their job well.

I can imagine a tax system where basic government roles are covered by a flat rate tax...say 10%, that covers those things only a government can do--but at a minimum way. And then have another flat tax for basic services but one is allowed to designate which basic service should get your money so the government can see which is valued most and then a highly promoted donation system that covers important but optional items like higher education, public libraries (with more emphasis on educational books and less on repetitive romances or other mindless books that appeal solely to emotion and puts one brain on hold) and research, art and music programs, as well as maybe adding extra into the basic services areas that would include medical care for the poor and needy, food and job training and shelter, quality but basic education, etc.

And then people have the choice to donate funds at whatever degree they want directly to the programs they want funded...thus determining directly what the people want and how much they want it. And if the people are wise and kind and believe the government can do a good job with something, they give lots of optional donations to schools, less traveled roads, saving of national parks and heritage, poverty aid and training, medical care of the poor etc. and if they are not, and pay into funds that solely benefit themselves...because their names are given along with all donations and amounts, they can be held accountable by the people who may then choose to not provide them with the wealth they have by turning to others to get the services and resources they had once got from them.

In that way, the poor don't have to donate money to programs that have little to no impact on their lives while the wealthy if they want the finer things in life get to donate to art programs, want more protection can donate to military and a bigger police and fire force, can donate to wildlife and wilderness conservation, etc. etc. can donate to medical research so that they can live longer and better lives.

But that would likely work only in an ideal society where the wealthy wouldn't try to use their money to persuade the law to give them special status and it might cause class stratification if the wealthy didn't give enough to make art and higher education a public event...free for all, thus making it also available to the poor or anyone else to come in. One would have to set rules of access...since they are government programs, they must be available to the public, the funds must be applied in such a way that all can enjoy or the program shut down, partial fulfillment that allows only contributors to enjoy...that should be only allowed in the private sector.

Edited August 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[The Nehor]

Is this a valid assumption? Could you summarize it so I can see where you mean this to go as I can think of a few ways (government programs make for happier population, makes for stability, wealthy can spend less on security in a stable community and more on toys or getting more wealth)...but I can also see how one could claim that to make a difference in the lives of wealthy would take much more money and much less in the lives of the poor so wouldn't the poor benefit more especially if they are the actual targets of the spending?

Yes, I would argue that it is. I'll start with extremes. Let's take a janitor who lives in a small town. He was a couple thousand dollars saved in a local credit union. He bikes to work most days and uses the road. He owns a car but does not drive it much due to gas prices but he does use the road occasionally. His property does not have a lot of value and he lives mostly hand to mouth with modest savings. He benefits from national defense, social security, and some infrastructure.

Now let's take a multi-millionaire owner of a major company with holdings in other nations.. He has a lot more property and owns two homes and four cars. He is regularly on the road to visit branches and investors. This guy benefits from the infrastructure of the entire nation personally and for his company. He flies all over the world and benefits from the FAA and TSA. He has major stock holdings that federal agencies monitor to prevent fraud. He uses US diplomatic resources to expand overseas. He needs to hire people of all skill levels. Thankfully he lives in a nation that provides K-12 education to get his workforce. He also has gov't funded universities and a gov't that extends loans to provide him with trained personnel. When a bill that would inadvertantly cripple his business is presented he has access to congressional leaders to stop or amend the bill. If someone steals a patent he has access to the courts to protect the company's holdings. As he has a large array of property worth stealing police take special care of his neighborhood. When he sets up a branch in a new city he finds access to ready government infrastructure for himself and his employees.

Both in theory have equal access to all of this but one has the ability and need to make more use of it and does.

I only scratched the tip too. Anyone could expand the list.

[Calm]

the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard as justification for removing the minimum wage (yes, it has been done).

Everyone getting the same wage for not matter how much work they get is somehow demonstrating the validity of no minimum wage? Am wondering how they manage that.

The only thing I can think of is that the wage is left up to the boss and he can pay what he wants to pay....but that is not what the parable is teaching except perhaps for those for whom everything points to the sovereignty of God...could see it being used that way.

But then pay is removed from merit or expectations or anything besides what the boss wants to pay and I would love to see someone who thinks that is the best way to go.

Edited August 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

If you give money to a merchant or if you decide to throw it into the sewer, then you have made a choice. But that's a choice you couldn't have made if the money was stolen from you.

If agency is the power to choose, then it certainly can be taken away from you. If someone takes your hundred bucks you no longer have the power to choose what to do with that money. You may wish you could have given it to someone who needed it or you may have planned to pay a bill with it. But without that money you are deprived of the power to choose.

It may have limited your options in one area, while expanding them dramatically in another area. A man has stolen money from you...you now have choices to make about how you will react emotionally, will you let it cripple you or rise about it, will it let you see life through fear or will you see it as a challenge to go out and change the world; for what you were planning on spending the money on...you now have the option to decide is it of such value that I will go back and work for more money so I can eventually get it, or start thinking of ways to steal it as a 'just' payback for the means to buy it from being stolen from you, or do you give up any interest in your former future plans and suddenly see a whole different type of needs and chances and opportunities to help yourself and others...

An analogy...you are walking down a road that has many twists and turns and side roads and you are just so excited that you have so much to explore...until you get about halfway down the main road and start to see the detour signs due to the mudslides and earthquake that screwed up the road system the day before...now you only have two choices go forward or go back home and find something else to do besides wandering, but you are still hopeful and you keep walking and you come to a valley that is full of interesting fractures and twists, a multitude of them and you like climbing and exploring rock formations, so you chose one out of a dozen and work your way to the bottom of the gully and find that once again you have two choices go forward or back...again you choose go forward and when you come to the end of this gully, you come to an opening where another dozen gullies branch off or you could choose to walk the maze they created on the surface, you choose yet another gully out of the dozen and then proceed into the gully where suddenly once again your choice is either go forward or back, you go forward again...and again suddenly your massive amount of choices are in front of you.

IOW, what may look like a sudden loss of agency and choice is often merely doing the stuff the choice has allowed you to do (but limits your ability to do other things due to limits in resources, location and time) and once that is concluded, your options are suddenly legion again, even more expanded due to the experience one has gained through one's last choice.

If agency is the power to choose, then it certainly can be taken away from you.

Only for the options that were connected with that particular choice. There are still all the choices that you had before you had that option and all the options that now come up by the removal of that possible choice from your agenda. In fact, if one is given a choice between pleading guilty and pleading innocent and the choice is taken away from you because the case is dismissed, one has much more freedom of choice resulting from that 'coercion' than one would have had it one had insisted one be allowed to make that choice officially.

I have heard of prisoners who consider prison to be the most liberating time of their lives because it gave them a chance to sit down and take a serious look at their life and to consider that just possibly maybe they were going about things the wrong way, and came out with a changed paradigm with a multitude of opportunities that existed for him now rather than the very few opportunities he saw in his life prior to incarceration. Unfortunately not enough experiencing that life in such a way.

Edited August 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[The Nehor]

Everyone getting the same wage for not matter how much work they get is somehow demonstrating the validity of no minimum wage? Am wondering how they manage that.

The only thing I can think of is that the wage is left up to the boss and he can pay what he wants to pay....but that is not what the parable is teaching except perhaps for those for whom everything points to the sovereignty of God...could see it being used that way.

But then pay is removed from merit or expectations or anything besides what the boss wants to pay and I would love to see someone who thinks that is the best way to go.

I met someone who used it as a reason not to pay by merit but instead by what the market would bear (missing that the Lord was generous not miserly). The minimum wage logic came from assuming that the Lord was underpaying the first workers and that was his right.

The whole thing was obviously divorced from what Jesus was saying.

[Calm]

The minimum wage logic came from assuming that the Lord was underpaying the first workers and that was his right.

Oh that is just too evil and totally ignores the commandment that a labourer is worthy of his hire...no matter what the market says.

Shows even the devil (or his standin/disciple) can use the scriptures to reason with...

Edited August 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

One can achieve that through user fees/taxes....the first and the last. National defense needs something more whether income or property taxes of some sort. Perhaps national defense should be based on how difficult it would be to defend your land and property if an attack was made on home soil...and then use that money to ensure such an attack never took place.

And if one is so concerned about using the military to protect US interest outside of our country than those who benefit directly from such, those who have financial dealings depending on such, those who wish to travel with some sense that the US is there for me through the Embassy system (which must be very expensive, especially if security is sufficient)...one should be paying for such rather than forcing the individual who would prefer the US keep its military focused on protecting its own borders or using it to deal with internal disasters, etc. like the National Guard.

It would be very nice to have a tax system where one didn't hate what the government was using one's own taxes/donations money for. Where if one felt that abortion was a great evil, they knew their taxes weren't going to that area and instead could direct their taxes into decreasing the cost of adoption or setting up better foster care systems and giving the family court system the resources they need to do their job well.

I can imagine a tax system where basic government roles are covered by a flat rate tax...say 10%, that covers those things only a government can do--but at a minimum way. And then have another flat tax for basic services but one is allowed to designate which basic service should get your money so the government can see which is valued most and then a highly promoted donation system that covers important but optional items like higher education, public libraries (with more emphasis on educational books and less on repetitive romances or other mindless books that appeal solely to emotion and puts one brain on hold) and research, art and music programs, as well as maybe adding extra into the basic services areas that would include medical care for the poor and needy, food and job training and shelter, quality but basic education, etc.

And then people have the choice to donate funds at whatever degree they want directly to the programs they want funded...thus determining directly what the people want and how much they want it. And if the people are wise and kind and believe the government can do a good job with something, they give lots of optional donations to schools, less traveled roads, saving of national parks and heritage, poverty aid and training, medical care of the poor etc. and if they are not, and pay into funds that solely benefit themselves...because their names are given along with all donations and amounts, they can be held accountable by the people who may then choose to not provide them with the wealth they have by turning to others to get the services and resources they had once got from them.

In that way, the poor don't have to donate money to programs that have little to no impact on their lives while the wealthy if they want the finer things in life get to donate to art programs, want more protection can donate to military and a bigger police and fire force, can donate to wildlife and wilderness conservation, etc. etc. can donate to medical research so that they can live longer and better lives.

But that would likely work only in an ideal society where the wealthy wouldn't try to use their money to persuade the law to give them special status and it might cause class stratification if the wealthy didn't give enough to make art and higher education a public event...free for all, thus making it also available to the poor or anyone else to come in. One would have to set rules of access...since they are government programs, they must be available to the public, the funds must be applied in such a way that all can enjoy or the program shut down, partial fulfillment that allows only contributors to enjoy...that should be only allowed in the private sector.

In the wild days immediately after 9/11 I remember POTUS saying that the government should guarantee the insurance on new skyscraper building in the cities and thought absolutely not, there instead should be a healthy annual tax on any building which was an obvious target for terrorism. Such construction like the World Trade Center should never have occurred in the first place it was an obvious target for disaster given 9/11 wasn't the first attempt at destroying it. Such buildings are pure hubris.