Advertisement
by Cannot think of a name » Thu Jan 24, 2013 2:02 am
by Ostroeuropa » Thu Jan 24, 2013 3:33 am
Cannot think of a name wrote:What happened to 'rendering unto Caesar?'
by Ovisterra » Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:09 am
by Conserative Morality » Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:12 am
by Risottia » Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:20 am
Xerographica wrote:Turns out that the pope endorsed tax choice 4 years ago...
So, are any of you now "sold" on the tax choice concept because the pope endorses it? Do any of you like the tax choice concept even less because the pope endorses it?
Whose endorsement would you give the most weight to?
I guess what I'm asking is...when it comes to new political/economic ideas...if you had to pick one person...whose opinion would you trust the most?
...In short, persons are afraid to be free.
by Transhuman Proteus » Thu Jan 24, 2013 5:09 am
Xerographica wrote:Blazedtown wrote:Tax choice is a ridiculous concept. It would ensure that programs that nobody has ever heard of get defunded. Like that subsidy for rural airports in Alaska that the one guy was bitching about 3 weeks ago.
It's ridiculous that you believe that "optimal" funding can be accurately determined by a small group of government planners.
by Xerographica » Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:44 am
Transhuman Proteus wrote:You mean the people who have this kind of thing as a job and are presented with a lot of information relevant to making decisions regarding it?
Transhuman Proteus wrote:Yes, I know they would be significantly less optimal than the unwieldy and frequently ignorant public who can get distracted by shiny objects (in political terms) who'd have none of the information available to that small group of government planners or information dumbed down and filtered through the media.
Transhuman Proteus wrote:So what is your solution when, say, the public are shoveling shit tons of money into something (because it is the "nawwww, cute puppy" of funding) and vastly underfunding something else (the plankton of funding)? Do the small group of government planners reenter the picture to stop one thing getting far more money than it needs and make sure something vital that flies under most people's radar gets a look in?
Transhuman Proteus wrote:Because you have your multi-billion dollar deals that are in your face, and then you have thousands of million dollar dealios equally as vital, but no one knows about because they are freaking boring. "Eh? Put my tax dollars into replacing type z-84A nozzle fittings on flow capacitors on sewage works built between between 1947 and 1950 based upon this report that found rate of corrosion in high humidity areas... Zzzzzzzzzzzz. Ooooo, battletanks and submarines for the army. High tech forensic computers for the police. Super spies for our intelligence agency! Fuck you type boring z-84A nozzle fittings."
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Bottle » Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:50 am
by Wisconsin9 » Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:57 am
by Dumb Ideologies » Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:58 am
by Xerographica » Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:07 am
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Aww. Some people still believe that each member of society is a rational utility maximizer. How cute!
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by Dumb Ideologies » Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:13 am
by Xerographica » Thu Jan 24, 2013 7:26 am
Dumb Ideologies wrote:Xerographica wrote:Therefore...authority? Therefore...centralization? Therefore...homogeneous activity? Therefore...what?
Well, therefore the scheme you are so obsessed with is founded on a fundamentally unsound premise and sinks slowly into the sand while a local jazz musician plays walks by playing this for you.
Forsher wrote:You, I and everyone we know, knows Xero's threads are about one thing and one thing only.
by New Chalcedon » Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:06 am
Caritas in Veritate wrote:The repeated calls issued within the Church's social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum[60], for the promotion of workers' associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honoured today even more than in the past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well as the local level.
Caritas in Veritate wrote:It is therefore necessary to cultivate a public conscience that considers food and access to water as universal rights of all human beings, without distinction or discrimination[65].
Caritas in Veritate wrote:When the State promotes, teaches, or actually imposes forms of practical atheism, it deprives its citizens of the moral and spiritual strength that is indispensable for attaining integral human development and it impedes them from moving forward with renewed dynamism as they strive to offer a more generous human response to divine love[71]. In the context of cultural, commercial or political relations, it also sometimes happens that economically developed or emerging countries export this reductive vision of the person and his destiny to poor countries. This is the damage that “superdevelopment”[72] causes to authentic development when it is accompanied by “moral underdevelopment”[73].
Caritas in Veritate wrote:The dignity of the individual and the demands of justice require, particularly today, that economic choices do not cause disparities in wealth to increase in an excessive and morally unacceptable manner[83], and that we continue to prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone.
Caritas in Veritate wrote:nor can sex education be reduced to technical instruction aimed solely at protecting the interested parties from possible disease or the “risk” of procreation.
Caritas in Veritate wrote:In view of this, States are called to enact policies promoting the centrality and the integrity of the family founded on marriage between a man and a woman, the primary vital cell of society[112], and to assume responsibility for its economic and fiscal needs, while respecting its essentially relational character.
Caritas in Veritate wrote:The Church has a responsibility towards creation and she must assert this responsibility in the public sphere. In so doing, she must defend not only earth, water and air as gifts of creation that belong to everyone. She must above all protect mankind from self-destruction. There is need for what might be called a human ecology, correctly understood. The deterioration of nature is in fact closely connected to the culture that shapes human coexistence: when “human ecology”[124] is respected within society, environmental ecology also benefits. Just as human virtues are interrelated, such that the weakening of one places others at risk, so the ecological system is based on respect for a plan that affects both the health of society and its good relationship with nature.
Caritas in Veritate wrote:God desires to incorporate us into this reality of communion as well: “that they may be one even as we are one” (Jn 17:22). The Church is a sign and instrument of this unity[131].
Caritas in Veritate wrote:For this reason, while it may be true that development needs the religions and cultures of different peoples, it is equally true that adequate discernment is needed. Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism, nor does it imply that all religions are equal[133].
Caritas in Veritate wrote:The Christian religion and other religions can offer their contribution to development only if God has a place in the public realm, specifically in regard to its cultural, social, economic, and particularly its political dimensions.
by EnragedMaldivians » Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:09 am
by Divair » Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:13 am
Ifreann wrote:If anything, the Pope endorsing tax choice makes me like it less.
by Cosmopoles » Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:37 am
Xerographica wrote:Here are my claims...
1. Economists agree that your true preferences for public goods are necessary to determine the optimal supply of public goods
2. If taxpayers could shop for themselves in the public sector then they would allocate their taxes according to their true preferences
3. Therefore, tax choice would result in the optimal supply of public goods
Which one is the fundamentally unsound premise?
by New Chalcedon » Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:49 am
Xerographica wrote:
Here are my claims...
1. Economists agree that your true preferences for public goods are necessary to determine the optimal supply of public goods
2. If taxpayers could shop for themselves in the public sector then they would allocate their taxes according to their true preferences
3. Therefore, tax choice would result in the optimal supply of public goods
Which one is the fundamentally unsound premise?
by Mavorpen » Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:50 am
Xerographica wrote:
Here are my claims...
1. Economists agree that your true preferences for public goods are necessary to determine the optimal supply of public goods
2. If taxpayers could shop for themselves in the public sector then they would allocate their taxes according to their true preferences
3. Therefore, tax choice would result in the optimal supply of public goods
Which one is the fundamentally unsound premise?
by New Chalcedon » Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:52 am
Mavorpen wrote:Xerographica wrote:Here are my claims...
1. Economists agree that your true preferences for public goods are necessary to determine the optimal supply of public goods
2. If taxpayers could shop for themselves in the public sector then they would allocate their taxes according to their true preferences
3. Therefore, tax choice would result in the optimal supply of public goods
Which one is the fundamentally unsound premise?
So basically you've turned this thread into a copy and paste session, where you just copy and paste your idiotic argument from your other thread about tax choice.
by Divair » Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:53 am
Mavorpen wrote:Xerographica wrote:Here are my claims...
1. Economists agree that your true preferences for public goods are necessary to determine the optimal supply of public goods
2. If taxpayers could shop for themselves in the public sector then they would allocate their taxes according to their true preferences
3. Therefore, tax choice would result in the optimal supply of public goods
Which one is the fundamentally unsound premise?
So basically you've turned this thread into a copy and paste session, where you just copy and paste your idiotic argument from your other thread about tax choice.
by Mavorpen » Thu Jan 24, 2013 8:55 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aadhirisian Puppet Nation, Bienenhalde, Diarcesia, El Lazaro, Google [Bot], Hidrandia, Hurdergaryp, Juansonia, Keltionialang, Khardsland, Likhinia, Perchan, Simonia, Squirreltopia, Statesburg, Tungstan, Vorkat
Advertisement