1. Yes.....No. If all that is done in the intellect is intellectual, social activity is an intellectual process.

2. Yes.....No. The legal reality of rented privately owned property as it pertains to the earned wage of the worker is an unethical practise because it weighs more to the financial interest of the owner and lessens the interest of the renter.

3. Yes.....No. To own property for personal use weighs more to my favour than the saving of property maintainance when renting private property.

4. Yes....No. As the financial difference of rich and poor grows, the risks of class conflict and estrangment grows.

5. Yes.....No. Class conflict is an anti-social behavior and is undesirable.

6. Yes.....No. The history of the legality of rent has given unfare financial advantage to the most rich.

7. Yes.....No. Anti-social emotions distract from my sense of self-worth or self-value as a social human being.

8. Yes.....No. The financial income of a person should be based upon the seniority and practisable experience of the person rather than the inherited rule of rental law and ownership.

9. Yes.....No. The random (not preregulated nor known) conditions of market income make irrational any attempt to price value the contributions of worker and management alike.

10. Yes.....No. We need a market system which promotes prerationability.

11. Yes.....No. A prerational system would give me more control and assurity, especially if it is a democratic system.

12. Yes.....No. Welfare money spent to rent private property is lossed public revenue.

13. Yes.....No. Welfare money spent for housing rent would be better invested in publicly owned housing.

14. Yes.....No. Rented private property could become public property.

15. Yes.....No. Having a choice between owning property and free usage would be a valuable liberty.

16. Yes.....No. Free usage of public housing would be a benifit for the minimum wage earner.

17. Yes.....No. The choice of changing from free usage to privately owning personal housing would be an incentive to personal responsibility.

18. Yes.....No. Public investment in my property would assist me in times of personal financial hard times because the goverment could carry my mortgage for that time.

19. Yes.....No. The flexabilty of mortgage cost sharing between personal and public revenue would provide people with a greater sense of security.

so,

Condition One: Workers would control the federal income tax through a voting process following these guidelines: Establishing the poverty income line, set that poverty line as untaxable by federal income tax (i.e. federal income tax at that income level and lower would be zero : e.g. in Canada perhaps 17.5K per annum to pay housing, food, electrical power, telephone, entertainment, clothing etc.) In this example, the workers have hypothetically calculated as necessary to meet budgetary requirements, that X for the formulae should be 1. In that example, for each 1K above poverty income added, add X to XK added to poverty income e.g. 17.5 (tax is zero), 17.5K+1K (18.5K) tax at X%, 17.5K+2K tax at 2X%, 17.5K+3K tax at 3X%, etc. In every instance for X, incomes in the scale converge to a predefinite limit, and thus produces and maintains calculable rationability. (note: municipal/county land-tax is continued, provincial/state tax is continued.)Federal income tax is regulated by annual vote. The representitives (elected officials) of the people must present the estimation for projected needs of the nation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Other Todd:
Um, sorry, LR, but did you want me to look at your questionnaire now, or were you waiting for people to show their results or or is something more substantial coming up next or what? Your thread title's a bit confusing . . . .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:
Idiocy

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeftRight:
Why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeftRight:
...social activity is an intellectual process.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:

Because it sounds like some sort of an undergrad exercise with absolutely no connection to reality. I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound harsh.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wellington:

Not my social activity!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:

Because it sounds like some sort of an undergrad exercise with absolutely no connection to reality. I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound harsh.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:

Because it sounds like some sort of an undergrad exercise with absolutely no connection to reality. I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound harsh.

---

quote:

---

From the 'Ethics of
belief' thread: "...and where it is presumption to doubt and to investigate, there it is worse than presumption to believe."

I'm not sure of my interpretation of this last bit. It is worse to doubt and investigate than the presumption to believe? Or a doubt as a belief with insufficient grounds....that must be it. So in other words if you leap to doubt the word of a person you have no grounds for disbelieving, then your doubt is worse than a presumption to believe. The slang word for that is "prejudice".

---