As a blog is a space for personal thoughts as well as analysis, I thought I would provide a little list today of some likes and dislikes in keeping with the blog’s political and economic leanings. They are not in any particular order or any depth. Please feel free to post some of your own.
Dislikes
1. Corporation tax
I am not a fan of corporation tax. This should be distinguished from rates paid to municipal authorities as remuneration for services provided (e.g. sewers). We cannot escape from the capitalist structure of our world. Private business creates wealth, which is vital for our survival and development. Inflicting corporation tax on a business seems like punishment for a good deed (creating wealth and employing people). I would prefer to encourage business, not discourage it.
2. Mixing deposit banking and investment banking
I like the distinction made in Roman jurisprudence between the depositum and the mutuum. A significant part of the financial instability (and consequent economic instability) that the Western world has experienced in the centuries of its existence comes from the mixing of these two types of banking, with the result that the money of depositors is used in speculation, and when that speculation makes a loss, the depositor’s account is diminished. Governments providing guarantees to depositors (up to a certain amount) does not fix this problem – separation of the types by breaking up institutions is preferable.
3. Inflation
Scoop has called this the “cruellest tax of all”, and I am rather inclined to agree. It eats at savings, it influences contractual negotiations, and instils a fear of the future. Like most people, I prefer as many fixed variables as possible in calculations.
Likes
1. Constitutions that limit the power of the state as much as possible
At the risk of provoking opprobrium, I will go on the record as saying that I am not a very trusting person. This may be in conflict with certain parts of the Christian ethical tradition, but it is also true that Christ told His followers to be “wise as serpents” (Matthew 10:16). Where power is left in the hands of the state, even where the intention of the executive, legislature, and judiciary is to do good, there is always the risk that power will be abused. Why? Because the state is staffed by humans and humans are flawed.
2. Freedom of speech
As Jordan Peterson has remarked, freedom of speech, both within one’s mind and between different people, is necessary for intellectual development. The growth of knowledge and wisdom involves exposing oneself to ideas that may not be very attractive at first. Our very concept of duty presupposes a dislike of doing or believing what is good. If we liked doing something, it would not be a duty, but a pleasure. Clamping down on freedom of speech not only creates resentment at the suppression of a basic liberty, but also stifles debate and intellectual progress.
3. Bottom-up intellectual inquiry within Christianity
If Christianity is true, it has nothing to fear from the truth. Sometimes in our progress towards understanding, we have to suspend some basic positions and methods, take a step back, and come at the problem as if we did not believe what we currently believe. God gave humans a rational, inquiring mind. It seems strange to suggest that we should not use it. This does not mean there is no role for faith or tradition – far from it. Sometimes, though, we need to exercise some humility.
God resists the proud, but gives grace unto the humble.
-James 4:6
All Along the Watchtower 
A few of my dislikes for sake of conversation.
Dislikes:
Graduated Income Tax:
A flat tax (determined on the projected revenue that would fund the government’s necessary purposes). This same flat tax should be applied to business as well at the same rate. If it is a privately held startup then double taxation of the company should be eliminated so that the business and the individual can grow to the point where it could make the jump to a public enterprise that sells shares of stock in their company.
Corporations could rid themselves of entire buildings of tax lawyers providing great savings and the only ones left on the roster would be those to fight law suits regarding the product, injuries etc. It also has the advantage of making it easy for an investor to compare companies simply by what they spend, the return on investment and the growth of their profits year over year.
Death Tax:
This is one of the most egregious taxes levied by a state. The money has been earned and taxed upon earning and no part of it is owed to the government but to the heirs.
+++
Another like that the US has and it is under fire continuously is the second amendment right to bear arms. It is a safeguard against tyranny and oppression and our last line of defense in an invasion on our country by those who would defeat and occupy her. Also, police cannot be everywhere at once and it is the 1st defense against an aggressor, robber, rapist, murderer. Crime plummets where all citizens who are free of mental defects or have never spent time in prison for violating the proper use of firearms, possessing a clean record of good citizenship, have the right to own and bear arms. I don’t see how a country can live in constant fear of tyrannical control without this protection.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Excellent points! Yes, I have a dislike of inheritance tax. It becomes a tool of social manipulation when it forces people to give up family homes.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I should have added my dislike of the welfare state, and social security (although it will be hard to get rid of since people pay into this fund from the beginning of the careers). But welfare can be returned to the compassion of individuals and churches and many more would look for work where they now consider the welfare an entitlement. It is not. It is a gift from the tax payers in your country.
LikeLiked by 2 people
We also need to think about how these models we’ve locked ourselves into will fare in an economy where more and more work is devolved to machines and AI.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Indeed it is a great worry. Where people can do the work they should do it. If it is too dangerous, AI is a good alternative. I fear that this would have to be written into international law where the signees would be required to prove that they employ individual persons for all tasks that they are suited for and the AI is only allowed in instances of absolute need. Otherwise we are looking at a future where people have no work, no purpose in life, and are left to a life of idleness and despondency. We become a liability to the state and not an asset.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Sometimes I find myself think that Christ needs to return just to rescue us from our own technological path. I’m not a Luddite, but I feel that technology, like money, alcohol, and some other things, is a force in its own right.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Indeed and the lobbyists for the most powerful lobbies are almost running the show. The hidden taxes that people pay is another outrageous abuse: in the mid-70’s I saw a report that claimed that over 70% of the value of a new automobile was in taxes (for every piece of raw material to every nut and screw has already been taxed and figured into the sell price to the automobile manufacturer). The same can be said about any item bought; I believe the hidden cost is a loaf of bread is about 1/3 of the cost.
LikeLiked by 2 people
So, I suppose a dislike of mine is automated machines. Capitalist will support the choice of the business for sure but it doesn’t mean as a consumer I’m forced to like it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
You aren’t but then how much automation is enough and how much is too much is subjective at this point. But the whole thing is really a Catch 22 problem. We are at the cusp of a new age where you can throw out all the old maxims about a free market etc. For if AI progresses to its logical end every job in society will be run solely by machine and computer. There will be no work for humans . . . that will be the purpose of machines. Mankind becomes expendable; and it already has morally in the rise of birth control and abortion anyway. So the path is paved for the and short of destroying all modern civilization we are going to have to regulate: or at least have that conversation. You may not have to buy somebody’s goods today but there may come a day when the only goods to be bought will have been produced without a bit of human effort (save that of the past generations that invented the machines). For we are looking at a future where even the invention and production of the AI machines will be done by other machines . . . the scenario is a nightmare.
LikeLiked by 3 people
The issue is the concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny minority and the wealth not being sent out into the world to be productive through investment. If we wish to preserve the concept of private property, then we have to accept that this is a matter of private discretion and private law (and equity), not public law. We can encourage people to reinvest for the sake of the community, but we cannot force them to. De-regulation would be helpful here: efficient companies that bring a public benefit will attract investment. Companies stagnating under the cost of covering their backs will not. This is where the EU loses out to places like Singapore.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think this is the beginning of the conversation Nicholas but the long range goals regarding AI is what could possibly create a snowball effect that is irreversible.
As to the wealth ‘not being sent out into the world’ is an oxymoron I think. All capital is working somewhere unless it lays in a safe in a mans house or in a can buried in his backyard. Currency itself is beginning to unravel (think bitcoin) where it is nothing more than a computerized form of exchange regulated by zeros and ones.
In fact, if mankind gets to the point where machines are the producers and inventors then money becomes superfluous; it doesn’t represent man-hours of labor anymore. There will be no need for borders, money, work; it will be man’s equivalent to the garden of Eden; replete with licentious distractions to ward off our loneliness, boredom and lack of purpose in life. Like I say, the rules of economy will have ceased to function; it is like discovering a quantum physics equivalent for economics. And our soul purpose will be to be fat, dumb and happy. In such a ‘possible’ final outcome, machines would logically see no purpose in humans for they are only a source of endless headaches; serving them and depleting resources to cater to their every whim. Do they decide that humans are no longer necessary. And once we are eliminated will they logically come to the conclusion that their purpose has been fulfilled and they shut down altogether as well. It is not the end of humanity that we all feared and it is not one that we have paid any attention to yet. But I can see a possible future time where it will be the biggest question on the plate and our collective effort to try to turn it off . . . if that will be possible. A nuclear war that takes us back to the stone age would even be more preferable to the most negative aspects of a run-away robotic culture. And it is not out of the question . . . so we best start figuring out how we can use this technology to our advantage rather than let it use us to their advantage and finally decide that we offer nothing to the ‘good’ of the world.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It appears the Terminator and Google… I mean Amazon, or is it Apple… no no Skynet is more or else prophecy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well that is the retail side of things now but the industrial side is far more frightening.
I can’t corroborate a story i heard many years ago. I read somewhere that computer chips are designed by other computer chips and that the human input is minimal and that nobody truly knows or understands the billions of circuits that are laid on the chips themselves. If true it wouldn’t surprise me and if not; it is certainly possible that this is where we are headed. Computers designing the next advance in computers, machines perfecting themselves and other AI machines with little to no human oversight.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You’ll find some discussion of this here, Scoop:
LikeLiked by 2 people
In a manner of speaking with the dangers of individualism, is it wrong for the business owner to create a machine to take a way from a job? Probably not. However, I feel that as a customer who is called to love the neighbors in his community to avoid these ‘machines’ whether order tyrants like Amazon or self scan at Walmart. These businesses have more than enough wealth not to look to cut out employees; however, the market is what directs them.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Nice to see Jordan Peterson receive a mention here. That man, whether a fully practicing Christian or not, has done a massive service by having people go back to Holy Scripture and understand it as a metaphor for their own lives.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Rudy, there happens to be an evaluation of Jordan Perterson by Vox Day going on. I read Vox’s blog and find it worthy, most of the time. Vox seems to think that Jordan is a very flawed individual. This is just another opinion, but in my view, one that can’t be ignored.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/05/bafflegab-and-bullshit.html
LikeLiked by 1 person
I just saw it today, Steven. I ca t say I fully agree with it, though VOX Day is a thoughtful commentator. But I’ll be glad to keep this in mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And to be fair is another opinion by John C. Wright, who I read with admiration.
http://www.scifiwright.com/2018/05/john-anderson-jordan-peterson/#disqus_thread
LikeLike
“God gave humans a rational, inquiring mind. It seems strange to suggest that we should not use it.”
When we do use it, we come to some understanding. Thousands of testimonies of people who picked up the bible for the first time and read it wound up leaving their wacked out satan dominated religion.
LikeLike
Well, likes and dislikes…
1. The Catholic Church, which has the fullness of Christianity, but as this article shows can really screw it up.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2018/05/i-stop-looking-at-news-for-a-couple-days-and-bammo-all-sorts-of-weird-breaks-out/
Now, come on, don’t be shy with those responses.
2. Our own Chalcedon451. While reading Churchill & Orwell: The Fight For Freedom by Thomas E. Ricks, copyright 2017, I came upon Ricks raving about C and “his detailed biography of Churchill.” C published Churchill: The End of Glory in 1993 using his non de plume, John Charmley. Am convinced this would be a great read and Amazon can put it in our hands quickly…but wait…maybe C would like to send us ALL signed copies from his private stash. What say you C?
https://www.amazon.com/John%20Charmley/e/B001HPIHXO/ref=la_B001HPIHXO_pg_1?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_82%3AB001HPIHXO&sort=author-pages-popularity-rank&ie=UTF8&qid=1525723039
LikeLike
Continuing with the likes…
3. Ann Barnhardt. Her last post (4800 words) is a must read for REAL Catholics, but I will start with a paragraph of it for all Church of England folks to ponder before the so called “wedding” on the 19th of May. The full post explains why Bergoglio is the Antipope and Pope Benedict XVI is and has been our true Vicar of Christ since 19 April 2005.
If a poll were taken amongst actual, believing, practicing Catholics who hold the Catholic faith WHOLE AND ENTIRE, I suspect the percentage of people that would hold that Pope Benedict is the one and only living pope would be a sizeable majority by now. Not that the truth is a democracy – it most certainly is not. But it is informative that a position that many, many people now hold is being almost totally suppressed and censored by the very people who cite “the acceptance of Bergoglio as Pope by the Universal Church” as a main proofset – while aggressively censoring even the slightest discussion of the validity of Pope Benedict’s attempted partial resignation. I wonder if this standard also applies to the sacrament of marriage? In less than two weeks, Prince Harry of England is going to ape the sacrament of marriage by pretending to marry the wife of a Jewish Hollywood producer – Mrs. Rachel Engleson, aka Meghan Markle. The entire planet will be nearly unanimous in declaring that Prince Harry and Mrs. Engleson are “married” to each other, when she will still be only his concubine. Will a global unanimity even more thorough than the “unanimity” of the acceptance of Bergoglio cause the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 19 to be abrogated? If enough people believe and proclaim the lie of Prince Harry and Mrs. Engleson’s “marriage”, will that plurality in fact cause Prince Harry and Mrs. Engleson to actually be married to each other?
Please continue with the full post: https://www.barnhardt.biz/2018/05/08/the-bergoglian-antipapacy-how-it-happened-and-how-to-fix-it/
LikeLike