[ExI] relationships with money

Thu May 5 00:32:41 UTC 2016

It's just fine with me if someone has 50 billion or 500 billion dollars.
No such thing as too much money.  As long as they do their civic duty, as
spelled out in laws, then more power to them.  In this sense I am not a
socialist who would confiscate money.  What their fair share is is always
debatable.

Something has to be done to stop billionaires from buying elections.  This
IS what they are doing, in addition to trying to raid my Alabama state
pension by paying off legislators.

I have no answer to that.  Something like donations to a pool of money that
candidates draw from not knowing who gave what, is probably full of errors
and foolishness, as is letting governments supply the money.  But maybe
it's not so different from what we have now;  parties put up their
candidates and independents need lots of signatures to get on the ballots.
Accounting would insure that the money was spent on election costs and none
could go to buy boats and visit strip joints.  Like it is now, that is.

Who gets to be an official party?  Well.........................

Another question I think all of us would like answered:  why can't we
confine elections to a month or so like the British?  That's what costs so
much.  And with hundreds of channels I'd require them to donate time for
candidates as a public service.  Or maybe you could just add another
channel............or............or.       And why does the winner get all
of the votes rather than a proportionate share?   And why don't we get rid
of the Electoral College?

bill w

On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Dan TheBookMan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 4, 2016, at 1:27 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org>] *On Behalf Of *William Flynn
> Wallace
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] relationships with money, was: RE: extropy-chat
> Digest, Vol 152, Issue 3
>
>
>
> >>…In light of that fact, the answer to question:  Do we take their
> money? I would suggest, eh… no.  Definitely, no, unless every member of
> that “we” is ready to do life in the big house.
>
> spike
>
>
>
> >…Oh we do take their money - progressive taxes…
>
>
>
> Ja, but this conflates two different concepts: money owned and money in
> the process of being made.  The way the US 16th amendment was
> intentionally structured, the Fed can only tax earnings, not what you
> have.  The question was asked about having a certain amount, which the
> Federal government doesn’t even get to know, never mind take.
>
>
> Who interprets the COTUS? Government courts. Good luck with taking away or
> limiting their power to confiscate.
>
> In light of that, listen carefully to the rhetoric of our current leading
> US presidential candidates, while struggling to ignore the obvious
> question: Sheesh a third of a billion yanks, are these yahoos the REALLY
> the best we can do?  Can we have a do-over on the primaries if we throw out
> all the current contenders?
>
>
> You presume most people want a radically different system. No. They might
> be able to recite some liberty rhetoric, but most people don't mind the
> system. At best, they want minor tweaks or for their favored hero to rule.
> We're that not the case, we'd have a very different system and a very
> different set of worries.
>
> (Why is it, too, that every election cycle people start to seriously
> believe that choosing between Frick and Frack is the most important
> decision in the history of the universe? It's not. Get over it. It's BS, a
> distraction, and Frick and Frack are neither saints nor demons.;)
>
> No.  OK, so listen to the rhetoric concerning the oft-repeated
> catch-phrase “millionezzz and billionezzz” and ask yourself what has that
> to do with tax structures?  Nothing.  The tax code and those forms we fill
> out have no line asking what we own, only what we made last year.
>
>
> You're only looking at the federal government and one aspect of its taxing
> power.
>
>
> >…As for Dan's 'solution', stop having politicians that are bought, I beg
> answers to how to accomplish that… bill w
>
>
>
> That I may be able to answer once I see how this country deals with a
> glaring example of a politician setting up the infrastructure to be bought
> anonymously and legally (never mind the question of whether this particular
> politician was or was not bought, this particular politician set up
> everything needed to carry it out.)
>
>
> Feature not bug. Having a strong national government -- i.e., COTUS --
> setup a central power that could be so influenced. Tweaking around this is
> not going to do too much to change that or remove the temptation.
>
> So what do we do there?  Is it analogous to that eccentric old guy down
> the street who has several hundred military-grade rifles, assault weapons
> as they are sometimes called, and half a million rounds of ammo?  That’s
> all legal (in most US states), he hasn’t committed any crime with that
> collection or arsenal.  But he damn sure could if he chose to, and we are
> wary of that guy, ja?  He has empowered himself.  We know he has enabled
> himself to go shoot up the local school or theatre.  Dare we ask what
> religion he follows, or is that too un-PC?  Would it matter?
>
>
> Why would his religion matter? If someone pointed a gun at you, would you
> care what their religion was?
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>   Sample my Kindle books via:
> http://author.to/DanUst
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20160504/c484b8b1/attachment.html>