patrick.net

Bigsby says

A highly individualistic, dog-eat-dog society does not make for a particularly good society in my mind. You can have free expression of ideas, creativity etc. etc. but that also needs to be couched in consideration for your fellow beings and not just what I can get for myself.

A individualistic society needs not be a dog-eat-dog one because the participants can choose to be gracious even though it is not expected of them. I think that is the beauty of it.

Bad faith can ruin any system.

Bigsby says

And Japan is a much safer society with a far, far lower crime rate than the US. You can't legislate for the occasional action of a crazy or crazies but you can't tell me that Japan compares with the US in this regard.

The strange thing is that when people snap, it can still go very wrong even in a society like Japan. Perhaps it is about the breaking point.

But you are right, Japan is amazingly safe for a densely populated country.

Peter P says

A individualistic society needs not be a dog-eat-dog one because the participants can choose to be gracious even though it is not expected of them. I think that is the beauty of it.

There needs to be a better balance between individuality and the welfare of the group as a whole in the US. There are far too many people in the US who seem far too focussed on what they can get for themselves rather than what would benefit society as a whole. All this bitter refusal to even consider a pretty minor tax increase on the wealthiest by some Republicans is just one very obvious example of that.

Bigsby says

There needs to be a better balance between individuality and the welfare of the group as a whole in the US.

I guess it is a paradox. We can have a good society only if we have great individuals. But forcing the concept of a great society will not produce good individuals. This is just human nature.

Bigsby says

All this bitter refusal to even consider a pretty minor tax increase on the wealthiest by some Republicans is just one very obvious example of that.

That is an entirely different issue. It is a move in the wrong direction. You cannot make the society more fair by wealth re-distribution.

One thing is almost axiomatic. Whatever the herd wants must be wrong. Progressive taxation is appealing to the mass, so something must not be right.

The society will be fair only when most individuals become more aware of their surroundings and less herd-like.

There is no balance between individuality and the group. A group is comprised of individuals.

I don't want to sound like a religious person (I do not belong to any organized religion), but one possible ultimate goal of man is to be more like God. (I am deviating from Nietzsche here.)

No one forced God to do anything, yet He is gracious. I think to emulate God man must learn to be gracious as well. (I believe that God is a morally-neutral, infinitely gracious being.)

Goodness ought to be a bottom-up process.

I bet humanity will end up being a failure, but perhaps there is hope.

Peter P says

That is an entirely different issue. It is a move in the wrong direction. You cannot make the society more fair by wealth re-distribution.

One thing is almost axiomatic. Whatever the herd wants must be wrong. Progressive taxation is appealing to the mass, so something must not be right.

The society will be fair only when most individuals become more aware of their surroundings and less herd-like.

Of course you can. Taxation is wealth redistribution. It doesn't mean socialism. It serves the purpose of enabling a better functioning society. Better schools, better hospitals, better infrastructure, better general health care, better social services... all these things have to be paid for and that is best done with a progressive tax system. People earning $1m should be taxed at a much higher rate than those earning $86k because they are far less affected by that higher rate. The taxation system needs to be overhauled. For the life of me, I don't understand why there have to be these massive tax brackets. Why does everyone over $388k pay the same, or between 35k and 85k, or 85k and $178k? Surely in this day and age you could have a taxation system with far more tax brackets. This would raise more taxes and lessen the burden on those most vulnerable. Someone earning $10m+ a year is not exactly going to feel much of a pinch if their tax rate is a bit higher than someone earning 389k.

Peter P says

No one forced God to do anything, yet He is gracious. I think to emulate God man must learn to be gracious as well. (I believe that God is a morally-neutral, infinitely gracious being.)

And I think God is a human invention, so not a particularly useful example. (by the way, I didn't press the dislike button on your earlier post in case you were wondering)

Bigsby says

People earning $1m should be taxed at a much higher rate than those earning $86k because they are far less affected by that higher rate.

Some one should not be taxed more simply because he is less affected.

A society should not decide what someone needs and what someone can afford.

I fear that progressive taxation is simply an artifact of democracy. Besides, income tax affects only those who try to become wealthy. It does not affect those who are already wealthy. It is not a good incentive system.

I think a land value tax (instead of income tax) will be a better system. You simply cannot hide real properties.

Bigsby says

And I think God is a human invention, so not a particularly useful example. (by the way, I didn't press the dislike button on your earlier post in case you were wondering)

It may be a human concept, but it is not any less useful. BTW, does anything really exist without concepts?

You think I care about "dislike" counts? :-)

I am pretty hard to offend.

Peter P says

Some one should not be taxed more simply because he is less affected.

Why not? If society needs the money to function more effectively, then it is the obvious path. The money is needed, they can afford it, so tax them more.

Peter P says

A society should not decide what someone needs and what someone can afford.

Those kind of decisions are made all the time and for good reason.

Peter P says

I fear that progressive taxation is simply an artifact of democracy. Besides, income tax affects only those who try to become wealthy. It does not affect those who are already wealthy. It is not a good incentive system.

Marginally higher tax rates on higher incomes is hardly going to be a major disincentive. Richer people will still be massively better off. Those who are already wealthy can be taxed in additional ways such as higher rates on capital gains so that everyone contributes in a reasonable and effective way.

Peter P says

I think a land value tax (instead of income tax) will be a better system. You simply cannot hide real properties.

No, it could be part of a better system, but in of itself, it most certainly wouldn't make for a better system.

Peter P says

You think I care about "dislike" counts? :-)

I am pretty hard to offend.

No, but I also don't want you to think that I press dislike on the post of someone with a reasoned opinion that just happens to be different to my own.

Guess we will agree to disagree.

I do not believe equality should be a societal goal. It is really up to the individuals to decide who they are.

Bigsby says

Marginally higher tax rates on higher incomes is hardly going to be a major disincentive.

Really? There is so much more innovation going on here compared to highly-taxed nations.

Peter P says

It may be a human concept, but it is not any less useful.

What is useful in saying God is this or God is that or God would do this or do that? You said God is gracious. You can't demonstrate the existence of God let alone assign personal characteristics, so to me it's not a very useful path to take.

Bigsby says

No, but I also don't want you to think that I press dislike on the post of someone with a reasoned opinion that just happens to be different to my own.

Why would I think so? If you are staying up this late to chat, you are probably not someone who would do that. ;-)

Bigsby says

What is useful in saying God is this or God is that or God would do this or do that? You said God is gracious. You can't demonstrate the existence of God let alone assign personal characteristics, so to me it's not a very useful path to take.

I think the literal existence of God (as a supernatural being) is not important, nor is it knowable. Then it is just a faith thing that I choose to have.

If you get to define God's properties, anything you like, what would they be?

Peter P says

I do not believe equality should be a societal goal. It is really up to the individuals to decide who they are.

I'm not arguing equality. It has absolutely nothing to do with equality. Taxing wealthy people with marginally higher rates as their income rises (let's say 0.1% for every 100k as an example) is not a drive to equality. It's a step towards funding what is currently not being paid for. I'd rather do this than cut fundamental services to the most vulnerable in society. How would that benefit society as a whole? The richest in society would be totally unaffected whilst the poorest would be disproportionately affected.

Peter P says

If you get to define God's properties, anything you like, what would they be?

I don't assign characteristics to imaginary beings, but if you were to do so for the God of the Old and New testament, it wouldn't make particularly attractive reading a lot of the time.

Peter P says

Why would I think so? If you are staying up this late to chat, you are probably not someone who would do that. ;-)

It's 12.41 in the afternoon.

Peter P says

Really? There is so much more innovation going on here compared to highly-taxed nations.

There's a lot of innovation going on in Europe and elsewhere. Innovation wouldn't be affected by marginal tax increases on the richest. I'd say the US was more innovative in the past and there have been far higher tax rates in the past than there currently are. Innovation comes from good education systems and business environments that support and invest in such things. Slightly higher tax rates that could be used to improve the education system (for example) might actually improve innovation.

Bigsby says

It's a step towards funding what is currently not being paid for. I'd rather do this than cut fundamental services to the most vulnerable in society. How would that benefit society as a whole?

The government can be much smaller and yet services can be maintained.

Bigsby says

The richest in society would be totally unaffected whilst the poorest would be disproportionately affected.

Worse yet, we will all be affected because the incentive system is weakened.

Somehow I have a feeling that poor people will be better off if they become aware that they are much more than their labels.

For example, "X *is* a teacher" vs "X chooses to work as a teacher"

Peter P says

The government can be much smaller and yet services can be maintained.

Hmm, major cost cutting means major cuts in government funded services.

Peter P says

Worse yet, we will all be affected because the incentive system is weakened.

The incentive system wouldn't be weakened. It wasn't weakened in the past when tax rates were considerably higher than now, so why would it be weakened with a more gradated system that involved relatively minor tax increases?

Bigsby says

There's a lot of innovation going on in Europe. Innovation wouldn't be affected by marginal tax increases on the richest. I'd say the US was more innovative in the past and there have been far higher tax rates in the past than there currently are.

We have to agree to disagree. Much has happened in the last 20 years.

Bigsby says

Innovation comes from good education systems and business environments that support and invest in such things. Slightly higher tax rates that could be used to improve the education system (for example) might actually improve innovation.

My other pet peeve: education, in its current form, is over-rated.

First, we cannot force people to become educated.

Second, education needs to be flexible and board.

Third, students should be allowed to draw their own conclusions.

I propose teaching kids how to self-learn very early on. Then they can draw information from the internet. This can be done cheaply and effectively.

Internet is great. I wish I had wikipedia when I was young. But digging up information in the library was fun nonetheless.

Bigsby says

The incentive system wouldn't be weakened. It wasn't weakened in the past when tax rates were considerably higher than now, so why would it be weakened with a more gradated system that involved relatively minor tax increases?

But the last 30 years have been amazing, if you can overlook the increase in wealth gap, then it comes down to the philosophy of equality again.

Peter P says

We have to agree to disagree. Much has happened in the last 20 years.

It has and that is not going to be affected by minor incremental increases in the tax rates of the richest. We aren't talking a French style 75% tax rate here.

Peter P says

My other pet peeve: education, in its current form, is over-rated.

First, we cannot force people to become educated.

Second, education needs to be flexible and board.

Third, students should be allowed to draw their own conclusions.

I propose teaching kids how to self-learn very early on. Then they can draw information from the internet. This can be done cheaply and effectively.

Internet is great. I wish I had wikipedia when I was young. But digging up information in the library was fun nonetheless.

Everyone has their own theory about what would be best for education. Personally, I think building better schools, investing in smaller class sizes etc. etc. wouldn't be a bad use of funds. Better than spending money bombing the shit out of tribal states at the very least.

Peter P says

But the last 30 years have been amazing, if you can overlook the increase in wealth gap, then it comes down to the philosophy of equality again.

One doesn't preclude the other. Great innovation isn't a product of massive wealth disparity. A decision has simply been made by those in positions of power to massively enrich themselves whilst wage growth for everyone else has stagnated.

Bigsby says

One doesn't preclude the other. Great innovation isn't a product of massive wealth disparity. A decision has simply been made by those in positions of power to massively enrich themselves whilst wage growth for everyone else has stagnated.

I think the risk altitude also changed.

People working in risky businesses (e.g. technology) appear to be doing fine. Higher tax rate with better social service may lower the risk appetite, which may or may not be a good thing.

Bigsby says

We aren't talking a French style 75% tax rate here.

Federal + State (CA) + FICA exceeds 50% marginal rate for many families that are not remotely rich.

Bigsby says

Better than spending money bombing the shit out of tribal states at the very least.

It is too early to judge what is happening in the Middle East. Energy is very important for growth and we are going to need fossil fuel for a long, long time.

But I agree that war is wasteful.

BTW, getting sleepy. Nice chatting. Perhaps we will meet in one of those coffee events in the future. :-)

Peter P says

Bigsby says

We aren't talking a French style 75% tax rate here.

Federal + State (CA) + FICA exceeds 50% marginal rate for many families that are not remotely rich.

75% is the income tax rate on wages over $1.4m (or so). That's quite a difference to the rate in the US.

Peter P says

It is too early to judge what is happening in the Middle East. Energy is very important for growth and we are going to need fossil fuel for a long, long time.

They were and are quite happy to sell it without being invaded. As for Afghanistan...

It's true that guns don't kill people, people do. Then why do we even care about the types of arms other nations have? Also, why aren't bazookas and rocket launchers legal to own? We should have zero concern about regulating anything that could be considered a weapon.

It irritates me that the conversation about shit like this goes straight to guns. Most of the time, those who did these mass murder flipouts were diagnosed and treated previously.

* Where is the support/monitoring of the patients? ("Take your meds")
* Where is the support for Caregivers? ("How can we help you monitor your family member/Teach you warning signs")

Seriously, it ain't rocket science. Who does this shit? We know:

Shy/Socially Awkward young men with Depression, Schizo, or severe Personality Disorders aged 14-30.

The only gun control law you might need is to have doctors "strongly recommend" caregivers to give up any firearms they have in these situations. Maybe give them a form that says "I was told to give up my guns when caring for a mentally ill individual".

Seriously, if you have depressed or schizo children, get rid of the gun and get a tazer instead. The odds of you needing the gun are outweighed by the likelihood that your family member is going to do something stupid with it to themselves or others.

BobbyS says

It's true that guns don't kill people, people do. Then why do we even care about the types of arms other nations have? Also, why aren't bazookas and rocket launchers legal to own? We should have zero concern about regulating anything that could be considered a weapon.

Ever heard of the phrase, "Don't bring a knife to a gunfight" ??? That is why we care about other nation's arms.

Now guns are already heavily regulated.

How many children did the USA kill in Iraq? Any Americans shed tears over that?

Call it Crazy says

So, what new gun laws are you proposing??? Maybe you should look at other causes besides the guns....

How about a ban on assault weapons? How more thorough background checks on those who own guns. And serious gun education for owners. For example, in this case, why the fuck did a suburban mom with a son who had personality disorder have multiple assault weapons?

Of course much better mental health services, support and education is the real answer. But that costs lots and lots of money (i.e. taxes) and much of what is needed could infringe upon personal liberties.

As I said, stricter gun laws will not prevent all of this shit, but can we at least agree that would shouldn't allow assault weapon sales and crack down on the huge, backroom sales at the thousands of gun shows each year?

Blurtman says

How many children did the USA kill in Iraq? Any Americans shed tears over that?

Yes, many Americans have cried because of the atrocities of that, or any war. And there are millions who are upset with the drone strikes that kill innocents.

But this is twisted and closer to home, so it is more upsetting. It is human nature to be more upset when it "could have been you or yours".

PeterP, you refer to me and many others as Trolls, have you seen how many posts on this thread you made?. You can't help yourself fill peoples threads with your comments and call everyone else around you a troll.

Troll.

I have not used the T word for a long, long time.

I do remember calling Marina Prime a troll. That was a fun troll.

Doesn't an extra grip turn a hand-gun into an "assault" weapon in some cases?

It is just a label. Assault weapons are not necessarily machine guns. I guess most people have the image of a Ak-47/MP-5/AR-15 in their heads.

This isn't a "gun control" problem, honestly, it's a "big pharma" problem. We seriously need to examine what pharmaceutical companies are creating to "treat" people with mental illness.

Goran_K says

We seriously need to examine what pharmaceutical companies are creating to "treat" people with mental illness.

rooemoore says

Of course much better mental health services, support and education is the real answer. But that costs lots and lots of money (i.e. taxes) and much of what is needed could infringe upon personal liberties.

I agree with rooemoore.

There is medication available to treat mentally ill individuals. There are therapeutic treatments also available. However, it doesn't come cheap.

It costs anywhere from $100-$300 per hour for a psychological or psychiatric session and anywhere from $50-$250 per hour for a therapy session with a therapist. Some will work on a sliding scale, but these people are harder to find.

We need to start getting more insurance companies to cover mental health and we need to get those companies who offer limited mental health coverage to start offering better coverage.