| re: NJC: Freedom - Financial opportunity or reduced responsibility? | |
|
Posted by: |
JimmyG 02:47 pm UTC 04/22/09 |
| In reply to: | re: NJC: Freedom - Financial opportunity or reduced responsibility? - John_Galt 09:07 am UTC 04/22/09 |
John, I agree with you that building train stations in the city centers of small towns isn't a great idea, but that's not the purpose of a bullet-train system - it is to connect major cities. Union Square or Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco isn't being relocated anytime soon, and the same applies to Times Square in New York and hundreds of other towns/places around the country. Hell, even the city center of our own little town Santa Barbara isn't going anywhere anytime soon - you walk two blocks off State Street and you're suddenly in "Anytown USA"... That's nice that you can shag a girl in the backseat of a car, but unless your inofficial profession is that of a pimp, that's not likely to happen everytime you drive...the point is, different modes of transportation work well for different people and different situations, and diversity and freedom of choice should be encouraged at all times. You don't have to speak on a cell phone to communicate with a client - chatting on a laptop works equally well in some cases. Yeah, yeah, "personal connection" yaddayadda, but once the first talk's been taken care of and you know what you sound like and can make some pseudoscientific evaluation whether you think that the person you just spoke with is trustworthy or not, you can move on. After that, Internet chat is more efficient and generates more money which is what everything boils down to in the end. As far as a Fatburger or giant 7-11 slurpee, you can get one when you arrive after 2-3 hours instead of driving 5-6 hours and making a stop along the way...I mean, 2-3 hours of controlled temptations should be feasible, right? ;-) You're right that there are a lot of diet fads, but there are some things that are universal - a carrot will always be healthier than an ice cream regardless of your body type. "Gray zone groceries", which can't easily be defined as healthy or not, would be left untouched, while undisputable health foods (fruit, veggies etc) will be taxed lower and health bombs (ice cream, candy etc) would be taxed higher. Simple as that. The point is not that it's a "sin tax" - it's more pragmatic than that. I don't want to pay for something (healthcare) that unresponsible people have themselves to blame for, in the same way that you don't want to pay (unreasonable) welfare to people who are not working etc. I know that there are genetics involved in overweight (I was overweight into my early 20's) but there's a dividing line between that and obesity caused by overconsumption of junk food and overweight caused (partly) by genetics. It's not that I lack empathy - I'd gladly donate (and have been donating) money to people starving in poor countries. However, when it comes to overconsumption leading to obesity and accelerating healthcare costs in rich countries (regardless of continent), my empathy's more restricted. /Jimmy G. ----------------------- > Jimmy, > > Thanks for mentioning the blog. I agree that public > transportation isn't wildly successful in the United > States, but it's not because governments here don't spend > the money and make the mandates. I'm not sure a private > sector alternative would be successful either given the > culture and the planning problems. > > First, the urban environment changes too quickly, > particularly in the West. The moment you build a train > station to the City Center, the City Center moves as new > development explodes on the other side of town. Now you > have a train station that is too far away for people to > reach. It's slowing down as the socialists move in, but > the United States is still a vibrant country and people > don't limit their dreams to general plans. > > Second, private transportation usually works better than > public transportation for most people. On a train, it's > just too difficult to talk to clients about confidential > stuff on your cell or shag a girl in the backseat of a > bullet train. Hell, on a train, you can't even pull in to > get a Fatburger or a giant 7-11 slurpee if you're craving > one. > > But, take heart: In California, voters recently passed an > initiative for $15 billion or so in funding for a > bullet-train system. Given the cost of real-estate here, > that won't even scratch the surface. Even more > frustrating, the infrastructure improvement won't connect > Santa Barbara to San Francisco. > > As far as trying to manipulate people's dietary habits > with taxes, I'm afraid that sin taxes are already popular > with some folks here. But, I tend to think expert opinion > on dietary stuff changes with the seasons. My friends who > swore by Atkins are now Raw Foodists. For awhile, butter > was evil, then it was margerine, then butter, then > margerine. Different groups and industry lobbyists would > have very different ideas about what unhealthy foods > should be penalized, and it seems to me that our bodies > aren't really one-size fits all, anyway. Different > dietary habits seem to work differently for different > people. I'll let them make the decisions themselves > without the guiding hand of the tax man. > > -=John Galt=- > > > John, > > > > I was referring to the post about your blog, which made me > > think about the "freedom contradictions" mentioned below. > > > > Thanks for the video link - I don't have time/patience to > > listen to all of it right now, and the message seems to be > > pretty similar to what I've already heard numerous times > > before. It has some credible points - in theory - but it > > doesn't quite work out in practice (IMHO). A couple of > > examples (wild liberal views): > > > > The public transportation systems in most of America is > > worse than in Northern Europe, thus, people are basically > > forced to drive to get around, which limits the freedom > > when it comes to the number of available efficient modes > > of transportation. Sure, you can take the Amtrak from > > Santa Barbara to San Francisco (for example), but it will > > take anything from eight to 10 hours depending on delays. > > If you drive, it takes 5-6 hours, but you have to focus > > primarily on driving. > > > > However, if there was a fast train available that could > > you take you between Santa Barbara and San Francisco in > > 2-3 hours (the technology's already available in countries > > such as France and Germany), you'd have total freedom to > > decide what to do with your time - work on your laptop, > > listen to music, just sit back and relax etc. Not even > > flying can beat that once you take into account check-in > > time, take-off, landing etc. I think a lot of people would > > choose that mode of transportation if it was available, > > which would reduce the number of cars on the streets and > > reduce the tax money spent on road maintenance etc. > > > > However, you may be asking why drivers should pay taxes to > > pay for a fast train that they may never end up > > using...let me switch the discussion around to a totally > > different subject - food! Why should I pay taxes for the > > healthcare system to care of people on a bad diet (being > > hospitalized for heart problems and other health issues > > related to a bad diet) if I eat a good diet? Perhaps it's > > the humane thing to pay higher taxes in this case? But a > > guy who's addicted to pot and sent to jail cannot be > > treated for his addiction? Isn't that inhumane? Sugar and > > fat are also addictive substances if consumed in > > sufficiently large amounts. > > > > So, what to do? How about putting higher taxes on "bad > > food" and correspondingly lower taxes on "good food". > > Obviously that would mean a bit more government > > bureacracy, but there could be huge benefits: > > > > 1. It might give people an incentive to eat better food, > > thus, reducing costs for healthcare. > > > > 2. Even if people still eat the same crappy food but only > > pays more for it, that extra revenue could be used to pay > > for healthcare costs. The people eating good food are > > being rewarded with cheaper groceries, while staying > > healthy and getting a little "tax break" for being > > responsible citizens and not burdening society with their > > healthcare problems (often) caused by a bad diet. > > > > /Jimmy > > > > --------------------- > > > > > Jimmy, > > > > > > I'm not sure what post you're referring to, but thanks for > > > commenting. > > > > > > I agree that happiness and freedom from want for things > > > like leisure, food, health care, and entertainment are > > > important, but I value the freedom to choose my own path > > > more. When it comes to individual will and drive, I'm > > > just not convinced that social policy can address my needs > > > as well as liberty. > > > > > > Unfortunately, I think you might also be correct that the > > > distinction between what freedom means in the United > > > States and what it means in Northern Europe is and has > > > been eroding for some time. > > > > > > If you'd like to learn more about my perspective, a very > > > good discussion can be found here: > > > > > > http://www.ideachannel.tv/ > > > > > > I don't agree with Milt on everything, but we come pretty > > > close most of the time. Also, many of my favorite > > > economists and thinkers were Europeans. Names like Ludwig > > > Von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and Wilhem Roepkek come to > > > mind. > > > > > > -=John Galt=- > > > > > > > > > > This is a loose reply on John Galt's post below. > > > > > > > > There is a lot of good things that can be said about > > > > America w.r.t financial opportunity etc. However, these > > > > things may not necessarily correlate with "freedom", which > > > > is a very vague word with a million nuances except for its > > > > opposite - slavery. Anything in between is diffuse. > > > > > > > > For example - most citizens of a country belong to the > > > > "working class", which may also include parts of the > > > > middle class according to the American definition. The net > > > > salaries for the "working class" in (northern) Europe and > > > > America are comparable after substracting taxes, costs of > > > > living etc. > > > > > > > > However, European workers (at least in northern Europe) > > > > generally have better benefits than American workers - > > > > more vacation days, better healthcare coverage etc. All of > > > > these things correlate with certain aspects of "quality of > > > > life", which includes reduced responsibility. > > > > > > > > As far as I recall, Denmark now has the highest taxes in > > > > the world (even higher than those in Sweden since a couple > > > > of years back), but a large survey still found that Danes > > > > are the happiest people in the world. This could probably > > > > partially be attributed to the Danish welfare system in > > > > combination with an overall more easy-going attitude > > > > towards towards life than, say, the Swedes, which enjoy > > > > similar welfare benefits but seems to be less happy. > > > > > > > > This reduced responsibility may be one of the explanations > > > > why the Danes are the most free people in the world, at > > > > least if happiness is an indicator of freedom. On the > > > > other hand, Americans are probably the most free people in > > > > the world with regards to "pursuit of happiness", since > > > > society promotes endless new opportunities as a way of > > > > life (and for some people it is also a fact). > > > > > > > > I'm not saying that one system is better than the other, > > > > just that the word "freedom" is misused. Once basic human > > > > rights have been fulfilled, it is no longer clear whether > > > > freedom should be universally correlated with > > > > materialistic/career success or "peace of mind" - these > > > > two factors may or may not be counterparts. > > > > > > > > It is true that America was originally "Land of the free, > > > > home of the brave", and it may still be "Home of the > > > > brave" (fighting two wars etc) but the freedom part is > > > > less clear. (Northern) Europe today is very different from > > > > the Europe that many American ancestors once left, and > > > > many Europeans enjoy priviliges which make them - in some > > > > ways - more free than Americans living similar lives. > > > > > > > > Although there will always be a lot of anti-Americanism in > > > > Europe despite the tone of the presidential rhetoric, I do > > > > think that this non-universal notion of "freedom" is out > > > > of place and has nothing to do with the 21st century, at > > > > least with regards to America vs. (Northern) Europe. > > > > > > > > /Jimmy G. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: NJC: Freedom - Financial opportunity or reduced responsibility? - John_Galt 09:07 am UTC 04/22/09 |
| Next: | A Tale Of Two Thugs - steven_stuart 11:47 pm UTC 04/20/09 |
| Thread: | |