Email to a supplyside, militarist friend who I met at a church forum for...

[immoderate]

philosophical discussion, though we are both (irrelevantly) atheists. I first noticed his statements because he sounded like a supply side true believer. Oy vey!

I post this as an example of the Stuart Smalley Principle,
"Even though a person is not as smart as you, you can still learn something from them."

So he turned me on to something. The important lesson is to Google every quote. :)

Xxxx,

You never know when you are going to learn something useful. You sent me a Jefferson quote to ponder: (at least you sent the "on the one hand" part...)

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, 'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it.

And that led me to find the "on the other hand" part of that statement:

(But,)If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra-taxation violates it. — NOTE IN DESTUTT TRACY'S POLITICAL ECONOMY, vi, 573. (1816.)

*The Carl Rove Award is on its way.*

Now, Jefferson lived in a pre-industrial time, so what kind of wealth was enough to be "dangerous to the State?" There was no large scale manufacturing, agribusiness, oil company, military-industrial, or mining wealth, all of which are used to influence the state, and in arguably dangerous ways. Jefferson had a wealthy merchant class, which supported the early US government, influential, but fluid. Real wealth was royal wealth in Jefferson's time. It's power rested on inheritance. Vigorous enforcement was the only side industry.

It seems to me that Jefferson (smart guy) realized that people who were sitting on immense inherited wealth were not efficient at creating jobs. Except maybe cops. They had hundreds of years of supply, without meeting demands. So that implies that Jefferson understood the need to redistribute wealth. Sounds like he favored a 100% inheritance tax on large fortunes. Better than tax, because "equal inheritance to all" is more progressive than any tax.

Here's the payoff. I know a few people who believe in "original intent" (ironically, a doctrine originated by Hugo Black in an act of judicial activism.) I'll show them Jefferson's (complete) statement when estate taxes, and redistribution of wealth, become issues of economics, or law, so they can lobby their favorite justices. You gotta love all these levels of irony.

OK, so moving on -- let's turn your talents of persuasion to this article:
A Secretive Banking Elite Rules Trading in Derivatives http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/12/business/12advantage.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss
How would you convince these guys that there is no such thing as a ruling class in the US?

When they get together, what plans are they making for the benefit of mankind? Should we call a *Danger to the State Alert*? What are they saying about you?

Good find, thanks.

<immoderate>

He loves the MIC, supply side, and corporations and Bush(!), and responds to my data and logic, by calling me a hater, a socialist, class warrior,:rofl: etc. I respond by listing his errors, false assumptions, and fallacies, by sending and more data. With some condescending encouragment.O8) I'm sure his BP is up. Why? :shrug: I am seeking practice responding in a civil and rational way to people who are misinformed and delusional. (No DU jokes, please.;))

--imm

[barbtries]

1. nice letter

you will be blocked from his email in three...two...one...

i predict. let us know if i'm wrong.:hi:

[immoderate]

3. Nope. He seems to enjoy it. This is one of many.

Natural immunity? That's why I'm curious.

Thanks. :)

--imm

[Larkspur]

2. Good job, but remember that these Teabaggers don't let facts change their minds

because their minds are already made up. however, your argument is good for the proverbial "swing" voter.

[immoderate]

4. Funny we have both stipulated no minds will be changed.

I even joke about it. This revelation about Jefferson (I really didn't know) is my justification for even arguing with him. :)

Yeah, he's unedumacable!

--imm

[immoderate]

5. ** I got an answer.

He said:

I want you to sit back and imagine Jefferson in front of you.
Remember how much he talked about freedom. He also talked about farming and seemed to me as an advocate to them.

Now do you honestly believe if a farmer owned alot of land that Jefferson would believe the government should take 100% of it, once the Inheritor of that land gets a hold of it, after a father's passing?

Use your commonsense. Do you really believe Jefferson would say, tax him 100% -take the whole estate...?
Does that fit with his freedom thing?

He seemed like a very sensible man. He thought alot about how royalty and European wealth tried to control things, I'm sure.
So he was definitely against a Central Bank, probably in fear that Europeans would try to influence the nation, etc.

But I'm just asking you to do this excercise before you jump to conclusions. You might just be acting sarcasticly.

I know, :banghead:

--imm

[immoderate]

8. My reponse...

I said:

I urge you to read and reflect, with a purpose of comprehension, Jefferson's entire statement. Your farmers, and their sons, about whom you are understandably concerned, are covered by the part you sent me. I understand that. But Jefferson went on to make his point... which you left out. You continue to act like it doesn't exist. This email is proof you are out of touch with reality.

The part you (conveniently) left out is about wealth that is a "danger to the state." Not the family farm. His remedy is clear. What should be done with wealth that is a "danger to the state?" What is your solution?

You want ME to reflect? Did you know that your fragment of TJ's statement is out of context, and its intent is to be misleading? I'm trying to tell you what it actually means! You want to sing Old MacDonald Had A Farm.

When you ask me "Do you really think Jefferson would say..." you are telegraphing the delivery of a huge strawman. That's Bush League (no pun.) What did he actually say? Why not react to Jefferson's words instead of your hypothetical substitute? It's hard to imagine what motivates your responses.

What's the point if you can't understand English? (Both mine and TJ's.)

He will keep coming back. Understanding why is my fascination. One of us is a punching bag.

--imm

[Xicano]

6. Nice letter, thanks for posting immoderate.

A large portion of my guiding philosophy to tax the rich heavier stems from the fact that they simply owe it to us. When they economically benefit from publicly funded infrastructure ie roads, bridges, power-grids, water & sewage, etc. They owe us a cut of their profits on top of their fair share of taxes. When their usage of our publicly funded infrastructure causes more wear & tear on it than you or I cause, then, they owe a heavier tax than we do.

Also, since practically (if not every) war is fought for some sort of commercial interest (War is a Racket) and it is our blood, not theirs, that is spilled. They owe us big time for that. You cannot put a price tag on someone's life, so in my opinion based on this one fact alone, they can never pay too much.

[immoderate]

7. Thanks.

I actually edited out a line that expressed that, It was, "Better, because all tax is regressive." It is based on your what you say. Jefferson's idea of an even distribution is brilliant. Really. Not to the government, to the people. That's fucking progressive!

I didn't want to add too many aspects to the discussion. When debating a "fundy," you can't give them anything to "distract on." Keep it focused. :)

--imm

[immoderate]

9. Kick. One more rec?

--imm

[lonestarnot]

10. How can you get by without a DU joke?

[immoderate]

11. Felt bad. I made it too easy.

--imm

[The Doctor.]

12. You are

a true student of the game.

Nice that such a game has reality-based rules.

[immoderate]

13. One more.