I'm pretty sure that wealth stratification didn't exist until after governments were formed, though I could be wrong since I'm not an anthropologist.

I think governments or some version thereof probably existed before currency and taxation, simply as a means of organizing security and armies. Would you disagree?

 

And how did it exist? Because there were "rich" people to fund it.

I think governments or some version thereof probably existed before currency and taxation, simply as a means of organizing security and armies. Would you disagree?

 

Governments absolutely existed before currency and taxation. See my recent thread, "What is Debt?," which contains links to several articles and a book by an economic anthropologist who explores the origins of money.

And how did it exist? Because there were "rich" people to fund it.

 

No, that's just not true.

No, that's just not true.

 

Governments don't exist without funding. That's all there is to it.

In fact you have plenty of communistic governments that existed sans taxes, like many (all?) of the NE American Indian tribes.

Governments don't exist without funding. That's all there is to it.

 

Modern governments? Sure. All governments? Nope.

Wealth accumulation and property rights don't exist without someone enforcing them, eg private goon squads or government.

In fact you have plenty of communistic governments that existed sans taxes, like many (all?) of the NE American Indian tribes.

 

They still controlled the distribution of resources, which is the same thing.

They still controlled the distribution of resources, which is the same thing.

 

There was no tax and no rich.

 

The existence of wealth stratification is not a necessary condition for the formation of government or for taxation.

Well this quickly devolved into amazing silliness. Of course governments survive (modern ones) off taxes, and of course more of that money comes from the wealthy than not in this country. Of course a guy who builds a company from the ground up made themselves rich. And of course he can't do that without government help. As with any chicken and egg argument, there is no correct answer, as it has to work both ways.

 

She made a poor choice of words. But her underlying point is spot-on.

 

Well this quickly devolved into amazing silliness. Of course governments survive (modern ones) off taxes, and of course more of that money comes from the wealthy than not in this country. Of course a guy who builds a company from the ground up made themselves rich. And of course he can't do that without government help. As with any chicken and egg argument, there is no correct answer, as it has to work both ways.

 

She made a poor choice of words. But her underlying point is spot-on.

 

Agreed.

 

I've just been reading/watching a lot lately both on Indian cultures and more recently the formation of money/debt, so the claim that government cannot exist without taxation and that taxation cannot exist without the wealthy really stood out to me.

She made a poor choice of words. But her underlying point is spot-on.

Remember...she has to win a Democratic primary first as well.

There was no tax and no rich.

The existence of wealth stratification is not a necessary condition for the formation of government or for taxation.

 

Wasn't the tax your work and what you brought to the tribe? And wasn't the "rich" the tribal elders, who had more (food, clothing, women, etc) than others?

 

Replace taxes/money with physical ability/work and it's the same idea.

Wasn't the tax your work and what you brought to the tribe? And wasn't the "rich" the tribal elders, who had more (food, clothing, women, etc) than others?

 

Replace taxes/money with physical ability/work and it's the same idea.

 

Not really, not if its organized along a "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs" line. It also doesn't require a pre-existing aristocracy to tax to fund a government.

 

If wealth and income distributions are flat, that means you tax everyone equally, not that you can't tax anyone at all.

Edited September 21, 201114 yr by StrangeSox

The SCOTUS has granted a temporary stay to review a certiorari petition for Troy Davis.

The state of georgia murdered troy davis.

The state of georgia murdered troy davis.

Well, I feel safer.

The SCOTUS has granted a temporary stay to review a certiorari petition for Troy Davis.

 

They denied it.

 

I haven't been following this story too closely, but seems to me that this guy had a LOT of chances for appeal throughout the last decade and each and every one of them failed. I get that it sounds terrible that witnesses recanted their testimony, but I have faith that if one of the 25, 30, 35+ judges/administrators that reviewed the case over the years would have found something questionable, something would have changed.

 

This case was just great fodder for anti-capital punishment foes. I'm sure the devils in the details, which are never, ever reported accurately by the media.

They denied it.

 

I haven't been following this story too closely, but seems to me that this guy had a LOT of chances for appeal throughout the last decade and each and every one of them failed. I get that it sounds terrible that witnesses recanted their testimony, but I have faith that if one of the 25, 30, 35+ judges/administrators that reviewed the case over the years would have found something questionable, something would have changed.

 

This case was just great fodder for anti-capital punishment foes. I'm sure the devils in the details, which are never, ever reported accurately by the media.

From my understanding...Georgia's laws are actually quite stringent on what it takes to overturn a case like this. Having the entire case fall apart doesn't actually undo the conviction in the first place, and there is very little room for discretion on the part of the courts or even the Governor.

Based on what was in the review from a year or so ago and the language in the conclusion, you literally have to prove your innocence once convicted. It isn't enough to cast legitimate doubt on the entire case.

Well, again, the various judges, administrators and gov't officials at all levels disagreed. I dunno why people in this country jump onto these media headlines as if they're the truth. See: Anthony, Casey. The public is given a shred of the entire story. Yeah, it sounds terrible that 7 of the 9 people suddenly recanted their testimony (from 20 something years ago), but I have to believe their reasoning for doing that was incredibly suspect and there was enough evidence established at his trial to still maintain the guilty verdict.

Edited September 22, 201114 yr by Jenksismybitch

That sort of assumes an infallible justice system, though. How many people have been exonerated from death row thanks to DNA testing after decades of protesting their innocence and having people discover flaws and fabrications in the prosecutors' cases? Why is their testimony from 20 years ago enough to convict, even with all of the problems with eyewitness testimony and accusations of police coercion, but now their recantations are "suspect"?

btw the reaction comparisons between Casey Anthony and this are interesting. A lot of the facebookers who were absolutely sure she was guilty and were outraged that the jury 'let her off' defend the execution of Troy Davis by saying 'well he had his day in court!'

btw here's the ruling from a year ago:

 

http://multimedia.savannahnow.com/media/pd...uling082410.pdf