Subject: I do believe I've wandered even farther left in US terms.
Author:
Posted on: 2022-08-20 15:06:07 UTC
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.41
I would summarize my result as "Corporations are not people, GTFO of the bedroom."
Also! Here's a working PolitiScales link. I don't have time for another quiz right now, but later!
~Neshomeh
So, I was wondering through some old Board threads (a hobby of mine when the Board is quiet.) and I found a link to PoliticalCompass.org. I took the test-thingy, and got a rather moderate result, to my surprise.
I then found this thread, which had links to another, better, version of the Political Compass site—Politiscales—but the link to that site is broken. Anyone know why?
—Ls, trying to start a new thread on the somewhat-inactive Board.
Are viewable here:-
Equality -- Humanity -- Socialism (PolitiScales)
Political Compass:-
Economic Left/Right: -9.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -9.79
My steady leftward stride continues, though I am also becoming more anarchist in my expressed beliefs. I don't quite know what this means in the context of hS's new map lore - I shall have to read more about them later. =]
The PolitScales site has been down for the past day or so, but luckily I found a backup version here. I raced through the questions as anti-Huinesoron, and then pasted Scape's results across so I could work on them.
FROM: Huinesoronic Ground Command
TO: Kaitlyn Ground Control
Heeeey lovely, hear you're having some Scapegrace issues. What did they do, splash down and then take that mountain overlooking your base. That's rotten, especially now they've deployed those laser drones of theirs.
I've got to admit, I figured the Scapegraces would be more devoted to the Great Regulation, but from the messages we've intercepted it sounds like they're more aligned with the Lilies and Neshomeh. It's just a blessing they're so anarchic, otherwise we'd really be in trouble.
We've got no idea what's going on out east. There seems to be an armed standoff around Yuki's island; we're feeding defensive tech to the Yuki forces to disrupt the Let-It-Bes, but they're hardly an ally. The Bookworms appear to be trying to build an actual settlement - on a radioactive coastline, no less! - and the Linstars are working on something underwater. Given the circumstances of their retreat from the Neshomeh-Winterwood coast, we can only assume it's some crazed mana-powered doomsday device.
I was surprised by the number of scales on which Kaitlyn is more extreme than Scapegrace. Working in a little of the implied story from Linstar and Bookworm's posts here, but basically Huinesoronic Command is focussed on the west right now.
I've been working on interpreting the URL coding for the results, and I've just about got it all pinned down. It's changed quite a lot since 2018, but with a bit of prodding I can once again provide:
The (colour-rotated) American Monarchist flag
(Stickers no longer have a percentage associated, so Monarchy/white is an on/off switch: either you get both of them, or neither, and white will always be the primary colour. I can do a slightly off-white 13 colonies flag though!)
hS
It vill destroy you all! Mwa hahahahaha!
—ZELL
((I think Anti-hS is more right-wing than I. Go figure.))
...you'll forget to complete it and I'll finally have a fair shot at the leftiest lefty spot. Alas, this wasn't my year. But I'm biding my time.
Those are some high numbers.
And just when hS had made another map.
One of the key failings of capitalism is in forgetting that money, as we know it and in all its various forms, is a subjective and arbitrary unit measure of worth and not something of worth itself. Another is in the fundamental abstraction of finance and its dogma of constant quarterly growth from what trade actually is, which is to say, the movement of goods and services from one party to another; the fast-fashion textile industry, for instance, forces Bangladeshi workers into hideous conditions for slave wages to create clothes in such vast quantities that they end up dumped in a landfill having never been worn. The total uncoupling of supply from demand is what has directly led to the climate crisis we now face, as well as literally every other kind of crisis. It is the direct, one-to-one conversion of resources into waste.
Does this make even the slightest bit of sense from a human perspective? Of course not! But from a capitalist perspective, and I feel it vital to differentiate the two, production is just a number, and if the number is bigger that means the business is better. Capitalist ideology demands that this be so, you see, because if the business was not in fact better, then how would it be producing more things? It does not matter if the production is waste. The Number Went Up. The Line Went Up. Capitalism has therefore succeeded. I use the garment industry as an example but it applies to every single industry, and yet there are still shortages whenever actual human need gets in the way of what The Line That Goes Up has decided the world needs.
Capitalism is the delegation of social responsibility and morality to an algorithm. Bezos and his ilk know this. This is why the present plan for people like him and Musk and the others is to be the Cool Billionaire, doing space stuff and electric cars and so forth. I consider it analogous to a deadbeat dad who spoils his kids every visitation to make them hate their mum while never paying a lick of child support. One need only look at the Gates Foundation forcing Oxford University medical researchers to patent their CoVid-19 vaccine through AstraZeneca rather than make it open-source, as was initially the plan. No, philanthropy as exemplified by capitalism is a myth. The owner-class is incapable of actual philanthropy; to truly love their fellow human being would require them to improve their material conditions at their own serious expense, i.e. giving away a portion of their wealth which would genuinely impact how they live their lives. For context, if Bezos gave 99% of his net worth away today, he would still be a billionaire. But all this is moot, because all this is anathema to capitalist ideology. If you give money away, you are losing at capitalism because your line is going up less; thus "philanthropy" and charity for the owner-class is more about diversifying their portfolio of interests rather than benefiting humanity as a whole. Returning to the Gates Foundation example, the Oxford CoVid-19 vaccine researchers were part of Oxford University, which receives large amounts of money from the Gates Foundation. The Foundation itself also invests the money it has -- and wouldn't you know it, it has a considerable stake in pharmaceuticals company AstraZeneca! A vaccine against a deadly plague that was intended to be free and open-source was instead forced behind a paywall by pressure from the Gates Foundation, who threatened to withdraw their funding from Oxford University if the vaccine against an incredibly deadly pandemic virus was not made the property of a pharma company in which the Foundation had invested heavily. This is what the owner-class considers philanthropy. And this is the foundation of Bill Gates, who is constantly held up as a philanthropist.
It is therefore my considered opinion that billionaires should be forcibly divested of everything they have and that the stolen wealth be returned to society. The billionaires in question -- of which there are approaching three thousand around the world -- may complain that such a thing is unfair. They are wrong. Not only is it fair, it is merciful. The downtrodden and dispossessed will rise up and depose the capitalist ideologues that have desecrated our planet in the name of nothing more than avarice. The victims of settler colonialism, of capitalism, of the autocracy of the owner-class capitalist in the little fiefdom called their business: they bay for these people to be driven from their gated compounds and subjected to the justice of the mob. For all that I disagree, I still empathise with that position. Their palaces are built on foundations of innumerable corpses, and justice must be done in the memory of all the dead whose bodies greased the wheels of alleged progress. I only want redress from the owner-class and its loathsome inhabitants; they may thank their lucky stars that I and others like me do not want vengeance.
...
Well if you weren't seeing why before, you probably are now. =]
But Communism and Socialism inevitably result in even more inequity by rolling the über-rich roles into government leaders—no one is selfless enough to avoid self-enrichment when in control of a country. Those revolutionaries simply take wealth for themselves, eliminate the middle class, and make everyone else equal—in utter poverty.
It’s always easier to criticize than come up with alternatives, innit?
Anyway, I’m not pro-worker exploitation.
—Ls
Capitalism and Socialism are economic systems, models, or ideologies. Capitalism says that the means of production (whether resources, factories, labour, or companies - literally, what you use to make Stuff) should be privately owned and operated for individual profit. Socialism (/Communism? there are some distinctions but I'm just going to use one word for simplicity) says that they should be owned by society in some way, and that the profit (whether money or products) should also be shared by society. There are other models around - feudalism, for example, where the means of production are restricted to a specific social class, with the lower classes explicitly excluded from owning them. (Compare capitalism, where there is no legal barrier to you or I becoming a billionaire.) But we're talking capitalism and socialism
During the Cold War, these two models became strongly associated with political systems. It's really hard for me to think "capitalism" without thinking "western democracy", just as it's really hard to think of socialism outside of a one-party dictatorship. But Russia, now, is effectively a one-party capitalist society - there's nothing preventing one-party states from operating on a capitalist model!
So when we talk about socialism, we need to avoid getting stuck in the Soviet Union mindset. Most/all socialist states ran under the Soviet model, because the USSR was deliberately exporting it, but there are other ways to do it. The UK has been described as voting in a revolution after WWII - we introduced public ownership of healthcare, transport systems, utilities (electric, water etc) by electing the right government. We kind of mixed socialism (for essential industries) with capitalism (for the rest), and didn't wind up with an uber-rich dictatorship. (In fact most of our self-enriching-politician scandals have been the pro-capitalist right taking and giving handouts from their buddied in industry!)
Which isn't to say it had no problems. Every nationalised industry either overspent or was under-budgeted, depending on your viewpoint. And of course, when the opposition next got voted in, they were free to start dismantling the changes - either directly by running on a privatisation platform, or obliquely by running the industry into the ground and then selling it off. They're still at it today.
So... yeah. No big finish here: just that we all need to remember that our ideas of Capitalism and Socialism were shaped by the Cold War, and that's not the only way those systems can be run.
hS
A very authoritarian one, that is.
Er...not much else to say in response.
The government decides what industries get more funding and what regulations the industries abide by. It’s just got some capitalist elements because individuals can make their own companies under those blanket regulations, and they can get funding for it from the state.
To be more accurate, China is one party authoritarian socialism trying to do capitalist cosplay because the last time it implemented full state control of everything it lacked the infrastructure needed to support everyone, and lots of people died/starved.
~Lily, who is Not Mad and doesn’t want to start another reply chain, but is Chinese and has been back to China in… oh, January 2020.
I’m sure Lily’s description is much more accurate than mine.
...when I joined the Board as a religious Republican 13-year-old.
A lot can change in ~20 years.
https://politiscales.party/results?bTE9NSZtMD04NiZ0MT03JnQwPTcxJmUxPTE5JmUwPTY3JnMwPTkzJmMxPTEyJmMwPTYyJmZlbWk9NTImcDA9OTUmYjE9NyZiMD05MCZqMT0xNCZqMD03NiZ2ZWdhPTEwMA==
--Kaitlyn can hear the people sing
This is the lower-left quadrant of the Political Compass, with PolitiScales results mapped as usual (Left = Communist, down = Progressive).
I have not moved around very much. ^_^ My Political Compass result this year shares both values almost exactly with previous readings (combining 2016 & 2014), while my PolitiScales is literally sitting on top of... er, 2810, apparently? 2018, in your Earth years.
Meanwhile Kaitlyn is pushing further down and left every year. She hasn't moved much this time, but given that she's at 2.5 x 3.5, she hasn't got much left to move to.
EDIT: Note mostly to self - Kaitlyn has just done the Political Compass and landed on -8.75 / - 8.36. That falls at 6.25 / 8.20 on this plot, which is way down and left for a Compass plot. Though not as far as Scape's, I believe.
hS
FROM: Ground command, Huinesoronic forces
TO: Huinesoron high command
Sir,
I am pleased to report that our staunchest ally has landed. The green-and-orange of Kaitlyn flies over the south-western peak of Plortitics, and their planes have already taken to the skies. With our joint commitment to the Great Regulation, we will (assisted as always by the GMA) swiftly sweep the anarchists of doctorlit from the map, and consolidate our position by bring the Lilies and Neshomeh to either alliance or destruction.
And in the meantimes Linstar and co will no doubt obtain their magical relics and enact their plans with absolutely no opposition. The Left does love to tear itself apart, don't we?
hS
Not only did ze relics turn out to only be useful for self-defense, our zo-called allies believe in zomething called “peace.” Ve had to retreat from our skirmishes vis ze Neshomehs and ze Lilys of ze Vinterwood because of our lack of allies! And I hear zat ze “Scapegrace” are on zeir way too. And zey are veddy Regulationist.
You are not ze only ones with problems! Zo per’aps ve should not broadcast ours zo publicly...
—ZELL
((I have to say, I’m pretty flattered that the Linstars are mentioned in literally every Plortitics post. And ZELL’s accent is getting thicker. Though I’m still not sure what accent it’s supposed to be.))
[Carefully shuffles PPC+20 under the bed with a foot]
I'll update the map Later(TM), but it looks like you're definitely the most south-westerly among us. And a firm ally of Huinesoron, if I'm getting the flagpole colour right! Together we shall destroy the scourge of those who reject the Great Regulation.
hS
FROM: Fabled River guardpost (Huinesoronic)
TO: Ground Command, Huinesoronic forces
Sir,
A scouting element attached to this post was performing a patrol circuit of the GMA camp, in accordance with our alliance therewith. In the foothills west of the GMA camp, they discovered clear signs of a landing site. Evidence suggests that this is the groundfall locality for the doctorlit forces, prior to their removal to their peak. I have instructed the scouts to return and investigate further, in case any useful data can be obtained.
At the same time, this post observed unidentified combatants moving in force across the mouth of the Fabled River. By careful observation and shadowing, I was able to identify them as the Legion of Thoth, who as you know are more sympathetic to the "Let-it-Bes" than to the Great Regulation. My observations showed that they are operating at a lower tech level and readiness state than ourselves, and indicate that they were moving towards the former archeological site of the Central City.
As the Legion may be expected to align with the doctorlit and with the Linstars and their allies to the east, this post recommends an immediate strike against them to preclude any possibility of ground command being surrounded. I await your orders.
Little buggies for Thoth, and more of the belligerent characters representing Huinesoron on the ground. It's interesting how much the tightly-clustered Political Compass results spread out in the PolitiScales version.
hS
There are a lot of areas I was conflicted about, or struggled to answer because I felt the question was wrong.
https://politiscales.party/results?dDE9MzEmdDA9MjYmYzA9NTUmYzE9MTAmYjA9NjQmYjE9MTAmbTE9MTcmbTA9NjkmcDE9NSZwMD00OCZzMD02OSZzMT01JmUxPTM2JmUwPTM2JmowPTY3JmoxPTUmZmVtaT0zOA==
And on compass https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-8.13&soc=-6.92
Unsurprisingly, I'm a heathen leftist.
On PolitiScales, I'm at Equality - Humanity - Socialism. Kinda surprised at that heavy communist score, though? Is it that radical to want to make sure folks like Bezos and friends pay their fair share? :P Which is probably also why I got the Conspiracist label. I promise I'm not one of those weirdoes who think there's lizards in the government. That's unfair to lizards when, again, Bezos and friends are right there.
What exactly would you consider a “fair share” that, as you put it, “Bezos and friends” should pay in taxes? It’s an incredibly vague phrase, so I’d like to know what exactly you mean.
—Ls is genuinely curious as to what you and others have to say. And he’s not really a Jeff Bezos fan either.
If we pay x% of our income in taxes, so should he. That naturally means he should pay more, because he makes more (and off the backs of his workers, no less!), so if he doesn’t want to pay so much, maybe he should consider lowering his own paycheck and giving more to his workers, or hiring more workers so they’re not spread thin running around that warehouse. Though it sounds like given the high turnover rate at Amazon fulfillment centres that he’s gonna run out of people to hire…
This is how income tax works in the UK. You get the first £12K or so tax free, then pay 20% on everything else up to about £50K. That jumps to 40% on everything from there up to £150K, and then... ticks up only a fraction more.
A normal person, who earns money even vaguely proportional to the amount of work they do (as opposed to the amount of work other people do), will pay between 10-20% of their total income in taxes. Jeff Bezos, if he could be bothered to pay taxes and was in the UK, would pay effectively 45%. At one point he was earning $230,000 a minute, but the UK government loves pandering to the rich, so it would still be 45%.
It should be much, much higher. Make it 90%+ once they reach a certain level. I think Bezos made $24 million in the first year of Covid - tax the top $23 million of that at 90% and it would still be $2.3 million.
Nobody needs that much money. Just going by Wikipedia the man has at least ten houses in the US and a half-billion dollar yacht. Nobody needs that much money.
Tax the rich. They can afford it.
(US tax brackets, by comparison, tax the poor more than the UK and the rich less.)
hS
Yes, there are people have more money than they need.
However, that doesn't mean the government should effectively have the power to decide that they have too much. The government should not be able to tell an individual "You have enough money now, so the rest is ours". Even if Bezos is overpayed for his work, the government didn't do any work.
Second point: the rich will leave. If John Q. Billionaire will be taxed at 90%, what's to stop him from leaving the country before the bill that implements the 90% tax ecomes law? Why should he let the government takes his money?
--Ls thinks American federal taxes should be lowered.
That's basically half the point of a government: they do the things that society as a whole needs, but which no individual will/can do. Like maintaining roads, or the likes of education, health, etc. (Yes, and the military.)
In English history, you find a lot of taxes being levied for specific reasons - a war, a castle, I suppose theoretically a road but the English kings never seem to have cared much about roads. They raised money by basically picking something and taxing it - maybe it's wool sales this time, or maybe the number of windows on your house. At various times they just taxed everyone the same amount, which I think we can all agree is much, much worse for the poor than the rich. (The widow's mite comes to mind.)
Given that my government is an omnishambles right now, I totally agree that "the government knows best" is a dicey proposition, but... what's the alternative? It would be lovely for everyone to just come together and fund currently publically-funded things out of the goodness of their hearts, but with Jeff Bezos sitting here with $150,000,000,000, 10+ houses and a superyacht, I think we can count that out. (Even if we couldn't, when rich people build things, they see them as theirs; there's a long history in the UK of toll roads which you have to pay to use so that the man who built it can turn a profit. I don't think "being able to leave your house" should be based on your income, myself.)
But if people won't use their money for good voluntarily, and you don't want the government taking it with the force of law behind them... what? You wind up advocating for everyone to hold all their possessions in common and use them by direct democracy, which is a beautiful form of primitive socialism that doesn't work either.
Someone - internet says Churchill - said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried." As far as I can see, that applies to taxation as well.
hS
Agreed. Taxation is the worst form of money-raising, except for all the other ones that don’t work.
Specifically, I’m not anti-any taxation, just anti- what I consider over-taxation.
—Ls thinks that poll taxes are incredibly unfair.
However, that doesn't mean the government should effectively have the power to decide that they have too much. The government should not be able to tell an individual "You have enough money now, so the rest is ours". Even if Bezos is overpayed for his work, the government didn't do any work.
Who will determine whether or not Bezos has too much money, then? Since clearly Bezos does not believe he has too much money. Other people have already contextualised how much money he has in relation to the rest of us, and unless the Ghosts of Christmas exist, he's not going to suddenly decide he has too much money and give the excess away.
Second point: the rich will leave. If John Q. Billionaire will be taxed at 90%, what's to stop him from leaving the country before the bill that implements the 90% tax ecomes law? Why should he let the government takes his money?
Real estate holdings in the US are too valuable for them to leave. Most of the richest people in the world already hold vast swathes of their money in offshore accounts or in states without as stringent tax laws (South Dakota, Texas, Delaware, etc).
The United States' infrastructure is crumbling and its education system is failing. Teachers are underpaid and roads and bridges need updating (and don't get me started on building ventilation in light of the spread of COVID). Tax money goes to repairing these issues. Do I trust the current administration to allocate responsibly? No, not really. But I trust Bezos and friends with that money even less.
Also for your responses to me: Are you implying that he personally underpays Amazon workers? Because I honestly have no clue as to the statistics there. I don’t think Amazon has a workers’ union, but I don’t think the government needs to act as one. If he does run out of workers, then he’ll have no choice but to pay them higher (or outsource overseas). Or, customers could protest the unfair wages as well by boycotting.
Amazon workers are trying to unionize, and Bezos is pouring millions of dollars into union-busting efforts so that he can continue to exploit them. I have no faith in him deciding he'll pay his workers more. The labour in this case is for his fulfillment centres, which have to be on US soil since that's where the items are sorted to get to customers.
Boycotting Amazon is more difficult than you think, given Amazon also has web services that control a good deal of the Internet, not to mention all of its subsidiaries. If boycotting is your only line of defense against exploitative capitalism, you are going to run out of things to consume very quickly.
The government shouldn't have to be a worker's union, but capitalists putting profits over people means currently the only way for big corporations to play ball is legislating for regulation. I'm sceptical of the government, but at least I can have a say in who I put in charge of it.
By the way, what would you consider a “fair share” of taxes on a theoretical person who earns a billion dollars a year? In numbers.
hS has a point. Bezos could give away 90% of a billion and still have enough to live off of, considering he's making more money you and I will ever see in a year each minute.
I don’t think anyone needs to make him give away his fortune. Why should he? Why do we need to make him donate money?
(He was the most philanthropic person in the world in 2020, by the way.)
“Land...too valuable to leave.”
Well, you kinda make my point that wealthy people buy land in areas that are low-tax. I don’t know exactly what point would make it “too much,” but, clearly high taxes are a deterrent.
As for the “crumbling infrastructure”, we just passed a $65 billion dollar bill that has funding for those things. Bezos does have a more than 65 billion dollar net worth.
Who exactly counts as “Bezos’ friends?”
Where are you getting the data that Amazon employees are being exploited and cannot switch jobs? Because that is kinda the crux of the debate.
As to “he does no work,” Bezos is an Executive Chairman, which means that he is essentially a consultant for the new CEO. That’s something.
Lastly, how would the government tax one individual? If taxes are increased, does that not mean that non-exploitive rich people would be taxed too? Or do you assume all rich people are exploitive?
—Ls can definitely see how boycotting Amazon would be hard.
What's the point of having a billion dollars?
I'm simplifying to a billion because I'm not a numbers person and that's about as much as I can get my head around. It also has the benefit of including all billionaires in the debate, not just the super-billionaires like Jeff Bezos and, for another, perhaps even crummier example, Elon Musk. (Read that article you linked about the top philanthropists. It's not actually very flattering to Bezos, either.)
So, what do these people actually do with all that money? Sure, they donate some of it. They can easily donate a million dollars to any given cause, and to most of us, it sounds like a lot, because we'll never have a million dollars in our whole lives. But out of a billion, that's just 0.1%. It's nothing to these people.
Sure, they turn some of it into material goods like expensive clothes and cars and heck even a rocket-ship, and you can argue that creates jobs. Again, though, we're mostly talking about spending on the order of millions here. You have to spend ten million just to make up 1% of a billion.
And what are they doing with the rest of it? Not much. They stuff it into bank accounts (some not even in their own country), put it in the stock market, buy up shares of other companies so they can make more money to stuff into more bank accounts and stocks... And what's the point? What actual good does this do anyone?
Seems to me what rich people mostly do is... to be rich. To go around saying "look at me, I'm so rich, you should pay attention to me because I have money and you don't."
In a word: Greed.
In another: Pride.
Heck, I could make a case for all seven deadly sins here.
Let's not forget: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" according to no less a figure than Jesus the Christ. I don't have to believe he was a literal son of God to agree with him about that.
Meanwhile, as hS pointed out, a government could take 90% of a billion dollars and do something with it (while still leaving the wealthy absurdly wealthy with a hundred million dollars). And as Lily pointed out, in a democratic system, we the people get a say in what the government does. I think that's loads better than letting billionaires just sit on it like dragons on their hoards.
~Neshomeh
Yes, there are no good reasons to be rich. I don't think Jeff Bezos is really doing anything good with his money, but that's not relevant. To reiterate: I don't really like Jeff Bezos. Clear?
However, do we deserve the money? I'd say "Not really." I don't think that "You have stuff that you are wasting, everyone else wants that stuff, so we get to do what we want with it" is really a good argument.
As to that quote, I believe it is a rebuttal of rebuttal of rabbinical tradition that believed that rich people would automatically be saved. I would also say that there is a large difference between being less rich because you've given your money away, and having the government take it away. Forced selflessness isn't selflessness.
--Ls, not quite replying to all points.
I'll leave it to someone better equipped than I am to explain how the value of the dollar has been determined since we got rid of the gold standard, but it boils down to "it depends" and "because we said so." But, that's not really relevant.
I'm not saying I think the government should take Bezos' money and use it to write checks to everyone else so they can spend it as they please.
I am saying that I believe everyone who's born into this world though no choice of their own (and sometimes no choice of their mother's, either) deserves quality health care, fact-based education, unrestricted access to information, safe housing, safe drinking water, food security, a planet to live on that isn't being rapidly driven to ecological crisis by unregulated industry pouring carbon and other waste into the environment, and other such universal human rights.
I'm also saying I believe the only way to ensure that every person in every state gets equal access to those things is for them to be provided by the federal government, i.e. socialism.
But in the absence of that, the only way for an individual to get those things is cash in hand, so, sure. Until we make a better way, I do believe that every person born into this world through no choice of their own deserves enough money to afford a decent quality of life, and I'd accept it in the form of checks from Bezos, Musk, etc. I don't care about making them not be selfish people anymore—that's between them and whatever higher power they believe in—but since they clearly are too selfish to give it up willingly, then yes, for the sake of basic human dignity, I believe it should be lawfully taken from them and provided to those who need it to improve their quality of life.
~Neshomeh
*I am saying that I believe everyone who's born into this world though no choice of their own (and sometimes no choice of their mother's, either) deserves quality health care, fact-based education, unrestricted access to information, safe housing, safe drinking water, food security, a planet to live on that isn't being rapidly driven to ecological crisis by unregulated industry pouring carbon and other waste into the environment, and other such universal human rights.
I'm also saying I believe the only way to ensure that every person in every state gets equal access to those things is for them to be provided by the federal government, i.e. socialism.*
I disagree. While all those things would be absolutely wonderful in theory, and in a perfect world—we don’t live in one.
First of all, I don’t classify those as human rights. While they are all good things all people should have, they are not human rights in my book for one reason—human rights are things that you can do, that stop you from doing—having a religion of your choice, saying what you want—but the rights you mentioned are different. You mentioned things that you get from someone else which I don’t believe are rights, because they force someone else to do something for your benefit.
Generally, I find that the government always ends up producing less-effective alternatives to the free market. I believe that emphasizing charities is a better way to bring those things to people.
And the phrase “ born into this world though no choice of their own“ is redundant—who does that not apply to?
—Ls
And so does the United Nations, which produced the Universal Declaration in Human Rights. See article 19 on freedom of opinion and articles 25 and 26 for most of the things I mentioned previously. My list was not arbitrary; people much more knowledgeable than either of us came up with this stuff.
> human rights are things that you can do, that stop you from doing—having a religion of your choice, saying what you want
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but I'm pretty sure there isn't a single right you could name that isn't given to us by other people, because "right" is a concept we made up. Freedom of religion? No; that's only given if enough other people agree you should be allowed practice your religion without being murdered for it. Freedom of speech? Same. Most of our freedoms come at the cost of another one: the freedom to do murder. On behalf of all non-murderers, you're welcome. {= )
> While all those things would be absolutely wonderful in theory, and in a perfect world—we don’t live in one.
Just because we don't live in a perfect world doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make it better than it is now.
> I believe that emphasizing charities is a better way to bring those things to people.
Rhetorical questions: Which charities? How much from each individual not currently living in poverty donated to how many charities will ensure that global warming is reversed and no one has to live in poverty?
I'm pretty sure these questions are impossible to answer because charities are not a workable solution, but if you have a chart mapping out an optimized giving strategy and how to convince everyone to do it, I'll be the first to stick my oar in.
> And the phrase "born into this world though no choice of their own" is redundant—who does that not apply to?
It's a rhetorical device. I was elaborating to emphasize my point. Since that failed, I'll speak more plainly: Why should anyone who didn't ask to exist be expected to live in poverty while other people who are equally here by accident have obscenely huge hoards of wealth they'll never use? I believe allowing that state of affairs to continue is inhumane and—in the case of individuals empowered to stop it—downright evil. I don't support it. QED.
~Neshomeh
And so does the United Nations, which produced the Universal Declaration in Human Rights. See article 19 on freedom of opinion and articles 25 and 26 for most of the things I mentioned previously. My list was not arbitrary; people much more knowledgeable than either of us came up with this stuff.
Hmm. I do see your point in that. And some of the things you brought up.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, but I'm pretty sure there isn't a single right you could name that isn't given to us by other people, because "right" is a concept we made up. Freedom of religion? No; that's only given if enough other people agree you should be allowed practice your religion without being murdered for it. Freedom of speech? Same. Most of our freedoms come at the cost of another one: the freedom to do murder. On behalf of all non-murderers, you're welcome. {= )
Alright, I’d like to disagree here. I was trying to make a distinction between positive and negative rights. That is, I will say that rights are inviolable exercises of free will. That is, in complete isolation, an individual can exercise his/her right to religion or free speech. That is, no one need give you that. The reason there is no such thing as a right to murder is because the other person’s right to not die overrides your right to kill whatever you want. I would say that some of those positive rights you mentioned could be reasonably implemented governmentally. I do think that reasonable environmental regulation is a good thing.
Rhetorical questions: Which charities? How much from each individual not currently living in poverty donated to how many charities will ensure that global warming is reversed and no one has to live in poverty?
Unfortunately, I do not have such a chart, but if you have one for government, I’d like to see it as well.
—Ls, hopefully being clearer, and philosophical
It's good to have more precise words to use. On negative rights/liberties, I still think it's crucial to recognize that those can only exist if society at large agrees that they do and will enact consequences for people who violate the liberties of others. See any point in history at which any group of people has been persecuted for their beliefs with no consequence for the perpetrators because the majority and/or the authorities agreed that it was okay to do violence against that group of people at the time.
I'd also argue that safe drinking water, food, medicine, etc. can be considered negative rights in that they should be protected from interference by contamination, false advertisement, price-jacking, and so forth. I'd further argue that I don't see how it can be more important to protect people's liberties of speech and religion than it is to protect people's entitlement to access things that are physically necessary for survival.
Re. chart - Well, just for a partial example, the Paris Agreement is an international "chart" outlining an economic and social plan to limit global warming, which nearly two hundred governments have signed on to (including ours again, since President Biden reversed #45's withdrawal). For another example, I refer you to the conversation you're having with Lily about the Inflation Reduction Act.
See, that's the thing about national governments: it's literally their job to make plans like that and execute them on a national scale. That's why I think they should be the ones to do it. That's what my vote says I'm paying them for, and a democratic government is supposed to work for the people, not the other way around.
~Neshomeh, Not Mad™
It's good to have more precise words to use. On negative rights/liberties, I still think it's crucial to recognize that those can only exist if society at large agrees that they do and will enact consequences for people who violate the liberties of others. See any point in history at which any group of people has been persecuted for their beliefs with no consequence for the perpetrators because the majority and/or the authorities agreed that it was okay to do violence against that group of people at the time.
Yeah, I can’t disagree with that.
I'd also argue that safe drinking water, food, medicine, etc. can be considered negative rights in that they should be protected from interference by contamination, false advertisement, price-jacking, and so forth. I'd further argue that I don't see how it can be more important to protect people's liberties of speech and religion than it is to protect people's entitlement to access things that are physically necessary for survival.
Okay then. What things wouldn’t fall under that, then? I don’t believe internet access is essential for survival? Should it be protected thusly?
*Re. chart - Well, just for a partial example, the Paris Agreement is an international "chart" outlining an economic and social plan to limit global warming, which nearly two hundred governments have signed on to (including ours again, since President Biden reversed #45's withdrawal). For another example, I refer you to the conversation you're having with Lily about the Inflation Reduction Act.
See, that's the thing about national governments: it's literally their job to make plans like that and execute them on a national scale. That's why I think they should be the ones to do it. That's what my vote says I'm paying them for, and a democratic government is supposed to work for the people, not the other way around.*
I would also argue that, when possible, it’s best to have a more local government in charge of making local decisions. After all, your vote is relatively more powerful in your state than in the nation as a whole.
—Ls, Neither Mad Nor Angry®️
For one thing, the presidency is not actually decided by popular vote (if it were, the last two Republican presidents would not have won), but rather by the electoral college. The process for becoming an elector varies state by state, as does the degree to which electors are obligated to follow the popular vote. Some simply are not. In theory, this is to prevent the uneducated masses from making an uninformed decision, but even if there were some merit to that idea in the past (which is debatable), in the Internet age, it's ludicrous.
However, that brings me back to free access to information as a human right. I would argue that it must be a protected right in order to ensure the public can make informed decisions for itself and is less vulnerable to exploitation by corporate, government, or any other interests that might wish to manipulate the facts for their own gain. Information, like food and drink, should also be protected from adulteration by lies and conspiracy theories so that, for instance, people are less likely to believe that there are computer chips in a life-saving vaccination or that drinking urine or bleach is a good way to prevent COVID-19. I wish I were making that up.
I believe education must be protected for the same reason. How are you supposed to be able to tell good information from bad information if you're never taught basic facts, like "bleach is toxic because it destroys virtually all kinds of cells on contact," or how to analyze a statistic to see if it's being taken out of context or cherry-picked, or that you should always check the sources of your information to make sure they're coming from actual experts in the field and not crackpots?
Returning to the subject of how much your vote counts: locally, it's also determined by where the lines are drawn around your district. Gerrymandering affects local elections just as badly as it effects federal elections. This site gives several examples. It also talks about how gerrymandering has been used to dilute the votes of minority populations, who already face other barriers to participation in the election process that I won't get into here. The point is, our current system is not working as intended, and has instead been corrupted to benefit certain people while disenfranchising others. It needs to be changed so that it can work to benefit all citizens equally, as I've argued is its true function.
But how do you learn that if you don't have a strong civics and history education that doesn't shy away from talking about the ugly parts of our history and you're restricted from access to the Internet, not to mention analog sources of knowledge like libraries and museums? There's a reason museums came up on the quiz. You won't be surprised to hear I support them being subsidized so they're not automatically locked away from poor people, for whom it's already difficult enough just taking time away from work to visit one. I'll admit to being dubious about theaters being included, since a Broadway ticket is certainly a luxury, but on the other hand, the stage, the screen, and the page are all methods by which the public can criticize and ridicule its leaders as needed. This, too, is vital for a working democracy.
What I think shouldn't be protected are things literally no one needs, like the "right" to wear a new set of clothes every day without paying the people who make those clothes enough to live on, or the "right" to buy up residential properties in New Orleans and sell them at exorbitant costs during a housing shortage, or the "right" to carry around an instrument of mass-murder. In short, behaviors that directly or indirectly harm others or interfere with their liberties and entitlements.
~Neshomeh
Agreed, freedom of information is Good. Though of course, to truly have free information, you should be able to see what Urine Guy says and what everyone else says, and make your own judgements from there.
—Ls, being brief due to wanting to focus more on PPC-y stuff.
I realized I definitely came off as wanting to censor Urine Guy, which is not the case. As far as I'm concerned, he's got the right to say whatever he wants on his own private channel or feed or whatever. What I object to is powerful platforms like Facebook or traditional media outlets spreading around pseudo-scientific garbage in the name of "balance" when all they actually want is to generate ad revenue. Insane stances generate more views/clicks than sane, boring, peer-reviewed facts, you see.
But no, outside of the class of speech including hate speech and threats, I generally subscribe to the view that the best remedy for bad speech is more good speech.
~Neshomeh
Neither gold nor silver nor government fiat (nor obscure mathematics on a blockchain) have any intrinsic value. What has value is a) stuff and b) work. The whole concept of currency is just an abstraction of those, so that I can obtain food from a shop without having to give them a sheep or stack their shelves in exchange.
A big issue with capitalism as it stands is that it keeps disconnecting money from stuff and work. Jeff Bezos, to continue the example, is being paid vastly more for answering a few emails than his workers are for doing 8-12 hours of physical labour. This is a general trend: the more you're paid, the less you actually do. In theory it's because physical work gives way to mental labour and expertise, but while that might hold true at certain levels (a lab manager could be said to do "more work" than a lab tech despite not running any experiments), by the time you hit billionaires it definitely doesn't.
The money =/= stuff split is just as bad: it's what leads to housing market bubbles, stock market collapses, and so on. The same piece of theoretically stuff (one millionth share in Amazon, maybe) gets traded around without this minute's owner actually being able to do anything with it other than sell it on for, hopefully, more money; and eventually you hit the point where nobody is willing to pay more, and it all crashes down again.
So yeah. Money is fake. Tell your friends. ^_~
hS
Though I will say that gold and silver do have intrinsic value: they’re both excellent conductors of electricity. That’s valuable.
—Ls
(He was the most philanthropic person in the world in 2020, by the way.)
Forbes points out that his "donations" are pledges. The payout is long and slow, especially compared to how his ex-wife's philanthropy is going. He rates 1 on the Forbes philanthropy score, the worst score possible. He also has not signed the Giving Pledge to donate the majority of his wealth during his lifetime or in his will, unlike his ex-wife.
Well, you kinda make my point that wealthy people buy land in areas that are low-tax. I don’t know exactly what point would make it “too much,” but, clearly high taxes are a deterrent.
California has the highest income tax in the country but lower than average property tax. Rich people own land in California but park their money elsewhere to avoid California's income taxes. This is... not tenable for California's infrastructure, given how much of the state's resources they use to maintain their properties (Like water. During a drought.)
As for the “crumbling infrastructure”, we just passed a $65 billion dollar bill that has funding for those things. Bezos does have a more than 65 billion dollar net worth.
Yes, and we're going to get that money for infrastructure by raising taxes on the wealthy. Exactly my point.
Who exactly counts as “Bezos’ friends?”
I don't think he's personable enough to have friends, but I was more counting his billionaire peers like Musk, Zuckerberg, etc.
Where are you getting the data that Amazon employees are being exploited and cannot switch jobs? Because that is kinda the crux of the debate.
Exploitation. Job loss. It's not that they can't switch jobs, it's that Amazon is eliminating retail jobs, not to mention it acts predatorily against independent sellers who use its marketplace. It is changing the job landscape not just for working class people who staff its fulfillment centres but also for small business owners who use its marketplace, and that change is not going in the direction that ensures the most amount of jobs for workers.
Bezos is an Executive Chairman, which means that he is essentially a consultant for the new CEO. That’s something.
That is business talk for sometimes the CEO will email him with a question. It means nothing.
Or do you assume all rich people are exploitive?
Bluntly, yes. Intergenerational wealth in the United States comes at the cost of centuries of exploiting Black people and other people of colour. Studies have shown that the concentration of wealth isn't connected to productivity but rather exploitation. Even during the pandemic, the rich only got richer and the workers were left behind. And finally, North America continues to hold most of the world's wealth, and because of inheritance tax codes, the heirs of billionaires won't get a better deal outside the US.
Let's also not forget recent scandals about the ultra-wealthy taking private jet trips for 17 minutes or emitting tons of carbon. So yes. They are exploitative, even the ones whose music I like.
~Lily, whose aunt terrorises the local Chinese-American Chamber of Commerce, so she knows something about dealing with crazy rich Asians.
Forbes points out that his "donations" are pledges. The payout is long and slow, especially compared to how his ex-wife's philanthropy is going. He rates 1 on the Forbes philanthropy score, the worst score possible. He also has not signed the Giving Pledge to donate the majority of his wealth during his lifetime or in his will, unlike his ex-wife.
Okay, fair.
California has the highest income tax in the country but lower than average property tax. Rich people own land in California but park their money elsewhere to avoid California's income taxes. This is... not tenable for California's infrastructure, given how much of the state's resources they use to maintain their properties (Like water. During a drought.)
Um, okay? I don't think I get the point.
That is business talk for sometimes the CEO will email him with a question. It means nothing.
Even if that is strictly true, emailing still literally something. Not necessarily something that makes sense with pay level, but nevertheless.
Yes, and we're going to get that money for infrastructure by raising taxes on the wealthy. Exactly my point.
Euh...but hasn't that been said every election? And what about the multitrillion debt? Would high taxes on billionaires resolve that?
Exploitation. Job loss. It's not that they can't switch jobs, it's that Amazon is eliminating retail jobs, not to mention it acts predatorily against independent sellers who use its marketplace. It is changing the job landscape not just for working class people who staff its fulfillment centres but also for small business owners who use its marketplace, and that change is not going in the direction that ensures the most amount of jobs for workers.
Um, well, one of those articles was specifically from India, so I don't see how the US government can do much about that.
Bluntly, yes.
Okay, I'm curious--what exactly would your ideal solutions to all those problems be?
--Ls
(Look at this webpage for a funny spelling error I found in the title. Cites does not equal cities.)
Um, okay? I don't think I get the point.
Wealthy people in California have money in offshore accounts or in other states in order to lower the amount of income tax they have to pay, while still living in California because of the lower property tax rate. They drive on California's roads, send their kids to California's public schools (public school funding depends on property taxes, so richer postcodes get better funding), and use California's already abysmal water supply during a drought to water their lawns and fill their swimming pools. They drain the state's resources, and still do not want to pay taxes.
Even if that is strictly true, emailing still literally something. Not necessarily something that makes sense with pay level, but nevertheless.
So you agree with me that he's getting overpaid to send emails.
Euh...but hasn't that been said every election? And what about the multitrillion debt? Would high taxes on billionaires resolve that?
Per your own article: The U.S. national debt is so big because Congress continues both deficit spending and tax cuts. Tax cuts on the wealthy cause us to have less money. Deficit spending functions under the idea that you put money into a project in order to get jobs -- see FDR's Works Project Administration.
Additionally Republican administrations have been known to worsen the deficit. Biden's plan will be fully paid for in 15 years through his tax increases. So yes. Taxes on billionaires will solve it.
Um, well, one of those articles was specifically from India, so I don't see how the US government can do much about that.
Amazon is a multinational entity, so whatever is being reported on in India is behaviour across the board. Also:
Amazon has been repeatedly accused in the United States of copying product designs. In 2018, home-goods retailer Williams-Sonoma Inc filed a federal lawsuit against Amazon, accusing the e-commerce giant of copying its proprietary designs for chairs, lamps and other products for an Amazon private brand called Rivet.
Okay, I'm curious--what exactly would your ideal solutions to all those problems be?
Taxation at the same rate as in Nordic countries in order to create a similar Social Security net, less military spending, more spending on infrastructure, healthcare, and education would be a good start.
(Edited to be more clear that it's not a single president who worsens or reduces the debt, but rather an administration and its overall goals.
Edited again to clarify what the "Nordic taxation rate" is.)
Wealthy people in California have money in offshore accounts or in other states in order to lower the amount of income tax they have to pay, while still living in California because of the lower property tax rate. They drive on California's roads, send their kids to California's public schools (public school funding depends on property taxes, so richer postcodes get better funding), and use California's already abysmal water supply during a drought to water their lawns and fill their swimming pools. They drain the state's resources, and still do not want to pay taxes.
So...wealthy people, when there are higher taxes on them, avoid the taxes.
As to “Republican administrations increase the debt;” yes, yes, they do. I don’t like that.
And, as your article on the Biden administration notes, it will be paid for in 15 years. That is, if the tax increases remain for 15 years. Taxes could just be lowered again. Regardless, I don’t think it’s responsible to spend money before you have the money, on a national or personal scale.
As for the Nordic taxation rate—as your article points out, those countries’ main difference in tax policy is their higher taxation of the middle class, not über-high taxes on the über-wealthy.
—Ls
So...wealthy people, when there are higher taxes on them, avoid the taxes.
If it were just simply they would leave a state completely to escape high taxes, they would move to South Dakota or Delaware, right? But they're deciding to drain the resources of a state without paying for it, and they threaten to leave to make people back down on them, but in reality they are not going to leave. You see a lot of rich people with offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands, Switzerland, etc. But do they actually move to those places and become productive citizens? No. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to manipulate everyone into getting their way by threatening to take their precious money elsewhere.
They should not be able to do that.
Taxes could just be lowered again. Regardless, I don’t think it’s responsible to spend money before you have the money, on a national or personal scale.
I don't think it's responsible, either (I detest credit cards for this very reason). But the citizenry need things; if things are allowed to break down because the government isn't spending the money to fix it, the citizenry will not be happy. We cannot expect private companies to step in on things like infrastructure and education (more than they already do, anyway) because then they get it in their heads to charge exorbitant prices for basic life needs like "going to school" and "going somewhere", and the cost of living in the US goes up again.
those countries’ main difference in tax policy is their higher taxation of the middle class, not über-high taxes on the über-wealthy.
That's because the quality of life for the middle class in Nordic countries is higher due to a stronger social net. Universal healthcare and education, mandated paid time off, family leave for parents, etc. We don't have that, and what we do have is rapidly eroding because some people in the government are allergic to socialism. Therefore we should start by taxing the über-wealthy at those higher rates and using the money there to improve things like Medicare and education -- pay teachers more, create Medicare for All, etc. Introduce federally mandated paid time off and parental leave, universal pre-K, and all of the other social net aspects that will help the middle class. When there is less of a disparity between the richest and the poorest Americans, then the middle class can be taxed at a higher rate.
If it were just simply they would leave a state completely to escape high taxes, they would move to South Dakota or Delaware, right? But they're deciding to drain the resources of a state without paying for it, and they threaten to leave to make people back down on them, but in reality they are not going to leave. You see a lot of rich people with offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands, Switzerland, etc. But do they actually move to those places and become productive citizens? No. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to manipulate everyone into getting their way by threatening to take their precious money elsewhere.
They should not be able to do that.
Are you saying that non-income tax payers should pay for access to public property? Because then it isn’t really public property.
Please correct me if I’m misunderstanding what you said.
I don't think it's responsible, either (I detest credit cards for this very reason). But the citizenry need things; if things are allowed to break down because the government isn't spending the money to fix it, the citizenry will not be happy. We cannot expect private companies to step in on things like infrastructure and education (more than they already do, anyway) because then they get it in their heads to charge exorbitant prices for basic life needs like "going to school" and "going somewhere", and the cost of living in the US goes up again.
Yay to being anti-debt! I’m not sure why the private sector would meet public needs, that’s not really its job. And doesn’t inflation, which is caused by government spending increase that cost of living?
That's because the quality of life for the middle class in Nordic countries is higher due to a stronger social net. Universal healthcare and education, mandated paid time off, family leave for parents, etc. We don't have that, and what we do have is rapidly eroding because some people in the government are allergic to socialism. Therefore we should start by taxing the über-wealthy at those higher rates and using the money there to improve things like Medicare and education -- pay teachers more, create Medicare for All, etc. Introduce federally mandated paid time off and parental leave, universal pre-K, and all of the other social net aspects that will help the middle class. When there is less of a disparity between the richest and the poorest Americans, then the middle class can be taxed at a higher rate.
I don’t know about you, but I a) don’t want the government in charge of my healthcare any more than it is; I find that whenever the government makes something, it is always inferior. That, and you cannot opt out of governmental services. b) I don’t want to pay more in taxes for said inferior services. c) I don’t like the idea of having the government hand out money to people who choose not to work, the idea seems extremely unfair.
—Ls, responsibly responding to a responsive response.
ETA: fixing italics.
Are you saying that non-income tax payers should pay for access to public property? Because then it isn’t really public property.
If this is actually asking about the right of noncitizen immigrants, documented or undocumented, to enjoy public property, I should point out that noncitizen immigrants do pay taxes. The ITIN was created specifically so noncitizens can pay taxes but not get any Social Security benefits. So, in fact, they already paid for the public property and resources that they use, and it's one of the few public things they can use.
I’m not sure why the private sector would meet public needs, that’s not really its job.
What exactly are you suggesting the public needs are? What role do you want government to take? We've talked plenty about my perception, so I'm curious about yours.
And doesn’t inflation, which is caused by government spending increase that cost of living?
Inflation is reduced by both cutting spending and raising taxes, which is what the Inflation Reduction Act aims to do. You have to do both. In this case, the IRA is levying a new tax on profitable corporations.
Again, I'm anti-debt, so I don't really like all the spending, but ideally if the government were to cut spending, it should be on things like the military (we outspend basically every other country here, including China), and not on anything that directly benefits the lives of Americans. I believe it is necessary to have government spending on domestic issues.
I don’t know about you, but I a) don’t want the government in charge of my healthcare any more than it is; I find that whenever the government makes something, it is always inferior. That, and you cannot opt out of governmental services. b) I don’t want to pay more in taxes for said inferior services. c) I don’t like the idea of having the government hand out money to people who choose not to work, the idea seems extremely unfair.
I've spent the past few years in Japan, and I think the Japanese national healthcare model is a good one for government-allergic folks. The point of a national healthcare system is to be able to make sure the people who do not have insurance through their employer can still access affordable health care, because the government plan's prices are meant to be competitively low and encourage private insurers to also lower their costs. When I go to the doctor in the US on Blue Cross Blue Shield, I have to pay $25 for a consultation (that's without any prescriptions for things!). Hospital stays, ambulances, each test taken to diagnose something -- they lead to thousands and thousands of dollars because healthcare insurers have no competition and thus no incentive to lower prices.
This is how so many Americans land in debt and lose their homes -- not because they're frivolously spending, but because they or someone they care for has gotten sick and racked up an expensive hospital bill that they cannot pay off, and subsequently cannot pay anything else either and thus lose everything they have in life.
But when I go to the doctor in Japan, I pay the equivalent of $25 for the entire visit: drugs, tests, the visit itself. This is because the national health care system has subsidized the cost. It is literally the same quality as I would have in the US. The prices are not high in the US because it's better quality. They're high because insurance companies want more money.
In Japan, if your employer offers health insurance, then you do not need to use the government insurance plan. The presence of the national system also means that any doctor or clinic will accept your insurance -- none of the ridiculous HMO/PPO system where if you go out of network you get charged horrible rates. That's not providing the full range of choices that capitalism entitles us to have, right? Why be forced to go to a doctor you don't like, because the doctor you do want is out of network?
Basically, if you don't want to be in a national health insurance system, you don't have to be. But having one ensures that other people -- your neighbours, your friends, even yourself if you lose your job and the insurance it provided because of some unexpected illness -- don't fall through the cracks and die because they can't afford to go to the doctor.
I really hope I do not need to drag out articles telling you how exploitative the American healthcare insurance system is.
And as for the government handing out money to people who don't work -- how does that tie into the healthcare argument? Please explain exactly who you mean by "people who choose not to work", because too often I see this as a dogwhistle for various -isms that I am sure you do not ascribe to. Tying access to healthcare through work is easily exploitable -- part-time jobs and contract work, for example, are not covered by a company's health benefits. Given the rise in independent contract and part-time jobs, that's a lot of people who either have to pay for their own insurance or risk going without and getting hit by high prices. That's more unfair to me even before we get into people who aren't working.
(Edited for clarity)
If this is actually asking about the right of noncitizen immigrants, documented or undocumented, to enjoy public property, I should point out that noncitizen immigrants do pay taxes. The ITIN was created specifically so noncitizens can pay taxes but not get any Social Security benefits. So, in fact, they already paid for the public property and resources that they use, and it's one of the few public things they can use.
Actually, I was talking about non-residents of California.
Inflation is reduced by both cutting spending and raising taxes, which is what the Inflation Reduction Act aims to do. You have to do both. In this case, the IRA is levying a new tax on profitable corporations.
Um...inflation is when money loses value. And the IRA is, per your article, projected to not have much of an impact for at least a year.
I really hope I do not need to drag out articles telling you how exploitative the American healthcare insurance system is.
Nope! US system sucks, no one likes it. Got that.
As for the Japanese system, it does have its own issues, such as long wait times and a rapidly aging population. Not that I like high prices, though. Those suck.
And as for the government handing out money to people who don't work -- how does that tie into the healthcare argument? Please explain exactly who you mean by "people who choose not to work", because too often I see this as a dogwhistle for various -isms that I am sure you do not ascribe to. Tying access to healthcare through work is easily exploitable -- part-time jobs and contract work, for example, are not covered by a company's health benefits. Given the rise in independent contract and part-time jobs, that's a lot of people who either have to pay for their own insurance or risk going without and getting hit by high prices. That's more unfair to me even before we get into people who aren't working.
I was talking more about unemployment money being greater than the minimum wage and thus disincentivizing work...but, yeah, I guess that’s not the issue here. Personally, I don’t see why employers offer health insurance plans—I’d rather have the money to choose it myself—but I guess there’s discounts to buying in bulk? Not sure I’m making any sense. If ever was...
—Ls, babbling
Actually, I was talking about non-residents of California.
You are moving the goalposts, then. I was originally talking about residents of California who lower the amount of income and assets they keep in California in order to pay less income tax. Non-residents of California who move to California will eventually have to change their residency to California, or if they remain residents of another state (like college students are), they pay taxes to their home state as well as federal taxes. They are still, in the end, taxed by a state and the federal government.
Um...inflation is when money loses value. And the IRA is, per your article, projected to not have much of an impact for at least a year.
My quote assumes you know what inflation is and jumps right to how it is usually solved. And very few economic measures in the US have their impact felt immediately. I don't understand how "it's gonna take more than a year" is valid argument against making an attempt to solve something.
As for the Japanese system, it does have its own issues, such as long wait times and a rapidly aging population. Not that I like high prices, though. Those suck.
Yes. I would sooner wait three hours than pay tons of money for the same amount of care. I know not a lot of people think the same, but honestly, the way Americans are deterred by the cost of going to the doctor makes us prone to not going there until it is too late and we have to incur extra costs through the emergency room, where time is of the essence. Even then, wouldn't the sheer number of people in the ER end up making some people take forever to get tended to? It's inefficient and leads to way too many Americans developing serious health conditions because they ignore the earlier symptoms. That, I think, is worse than waiting a while to see a doctor.
I was talking more about unemployment money being greater than the minimum wage and thus disincentivizing work...but, yeah, I guess that’s not the issue here.
So... why don't people pay more than minimum wage, then? Why don't companies offer better working conditions? They won't do these things unless there's a union working with the government to force restrictions and regulations on what business can do to their employees. Minimum wage would not exist if it weren't for unions getting the Fair Labor Standards Act passed, for example. It's not the issue here, but it's clearly showing an example of the government's role in stopping capitalist exploitation.
Personally, I don’t see why employers offer health insurance plans—I’d rather have the money to choose it myself—but I guess there’s discounts to buying in bulk?
Yes. There's group plans and the premium is taken from your paycheck as opposed to you having to pay it yourself every month. Similarly, for my Japanese National Healthcare, the premium is taken out of my paycheck, so I don't have to worry about paying healthcare bills every month. I don't have a choice in the plan I pay for, but it doesn't matter, because I pay the same co-pay no matter which plan I use and there are no restrictions on which doctor I choose. That, I think, is more freedom to choose than choosing between insurance plans and worrying that the care restrictions and copay amounts will come back to bite me later down the line.
Not sure I’m making any sense. If ever was...
I've had these discussions before. When I was younger, I was on your side of the argument. But like a lot of others in this community, growing up and having to deal with the system firsthand has made me want better for my fellow Americans. I'm not saying changing your opinion on this is inevitable! We may simply agree to disagree on this and refocus our energy on PPC-related topics. But I really hope I've been able to give you something to think about.
We may simply agree to disagree on this and refocus our energy on PPC-related topics.
Yeah, I am getting a little tired of this constant back-and-forth. Do let’s.
—Ls
“[The PPC’s] members are proud to be able to discuss even difficult and controversial topics without falling into fighting.”
I don’t think we’ve had any flaming/personal attacks/whatnot. Though you are under no obligation to debate anyone.
—Ls
Um, the way your first sentence is phrased it sounds like you support a flat, equal-rate tax for everyone, so I’m not sure I get the “naturally.”
I suppose he does make more than the average worker, but, again, he automatically would pay more by virtue of earning more under a flat-rate tax system.
Are you implying that he personally underpays Amazon workers? Because I honestly have no clue as to the statistics there. I don’t think Amazon has a workers’ union, but I don’t think the government needs to act as one. If he does run out of workers, then he’ll have no choice but to pay them higher (or outsource overseas). Or, customers could protest the unfair wages as well by boycotting.
Tl;dr, the government needn’t be a workers’ union.
I’m honestly not sure what the relevant data to this would be.
By the way, what would you consider a “fair share” of taxes on a theoretical person who earns a billion dollars a year? In numbers.
—Ls
FROM: Huinesoronic Diplomatic Corps, Groundside Unit
TO: Huinesoronic Department of Diplomacy, asteroid 7219 Dafyddillian
Anarchy!
That's not a complaint, you understand: it's a description of what's going on on the ground. Our two nearest neighbours, the GMA and the doctorlit, are flying the black banners of the anarchists. And predictably enough for such hierarchy-averse forces, they are currently at war with one another.
The problem is that the mountains west of the Fabled River are growing too crowded. They are an excellent landing site - we touched down there ourselves - but the snowy peaks leave little room for maneuver. The doctorlit have managed to eke out an uneasy peace with Neshomeh to the north, and although the Lilies of the Winterwoods are convinced everyone is out to get them, the doctorlit appear to be happy to live with them. But the GMA simply find them too laissez-faire for comfort; even from here, we can see their planes dogfighting above the peaks.
Naturally, we have lent low-key support to the GMA, as our closest ally groundside. But our priority must be to bring peace between the factions here in the west, before the Linstars and their allies of convenience can find whatever it is they are seeking.
Yeah, so everyone in the west is up a mountain, despite that area being originally drawn as plains; and everyone in the east is in the sea despite me drawing it as mountains. Them's the breaks!
It's increasingly obvious how strongly correlated most of the PolitiScales values are. I think the only scale where there's any overlap between west and east is Yuki, who has a couple of more westerly traits.
hS
It looks like you, Nesh, and Lily all landed in almost the same spot. And it does seem that certain values do correlate.
—Ls really likes maps!
FROM: Huinesoronic Scouting Corps ("The Redder Kites")
TO: Ground Command
Yo boss man, how's it going? Because it's going really well out here.
The maps from our briefing pack are about as accurate as you'd expect (to whit: not at all), but we've made some progress on filling in the blanks. Did you know the area around the Fabled River is stuffed with mountains? Ours is kind of the worst one, too: GMA forces have picked a much nicer one just over the river, and the Neshomehs have set up shop in an actual forest above the snowline. I guess they can eat the trees or whatever it is they do.
Good news is, the natives are friendly (just my little joke). Obviously the GMA are still nearly as devoted to the Great Regulation as we are, and between us we have the highest tech level we've yet seen groundside. Their anarchist tendencies might give some difficulties if we see combat, but as a deterrent they're top notch. (Not that they don't have other odd ideas, but I'll leave their brand of feminism to the scholars.)
The Neshomehs aren't quite as dedicated - bit of a laissez-faire touch to their ideas, if you'll pardon my Hardrician - but I reckon we could bring them on side if we point out what the rest of the field looks like. The Orange Foxes agree with me - they preferred to sail around the entire north penninsula than to stay under the shadow of the Neshomeh guns.
Between you and me, boss man, I'm a bit worried as to what's actually going on in the north-east. There's four teams on the ground there, all of them Let-It-Be leaning but none of them fanatical about it. They are fanatical about other things, though - three of the four of them have claimed "religious reasons" for landing. I can't argue - they're certainly not here to fight, with those (lack of) weapons! - but given the Linstars' immediate beeline for the War-Queen's old haunts, I'm worried the "religion" in question has something to do with Mana... or Chaos. I really don't want to see that old hazard coming back on our watch; we've got enough to worry about.
(Oh, and the Cartographers missed an entire island; are we sure the satellites are pointed at the right planet?)
Trying to work the extra badges in too. Linstar, Bookworm, and OrangeFox all have Missionary stickers, Nesh has Vegan and Pragmatist, and GMA has Anarchist and Radical Feminist. The stickerless Huinesorons are scathing about all of them, natch. ^_~
I'm still working on hacking the URL format - it is doable, I'm sure, but there's enough inconsistencies between people to make it tough (& I couldn't find it in the source code for the site, either).
hS
Yes, I am a Christian and a capitalist. I solemnly swear not to make "Morgoth I name you" speeches at people. I won't pester you into converting to Christianity either. Pestering people doesn't make them want to convert, it just makes them cranky.
By the way, how do you feel about my Plortitical alter ego?
--Ls only recently realized that "Plort" and "plot" sound alike in British.
I meant to link to here.
Sorry.
Seriously, what’d you think of VEEL? I need allies in ze fight against ze Regulation.
Jokingly, —Ls
It looks like Ze Eevil Lord Linstar will have allies—or at least people nearby he can claim are allies.
Ls loves maps. A lot. Good work, hS!
—Ls
But I knew you’d come for a Plort thread!
—Ls, glad that his old RP buddy is posting.
Economic Left/Right: -8.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.41
I would summarize my result as "Corporations are not people, GTFO of the bedroom."
Also! Here's a working PolitiScales link. I don't have time for another quiz right now, but later!
~Neshomeh
I'm a little surprised to see anarchism there, since I don't think of myself that way . . . I guess I'm more fed up with the U.S. than I realized!
The results.
Only just realized there are two tests in this thread; I'll have to hit the other one later.
—doctorlit wants progress towards problem-solving
Down with worshipping property, up with human freedoms. (Or rather, organism freedoms, as I see life itself as the only true "unit" of value, and don't assign humans any especial value apart from the rest of Earth's life web.)
economic 7.75 left, social 8.36 libertarian
—doctorlit is a tad uncomfortable with the usage of "libertarian" to mean "not authoritarian," as members of the U.S. Libertarian party actually tried to kill him back in grade school, and he would prefer not to have that particular word applied to him
You assign humans the same value as every other life form? So...humans aren’t superior to, say, bacteria?
—Ls is definitely a Human Supremecist.
It's less about assigning numeric values to individual organisms, and more about recognizing that Earth, and every organic and non-organic feature of it, is all a single, interconnected unit. For those of us living in developed, "western" countries, where it's become the norm to partition each family away inside a walled structure, to lose sight of just how connected to the natural world we are. But every molecule of oxygen we breathe was exhaled from a leaf or blade of grass. Every nutrient and mineral we consume came either from a fellow life form, or from the literal soil or stone of the planet. Heck, every cell our actual bodily structure is composed of has spent time in other organisms, in the soil, and when our time is spent, it all goes back to the soil, for new organisms to be built up with with.
U.S. society is heavily individualistic, and heavily plasticized in the sense that we spend a lot of our time in sterile, lifeless buildings interacting with inanimate objects. We grow up being socialized to feel that we live "inside," and only go "outside" for special events or activities, for a set time period, before returning inside, where we "belong." And of course, many of us don't grow or hunt our own food any more; food are objects that we retrieve from a grocery store of restaurant. It all creates the illusion that we are something separate from the rest of Earth, something unique and independent and special. It's that undeserved specialness that I was speaking against, because in reality, we are not so aloof and unconnected from the Earth, after all. We're a part of it, and we're dependent on it, and we belong to it.
You specifically brought up a comparison between bacteria and humans. The fact is, without bacteria, there is no human: this 2016 study found that our bodies contain roughly the same number of bacteria as human cells. Human cells are much larger and more complex than bacteria, so by volume, there's still more human than bacteria in there, but by sheer numbers, the teams are even. And those bacteria are critical for human existence: the ones in our mouth attack invasive microorganisms that enter on our food. The ones in our digestive tract assist us in breaking down food that our stomach acids can't, giving us access to a greater variety of nutrients. The ones in and on our skin keep us cleaner by consuming some of the oils we naturally secrete. And that's just the bacteria; our bodies are natural homes for fungi, viruses, tiny, wormlike animals, and archaea (single-celled organisms even less complex than bacteria). "So...humans aren’t superior to, say, bacteria?" We can't be superior to something that's a fundamental part of us. Humans and bacteria need each other to live; we need every part of the Earth to live!
—doctorlit, about to go feed his gut fauna
Looks like I got the same label as last time. I'm a bit surprised by my Ecology/Production score; I think the reason "Ecology" sits at only 55% is that I disagree with the dichotomy; there are ways to make goods in a more environmentally friendly way, so production usually doesn't have to suffer for the planet to remain comfortable for life. I think that the main thing that has shifted for me is that I'm more revolutionary. I just hope that the revolution makes things better and not worse...
Edit: Never mind, I'm wrong.
and everyone else is more socialist than me 🤣
P.S: Since this is a sensitive issue, I suggest we tread lightly.
A lot of people in the US who left socialist countries like Vietnam, China, etc (or former ones like Russia) might swing harder in the other direction politically, whereas a lot of people in the US who've never lived in those countries may be looking more at socialist theory and ascribing to that. Gotta be careful of where the line gets drawn, though, lest one crawls into tankie territory.
My results have definitely changed since... three years ago? Huh, been a while.
I can't help but worry my results might have been affected by my researching of Machiavelli and Hobbes recently. But eh, here's my results.
Edit: Also, since it seemed relevant, I tried the compass thing. Ended up -5.0 Left/Right and -2.72 Libertarian/Authoritarian. I hope this helps!
and a solid rectangle of a confusing deep pink/magenta. New Sue color: meep pagenta.
... the designs on the flag tend to show up more the stronger your opinions are. It looks like you have a lot of neutral responses, so that's probably why your flag is just the one colour. I may, of course, be wrong or misremembering.
hS
Equality - Humanity - Socialism
Hahaha, I went red. I guess four years of living with a sociopathic would-be dictator for a president can do that to someone who already leaned firmly left. I also made an effort not to select the "neutral" option this time around, so that will've had an impact on my results across the board.
I've kept my Pragmatist badge (yay!) and gained a Vegan one. I'm not actually vegan—I'm fine with eating animals. I just think they should be treated well as long as they're alive, and also having a ton of meat available all the time isn't worth the toll it takes on the environment.
On that note, I'm surprised my Ecology score isn't higher, but I think some of the questions force a choice between "people" and "nature," and I don't necessarily see the two as opposed. IMO, doing what's good for the planet is ultimately good for everything living on it, including us, though it may require some changes we find uncomfortable in the meantime.
See you planetside, hS! ^_^
~Neshomeh
Because he totally fits the definition of “sociopathic would-be dictator.”
Ahem. I find I agree on the ecology thing. Somewhat. Nature is good for people. Though I’d choose people over nature, as my score shows.
—Ls tried a vegan burger recently, and he thought it was pretty good.
Economic Left/Right: -7.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.41
Slightly less economic left (probably due to being unable to click 'strongly' on a couple of things I don't know much about), but spot-on for the social axis. Fun.
My trajectory so far (Political Compass version):
2014: -6.50/-6.56
2015: -6.75/-6.31
2016: -8.00/-5.54
[...]
2022: -7.88/-6.41
Yeah I am really not moving around very much.
At one point I had a document containing all these threads, specifically the maps I made for them. I think it got eaten though; I'll have to cobble it back together.
hS
Political mapping of the PPC, 2014-2022
The story of the land of Plortitics so far:
In 2015, after a foray through the lands of Polyticz and Diabolico, we first wound up in Plortitics. It was a fairly standard medieval/fantasy domain, with nothing more exotic than the Fabled River.
By 2016, Plortitics had entered the Age of Brass. New technology arose; everything was decked out in shades of tarnished gold. Unfortunately, it ended in war: the Brass Wars between the Central City and the Uber Overlord ended the age of technology.
In early 2018, we discovered that a new resource had become available: mana, the power of magic itself. Plortitics became a land split between Order and Chaos, and so of course another war was inevitable.
In late 2018 we learnt that the Mage Wars sank most of the lands of Plortitics into the ocean. The people occupied balloon cities and undersea domes, and in their battles they employed both mana and black-powder.
By 2019, a new age of technology had dawned. A mysterious Event restored the land from the sea, and the continent was covered in space-ports to attract passing ships. Given that many of the ports, whether groundside or orbital, spewed dangerous levels of radioactivity, it wasn't exactly a popular place for shore leave.
Hmm... I think I have an idea for the next iteration, if this thread stays visible long enough for people to start PolitiScales/Political Compass'ing themselves. (The former gives more information, but I have a plan to deal with the latter too; the best case scenario is for people to do both.)
hS
...quite nice, quite nice indeed.
By the way, my Politiscales words are “Work, Family, Liberty.” Might get that engraved somewhere.
Any spoilers as to what this year’s theme is gonna be?
—Ls hopes that there are more replies too. And he loves maps as well.
Of course. It always is. But this time, it's deliberate.
The removal of Plortitical civilisation from the surface of the planet, first to the low orbitals and then by stages to the asteroid habitats, has generally been hailed as a good thing. Space has its dangers, but as the Brass and Mage Wars showed, the greatest danger is always other people. Putting multiple light-minutes between potential enemies has prevented conflicts both large and small.
But sometimes, the urge to resolve disputes by what has come to be called Practical Diplomacy is too great. By the most binding of treaties, the peoples of the Plortitical system do not attack one another's habitats directly - rather, they send their forces down to the planet they once called home, and maneuver against each other in the recovering mountains of Plortitics.
From: 15th Huinesoronic Expeditionary Air-Fleet To: Huinesoron High Command, Asteroid 7219 Dafyddillian
Supreme General, we beg leave to report that we have made groundfall on Plortitics. We touched down west of the Fabled River as planned, but encountered scouts of a nearby Neshomeh landing. As we have not received instructions regarding their support for the Great Regulation, we proceeded with all haste to a more defensible position. We have taken a peak of the central mountains as our base; though it is arid, it is free of rad contamination, and we believe we will be able to hold it against any hostile forces.
Contact with the Regulation's satellite network has been intermittent since groundfall, but we have received reports of a Linstar splashdown in the northern ocean. Despite their ostensible support for the "Let-It-Bes", Linstar have traditionally focussed more on spreading their religious creed, so we would not normally be concerned by their presence; however, one report has them congregating far east of their splashdown site, in the rad-haunted basin of the War-Queen's Sea. If there is any possibility of their recovering mage- or brass-tech from ancient times, we urge an immediate preventative strike upon their position.
Buckle up, gang, we're doing modern warfare.
A quick introduction: a Boarder's marker on the map is positioned and decorated according to their PolitiScales results, and only those results. The value used is the centre of the "neither" percentage on each bar - so if a specific bar read 67% - 23% - 10%, the value would be 78.5% (sometimes I've reversed the bars from the results page). Note that the X and Y axes are linear (hence the huge gap at the top - there is a lot of "Conservative" space nobody in the PPC falls in), while all other values have been calibrated to spread our expected results across the spectrum. If these turn out to be wildly off, I will adjust them later.
As ever, X and Y are the Capitalist-Communist and Conservative-Progressive axes. Height (always a difficult one) is assigned to the Rehabilitation-Punitive axis. The environment around a camp is from the Ecology score; the use of radiation is a hold-over from last time round.
The little people, planes or whatever represent what tech the army brought with them; it's based on Constructivism, on the tenuous justification that "people can reinvent themselves" extends to "people can invent other stuff". Whether the people are shooting, shielding, or surrendering comes from the Revolutionary score - revolutionaries love shooting lasers, right?
Finally, there is the allegiance, shown in the colour of the flagpole. The two sides in this particular conflict are the Great Regulation and the "Let-It-Bes", or Regulation vs. Laissez-faire; it's entirely possible to be in between the two, playing both sides to greater or lesser extent. I've also used Internationalism as how strongly the armies support their position - an intense colour means they're a full member of the alliance, while faded pastel is "I guess they're better".
Finally, since the Political Compass is out as well this year, I've plotted Political Compass scores as the landing point for the armies. We have no idea how well the two compasses correlate, so maybe this will help us find out. Some people may only have a landing site (presumably they either crashed, or went into hiding and haven't been detected since); others may not have a landing site recorded at all (we just found them out there).
All of which will be completely pointless if nobody else takes the quizzes, but eh. ^_~
hS
...it is biased against those vis a low Ecology, Rehabilitation, Constructivism, and Military score. You have constructed zis map just zo you can make it be against me, ze Eevil Lord Linstar. Zis is unfair! Ve, here at Linstar, have found some ov ze old Mage technology. Ve have found it by ze power of Essentialism. And vis it, ze Let-It-Be-ers shall triumph. Mwa ha ha! Fangz for ze technology, Alleb. Ve vill use it well.
((Yeah, I’m an Eevil Lord now. And I have an accent. Deal.))
—ZELL
The Essentialist Mages of Linstar need to recognise that their flaws are their own - and, indeed, by their own belief system it could be no other way! "One is not made, but born Ridiculously Evil." (See 2015 alignment chart for the background on 'ridiculously'.)
Besides which, their purported 'bias' is largely neutral, and partly pro-Linstar. Where is the 'bias' in reporting that they have established themselves in an oceanic region, rather than on a freezing cold mountaintop? How is it worse to not bring high-tech weaponry to Plortitics, and not to spend all their time shooting anything that moves? Really, their only real complaint is that by seeking out radioactive ruins, they have found radioactive ruins.
If they didn't want to be evil, they shouldn't have set up shop in the land where all the evil people live. That's just science.
((We've had both a Dark Brother, an Uber Overlord, and a dark lord in that area of the map, plus Alleb enthusiastically accepting the War-Queen mantle. Also a badger, but that might fit the pattern a bit less.))
hS
Ve are Linstarists, zat is our religion, of course ve are eevil. All hail Ze Eevil Lord Linstar! But ve are not ridiculously eevil, just absurdly.
By ze vay, ve are using our manna to build an island, just to spite you.
Mwa ha hah ha!
—ZELL
Here is the link.
I got:
*12% constructivist and 45% essentialist
*exactly 36% of both punitive and rehabilitative justice
*55% conservative and 17% progressive
*33% internationalist and nationalist, 79% capitalist and 5% communist
*48% laissez-faire and 10% regulation
*74% production and, uh, 0% ecology
*31% revolution and 40% reform
Huh. I’m not entirely sure what it all means.
ETA: on looking at the website, I noticed a few typos. Grr. It’s the DTE in me. Also, I’m a Missionary.
Edit: DTE, dangit!
—Ls
Equality - Humanity - Socialism
Looks like my flag has reverted to its 2018b design, but with the colours switched around. I do not change very much. ^_^
In 2018 I worked out how the flags were formed, but I think it changed since then. They've also made the results URL non human-readable, though I think it might still be possible to code in a specific set of results/flag. I'll have a play when I get a chance.
(The typos are because the people behind PolitiScales are French, I believe.)
hS