But what government do they mean? If it is so evil, how it came along and why it is staying? Because it has the monopoly of violence.
Because it has the monopoly of violence.
of the people, by the people and for the people This idealisation of democracy assumes a Rousseau like a priori common good. I don't see such a fundamental difference between democracy and feudal gov't structures. Democracy can be the tyranny of the majority. The far more important difference is between a state within the rule of law, and a state without the rule of law. I anytime prefer constitutional monarchy a la Germany 1900 over a democracy, that doesn't recognise individual rights like the south of the USA before the civil war and to some degree into the 60s.
This idealisation of democracy assumes a Rousseau like a priori common good. I don't see such a fundamental difference between democracy and feudal gov't structures. Democracy can be the tyranny of the majority. The far more important difference is between a state within the rule of law, and a state without the rule of law. I anytime prefer constitutional monarchy a la Germany 1900 over a democracy, that doesn't recognise individual rights like the south of the USA before the civil war and to some degree into the 60s.
Small tribes/societies do not need much formal encoding of rules, or unifying ideologies how to live together. But large societies need some general framework - privilege and obligation rites, an ideology, or a religion. The general framework does not have to be entirely fair or objectively "right".
You don't need much more than control of public opinion through concentrated media and economic motivations. Any reasonable argument about democracy has to take public opinion as exogenous. To say people have the wrong opinion for whatever reason, and you know what would be their right opinion, isn't democracy. It is feudal rule by YOU.
Any reasonable argument about democracy has to take public opinion as exogenous. To say people have the wrong opinion for whatever reason, and you know what would be their right opinion, isn't democracy. It is feudal rule by YOU.
I talk of much subtler techniques of forming public opinions by apparently pandering to them, manipulating your perception of self-interest and your confidence in undoubtable "truths". With the modern media, a lot of influential judgments are made in the name of "common wisdom".
Mortgage payments and rents are nothing but additional taxes. No they aren't. You are not born into a mortgage contract. You have willfully entered into such a contract. Taxes you have to pay without having ever agreed to pay them.
No they aren't. You are not born into a mortgage contract. You have willfully entered into such a contract. Taxes you have to pay without having ever agreed to pay them.
One of my points is that taxes, rents and debts are historically very similar, if not the same sometimes. A democratic free market does not force you to enter into mortgage "tax"... but at certain times it is very hard to avoid that. Any "self-respecting" family was compelled strongly to enter a mortgage contract in the last decade. It has been a real bonanza for rentiers.
In the recent culture, if you could choose to live without own house... you "could" choose to avoid taxes by being poor. Or you could approvingly immigrate to a "tax-competative" country.
[Eastern Europe ...] But the people won't even have a chance to see any benefit of their payments. They have already gotten something for their payments. They have borrowed money and are now paying back. If it is amoral to demand the pay back of loans from people who have the means to pay back, it is amoral to ask for a loan as well.
They have already gotten something for their payments. They have borrowed money and are now paying back. If it is amoral to demand the pay back of loans from people who have the means to pay back, it is amoral to ask for a loan as well.
But again, I wish to talk about effective circumstances rather than formal distinctions. Not only dumb loan takers will suffer, but relatively smart residents as well, because the whole economy is burdened by runaway obligations. Mortgage payments will hamper the economy just in the same way as tax payments. In particular, it won't help much to cut taxes another 1% if the effective mortgage burden is disproportionally higher.
Feudal freedom is a real freedom only for a few. One can argue this. But the lack of super high income taxes isn't the issue. If you are talking all the time about the rentier class, and praise the 60s, I ask you what do make of this information from the US treasury? For most of the 60s the maximum tax rate on capital gains was 25%. The high taxes were only on people trying to get into the rentier class, not for the members of the rentier class itself. Ok, there was higher inflation, so one has to relativate that, but today, income tax really isn't the issue.
One can argue this. But the lack of super high income taxes isn't the issue. If you are talking all the time about the rentier class, and praise the 60s, I ask you what do make of this information from the US treasury? For most of the 60s the maximum tax rate on capital gains was 25%. The high taxes were only on people trying to get into the rentier class, not for the members of the rentier class itself. Ok, there was higher inflation, so one has to relativate that, but today, income tax really isn't the issue.
I do not argue for outlawing renting, or hating rentiers per se. Perhaps paradoxically, I am quite comfortable with a small but not too powerful class of rentiers. Real-world dynamics shows that speculative rentier rushes result in a few big winners (mostly the experienced old rentiers, I suppose) and a crowd of unlucky or dumb loosers. That's how the welfare and power of successful rentiers breaks through to feudal levels.
As for the rule of law, the Nazi Germany qualifies, does it not?
The fact that Hitler became chancellor in a legal way obfuscates the fact, that the constitution doesn't grant unlimited power to the chancellor. The Nazis broke the law very clearly later. That is the reason I used the constitutional monarchy as an example. Even the monarch has to obey the rules of the constitution. In case of the Nazis one break of law was, to eliminate elections.
But large societies need some general framework - privilege and obligation rites, an ideology, or a religion. The general framework does not have to be entirely fair or objectively "right".
That depends on the degree of coherence of the society. A society of great diversity in religion, ideology and cultural rites depends stronger on a fair and objective ruling than a more homogenious society. Der Amerikaner ist die Orchidee unter den MenschenVolker Pispers
In Japan I heard of cases of mortgage contracts stretching into next generations. Can't this happen in the US?
good question.
here's another one: if someone pays into a pension fund for 40 years then dies one year into retirement, or even before for that matter, why can't the accrued retirement funds be passable on to kin?
sorry if that's OT. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
Death benefits to be paid under a 403(b) plan depend on when death occurs and who is the designated beneficiary [surviving spouse or other] on the plan. The Internal Revenue Code states that distributions generally must be made from a 403(b) plan by the participants required beginning date, which is April 1 of the year following the year in which the participant attains age 70 1/2. Different rules apply to death benefits depending on whether or not death occurs before the required beginning date.
MRD stands for "minimum required distribution." The Internal Revenue Code established these minimums to ensure that you actually use your Employer Sponsored Retirement Plan account balance for retirement (and not, for instance, to pass onto your heirs). ... If you do not take an MRD from your retirement account each year, the Internal Revenue Code imposes a 50% penalty tax on the amount that should have been withdrawn in each calendar year. This tax is in addition to regular income taxes.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
The view that Social Security is a privilege, a right, or an entitlement is not quite healthful. The phenomenon of pensions as we know them is less than a century old, actually. Social Security was rather created as a social construct to reduce some (elder care) burden for the middle class - and it worked well this way for several decades. The system was far from Ponzi-type problems, because any "baby boom" discrepancy between payers and benefactors did not require exponential corrections. Although politicians claimed that Social Security would "go belly up" by 2018, the actual official estimate was that the system would still receive income by 2018. Many people were truely fooled.
The private pension plans have the disadvantages of higher administrative costs (much higher...), more dramatic reaction to economic downturns and demographic bumps (just because boomers have to buy competitively and then sell competatively). Other difference might be the rule of passing the saving to your descendants. Is it unfair that people dying just at the pension turn pay fully but get nothing? If your main concern is the relative position of everyone participating, that is unfair. If you are mostly enthusiastic with a social mechanism to relieve the productive population somewhat, things become neutral.
In the current political climate, framing pensions as a "fair" payoff helps to phase out the whole idea of public pensions. I would rather admit that Social Security is a bit of a gamble for a reasonable sake of society.
