A reasonable estate and gift tax without loop holes along with a progressive tax system without loopholes would probably do reasonably well.

I prefer a reasonable system of wholesale redistribution without loopholes.

or even a reasonable system of confiscating the lives of people who believe in stuff like end of the world predictions, without loopholes.*

*was I the only one with a sneaking hope I might die on 21st dec** and get to mutter some final words about climbing out of windows and fairy cakes?

** i dont mean the only one hoping chezlaw would die.

Seems almost meaningless to define things this way though. Like if your dream is to own a lemonade stand and rent a 1br apartment for your family, then yeah, I guess it's true. But there are almost certainly things you could aspire to do that would be met by heavy resistance from the super rich, or at least you'd be at large disadvantage to someone with those resources.

Was this purely to segue* into the next bit, or is there something somwhat serious in the statement?

I think a reasonable case could be made for forcing people to live up to their promise of the end of their lives. Probably confiscate them twice if they've continued to contribute to their retirement plans.

I think leniency could be possible in the Dec. 21st folk's case. They did offer a reasonable societal benefit of annoying astronomers who were forced to explain in great detail what a how historically world ending "solstices" are, and also for annoying Mayan culturalists.

A decent plan for the end of the world. Mine is slightly more clever and involves me either (depending on the particular circumstances) either being pleasantly unaware of the circumstances (least funny, but probably for the best) or yelling "weeee!!!!" or saying "I blame society" or (after making <insert exhaling last breath dying sort of sound that people make when dying in movies here> sound), pausing for just a little bit then saying "just because I went <insert exhaling last breath dying sort of sound that people make when dying in movies here> didn't mean that I was dead" <pause> <insert real exhaling last breath dying sort of sound here>**

Of course. No particular humor in that. As you can see from the above, I have made allowances for the specific instance of one particular btm2 dying.

I'm fairly certain that either yours or my "weeee!!!" is probably the correct thing to do.

*I mean that word in the loosest of senses. Something approaching "nothing at all like a 'segue.'"

**The problem with these is that I only got one shot to get it right. Crying wolf about these things kills any sense of humor in them. In particular, the last one requires nearly perfect timing.

Makes sense. If my dream is to become the richest man on earth, other men with the same dream would compete. More modest dreams, like say a spouse, house, two kids, couple mistresses, maybe a boat are very within reach to most everyone who apply themselves in the US. And most could acheive much more if they desire.

I think it is reasonable to compare what type of life any average person could build on his own without any help from a society to what is he is capable in that society. If the latter is at least as good, then the society is moral. I'm convinced the rich in my society are not preventing me from reaching that level of acomplishment. In fact, the goods and services, employment opportunities (and customers if I choose to run my own business) available to me as a result of this society give me a much greater chance of realizing my dreams than without it.

The easy answer to the question in the thread's title is that, pursuant to my second amendment rights, I have guns.

Highly serious. A reasonable system to do X with no loopholes is still a trite soundbite.

The resistance to paying high levels of inheritence tax is very strong, its commonplace to try to avoid it and loopholes are pursued avidly by the most rich and powerful. An extreme force would be required to prevent loopholes and their lies the fundamental problem as that extreme force will be in the hands of the rich and powerful.

I dont want to claim its impossible to square that circle (though it seems obvious it is impossible) but the soundbite shouldn't be confused with some choice being offered.

I'm willing to compromise, they can keep their lives until they bother us again with their views on anything. Any claim on their part that they got that wrong but have leaned and now believe <insert new moronic twaddle> should suffer an even worse fate.

Two things using land as an example:
You either take the land, or you don't. It's "either or" because humans live by "laws" and if there are some people who follow, and some who don't (and no enforcement) then that's a very chaotic civilization.

If you take the land:
Then you also know that others can take it from you in this new civilization with no property rights. Therefore, ever owning land is pretty meaningless, AND taking it would become just as meaningless.

You don't take the land:
Then it doesn't matter because although the land is being used by someone, it's not an issue since no one is taking it.

This seems to rely on borders. Not that it's wrong, I agree with you. It's just, when "the rich" send jobs outside of our borders it just seems weird to me. Imagine that we never created borders I guess.

Don't worry, masque de Z is mistaken, he is simply talking about a local economic equilibrium while forgetting about Earths equilibrium. That's why he think he's right.

I suspect we would agree on much but I hate this ...
Patriotism is just horrible here. Patriotism is not a good thing, its an excuse to support bad things.

and in my lifetime (and as far as I can see in human history) nothing has resulted in anything as good as sending jobs overseas. I agree that's not the motive of those exporting the jobs but if anything we want to encourage them to do it more.

Patriotism is envoked by the relatively wealthy to try to stop the much poorer benefiting at their expense.

You do not understand what i mean by patriotism. For me the US is not a redneck bs plutocratic white pride hypocritical (not at all even original orthodox ethics) christian whatever nationalistic, imperialistic, CIA loving, war loving gun loving, flag loving whatever system. For me the US is something that most Americans do not even get yet. It is an experiment. An experiment that must not be allowed to fail easily. Not because the others elsewhere cant pick up. They will and have already. Only because the success of the experiment is positive for all globally and accelerates things towards a true united scientific sensible bs free planet where war is obsolete and where finally it is true to say;

" World is my country, science is my religion" (attributed in spirit to many obviously one of them Christian Huygens)


You also do not understand equilibrium. There is no such thing as equilibrium in the hands of greed, "free" markets (not free markets rather free to be manipulated markets) and self serving local behavior. All you have is a collapse preparing to happen. Your equilibrium is a jungle that has to start all over again.


Ps: all you need to know to understand me is in my avatar...(too bad i cant have the full version of the picture properly centered easily lol)

Masque,

What you speak about, your Scientific Society, sounds like a wonderful goal. How to get there is the rub. While you are advocating taxation and litigation, I believe it will involve more education and cultural modification. In other words, perhaps it's not the system at fault, but ourselves. Maybe our system is actually pretty close to the best fit for us.

One thing I never see you or other smart people take into account when complaining about 80% of wealth belonging to 20% of people is that the amount of wealth is not absolute, it can be and in fact is created. Much of the rest of us are actually doing quite well. Have you considered that even in your perfect society in due time wealth distribution might end up exactly as it is today, simply because there will always be that 20% of type-A people who just live and breath to build their empire? And that's not a bad thing.

I cant really envisage what you mean at all. America isn't an experiment that will suceed or fail its just a small (hopefully miniscule) part of an evolving story.

I'm not sure equilibrium is meaningful, if it is I suspect it is to be avoided.

but I'm still unconvinced we disagree on much, I just cant understand you as yet.

I'm not so sure, considering the realistic alternatives. Assuming that we can't achieve a sort of super-colony argentinian ant thing (which, despite John Lennin's protestations, we can't), the next best thing is as large of hives as possible and at least an awkward peace while enjoying the benefits of having hives at all.

Granted, that has its problems, but it is likely the best alternative to letting chelsea and arsenal fans have their way with each other. Of all the peoples in the world, your lot of somewhat united neighborhoods should respect how patriotism has an inhibitory effect in keeping the worst local attrocities from spreading too far.

Absolutely agree. My country is doing things like limiting immigration AND resisting outsourcing, which is nearly ******ed in misunderstanding how to create local wealth while accidentally spreading wealth throughout the world.

It (interdependence) is probably the closest we can realistically achieve to becoming a super-colony.

I can think of 27 people off the top of my head who could with only the barest of efforts make the circle, as you so aptly put it, square. Acknowledging that they are pursuing different pursuits, you are utterly correct that it, as you so aptly declined to put it, just a pipe dream.

I admit I am of two minds here. I can see the value of killing them three times each, just to teach them a lesson that they won't actually learn. I can also see the value in keeping them around as an ongoing teaching moment for the next generation. Also, it is important to note that they do offer entertainment value that increases with each round of nonsense.

Nearly certain that there is a potential compromise, but it will take some further work to get there.

I doubt it but very interested to here these barest of efforts. There is one solution which is to just abolish inheritence tax, that's a reasonable system with no loopholes (and may even have merit) but its not very useful in the context of preventing wealthy people passing on their wealth.

There are fates worse than death. There is a name for people who disagree

is there a reason this is bad? (from a fairness standpoint)

It is obviously good for the poor to get a cut of the wealth - free energy is always usefull

I'm not sure keeping chelsea and arsenal yobs from fighting or mating is anything to do with patriotism (or even a good idea).

Sometoimes it makes sense to favour local cooperation but patriotism its whats envoked to support bad ideas by an appeal to emotion. Its well up there with nationalism and religon in supporting the most stupid deicisons.

Good that you mention immigration, its a contender along with outsourcing for the greatest good.

The world gets smaller things change, the distinctions gradually become more meaningless. The USA is just an infant it probably wont live long before people talk of the good old days before union and then it will go the way of wessex and then no-one will remember it much.

I not at all convinced it is. I hate the idea of using fairness as the criteria for stuff like this anyway.

Maybe its unfair some people are far richer than most of us just because they're parents were but if replacing our current system with a 'fairer' one means most of us being far poorer then so what

to give props to someone else on this topic:

"Everyone cares about fairness, but there are two major kinds. On the left, fairness often implies equality, but on the right it means proportionality—people should be rewarded in proportion to what they contribute, even if that guarantees unequal outcomes."

" It leads liberals (but not others) to sacralize equality, which is then pursued by fighting for civil rights and human rights. Liberals sometimes go beyond equality of rights to pursue equality of outcomes, which cannot be obtained in a capitalist system." *(Note the "sometimes")"

I'm a hard-core liberal* and reject all of that which does tie in with me rejecting fairness as the meaningful criteria.

*traditional english liberal which may be different

Sometimes I wonder is confusion appealing to you? typing sentience like this...

I reject analyzing artificially induced semantic complexities...

^ nothing intended on this occasion, just pointing out that liberalism isn't particularly connected to these notions of fairness.

'but its not fair' is a horrible whine expected of toddlers not grown ups.

Yes, this is the idea. Its the same idea that underpins all morality and ethics. And it is in fact the opposite of saying that a certain class of people deserve special moral treatment.

But really, thats only why people DO believe in it. The reason you SHOULD believe in it is because it leads to the greatest happiness and wealth for all.

Just try it on for size. Try to pretend you dont believe in the sanctity of private property. And PM me your address, and a list of your valuables.