Re: right vs left
Posted by
Nick Thompson on
Jan 11, 2014; 8:34pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/11-American-Nations-tp7584250p7584735.html
Top 50% of wealth OR income? By which standard, most of us on this list are rich.
n
Nicholas S. Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology
Clark University
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Merle Lefkoff
Sent: Saturday, January 11, 2014 1:17 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] right vs left
Guys,
It's honestly been "the other way" a lot. There was even a time not too long ago in the U.S. when our government made "rational" decisions about this issue. In the mid 1950s, you were taxed on everything you made over $400k at 92%. The bottom bracket was taxed at 22%. In 2012, you were taxed on everything you made over $380k at 35%. The bottom bracket, up to $17k, was taxed at 10%. There are a lot of variables that affect inequality that can be changed, and that's just one of the smaller ones. I like Gillian's question, so here's mine: What do you mean by "rich"?
On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Merle Lefkoff <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'm at the bottom of a long thread here, but if it's not too late, the only person I've ever read who could really describe the Right and the Left in America was Joe Bageant in his book "Deer Hunting with Jesus". It was a big loss when he died recently, because he also had a great blog.
On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Nick Thompson <[hidden email]> wrote:
Marcus,
I guess I don’t follow. Perhaps others will clarify.
Best,
Nick
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 10:10 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] right vs left
On 1/10/14, 6:28 PM, Nick Thompson wrote:
(2) Second, given that understanding of what I agreed to, there ARE examples where the rich are not as dominant as the rich are in our current society. In fact, not long ago, we were such a society.
For example (http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2012/03/27/outside-groups-spending-through-roof)
" Outside groups, including super PACs and nonprofit organizations, have spent almost four times more on the 2012 presidential campaign than comparable organizations spent at the same point in the 2008 cycle, an analysis of Federal Election Commission filings show."
Your relativist argument (and evidence like above to support it), and also historical observations made on this list have falsified "He who has the gold rules." as literal proposition. Given that it is falsified, pop the stack to go back to the discussion of how to have an individual from the left and an individual from the right reconcile their views `rationally'. Why ought he who has the gold rule? Why should property rights be respected in all situations or even in any? Why should those that have resources influence legislation? Why should the law be considered anything more than a factor in risk and reward decisions? I'm happy to go down the merry road of nihilism with you. Bring your favorite things. I'll wear my cargo pants with lots of pockets. Oh, never mind that wrench I'm carrying. I heard someone was having car trouble over the horizon.
Marcus
--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
[hidden email]
mobile: <a href="tel:%28303%29%20859-5609" target="_blank">(303) 859-5609
skype: merlelefkoff
--
Merle Lefkoff, Ph.D.
President, Center for Emergent Diplomacy
Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
[hidden email]
mobile: (303) 859-5609
skype: merlelefkoff
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe
http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com