User:Woozle/debate/2013-09-23

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Mapping of some of the more complicated parts of this discussion: {{#tree:

  • 1. (Woozle - main post image)
    • 1.1 It breaks a liberal's heart to think that one person is going without.
      • 1.1.1 (Noel) while [this] correctly represents the liberal's intent, it doesn't correctly represent what really happens. I think this is more appropriate.
        • 1.1.1.1 (Woozle) That metaphor ignores the following:
          • 1.1.1.1.1. Many people simply can't make that climb
            • 1.1.1.1.1.1 (Noel) Most people are capable of climbing. Perhaps they can't climb Kilimanjaro, but they can still climb.
              • 1.1.1.1.1.1.1 (Woozle) That is true, but does not negate the fact that many cannot.
          • 1.1.1.1.2 it unfairly disadvantages people who aren't good at climbing (e.g. managing money) while still being perfectly good at their jobs.
            • 1.1.1.1.2.1 (Noel) I suppose those who cannot manage money properly will have to learn (the way you say they 'cannot' seems to imply they're unable to learn), find someone they trust to manage that money, or will be screwed.
              • 1.1.1.1.2.1.1 (Woozle) Are you denying that there are some people who are simply bad with money, and whose learning efforts would be better spent in other areas?
              • 1.1.1.1.2.1.2 (Woozle) Are you suggesting that "being screwed" is an acceptable outcome for some percentage of the population who, through no fault of their own, don't happen to be good at a particular skill that the current system arbitrarily seems to require?
            • 1.1.1.1.2.2 (Noel) OTOH, a system with an extremely complicated tax code and biased towards inflation further increases the barriers to proper money management.
              • 1.1.1.1.2.2.1 (Woozle) By all means, the tax code should be simplified and collection should be made less of a hostile and combative process.
              • 1.1.1.1.2.2.2 (Woozle) If you mean that the system (not the tax code) is biased toward inflation, then I agree that in the absence of any clear benefits, remedying this would not, in and of itself, be at all a bad thing.
          • 1.1.1.1.2.3 (Noel) why should the environment be crafted for [the sake of those who aren't good at "climbing" (i.e. managing money and other socio-economic skills not directly related to their work)]??
            • 1.1.1.1.2.3.1 (Woozle) - because it's economically inefficient to allow their actual skills to be under-utilized.
            • 1.1.1.1.2.3.2 (Woozle) - because of basic human decency.
            • 1.1.1.1.2.3.3 (Woozle) - because the worth of a civilization is measured by how it treats its least-empowered members.
            • 1.1.1.1.2.3.4 (Woozle) - because, well gee, why don't we just make paraplegics walk up the stairs like everyone else? Why don't we make blind people find a friend to help them cross the street or use an elevator, instead of providing audio cues and Braille labeling and guide dogs? Why don't we fire people whose attention wanders on the job because they have ADD, rather than letting them work in a pattern that best suits them? Why don't we make gay people marry heterosexually if gay sex grosses some people out and disrupts the workplace? Why should we accommodate any of these... deviants?
            • 1.1.1.1.2.3.5 (Woozle) Why should the environment be crafted for the sake of those who are good at "climbing"?
          • 1.1.1.1.3. It's not even accurate; what conservatives are more prone to do is pull up the ladders (calling them "socialism") and tell people to dig their way out. "Give a man a ladder, and you rescue him for a day. Give a man a shovel, and he can rescue himself."
            • 1.1.1.1.3.1 (Noel) Actually, you're right that the image is inaccurate. Rather than extending them a ladder, the free market lowers the ground. When it's low enough, they wouldn't even need a ladder. Again, we've seen this with automobiles, computers, cell phones, energy, and information. We're starting to see this with education.?
              • 1.1.1.1.3.1.1 (Woozle) I don't think you can even remotely justify any claim that conservative policies -- especially as implemented by Republicans, but I'll accept counterexamples that aren't popular with the GOP -- in any sense lower the rim of the hole (or, to use a more popular metaphor, "level the playing field").
              • 1.1.1.1.3.1.1.1 (Woozle) Making technology cheaper does not lower the ground. At best, it throws down a rope, at the same time as they're pulling up the ladder. The set of people who can't pull themselves up a rope is a superset of the people who can't climb the ladder.
        • 1.1.1.2 (Marc Hartstein) A liberal would see food assistance as a rung in the ladder out of the hole, and the rungs offered by the conservatives look a lot like walking away and saying "If we don't interfere, we're giving you the freedom to get yourselves out, somehow. Maybe if you trample each other, some of you will get out of there??
          • 1.1.1.2.1 (Noel) I would say conservatives think the best person to gauge whether a handout will go to good use is the owner of what's being given away. (same as 9. "the owner decides best")
            • 1.1.1.2.1.1 this is a restatement of 1.2.1.1
          • 1.1.1.2.2 (Noel) Many like you think that if one doesn't support the state doing something, one thinks that something ought not be done at all.
            • 1.1.1.2.2.1 (Woozle) No, we just don't think private handouts are adequate. They never have been historically; what has changed?
              • 1.1.1.2.2.1.1 (Noel) Perhaps they haven't been adequate because the state keeps transferring the value of money from the poor to the rich. Maybe we should fix that first. I would say one way to try to fix that is to ween ourselves off of fiat currencies -- support BTC.?
                • 1.1.1.2.2.1.1.1 (Woozle) I don't see how the rate of inflation anytime in the last 50 years or so comes anywhere close to explaining the increasing wealth-gap -- but you're welcome to offer evidence.
                • 1.1.1.2.2.1.1.2 (Woozle) I agree that the state keeps transferring value from the poor to the rich.
                  • 1.1.1.2.2.1.1.2.1 (Woozle) I don't think that inflation is more than a small percentage of this transfer. As argued elsewhere, inflation actually costs the rich far more in sheer dollars than it does the poor, and it has very little effect at all on those who live hand-to-mouth.
                    • 1.1.1.2.2.1.1.2.1.1 (Woozle) ...although I agree it has had a deleterious effect on the value of minimum wage. On the other hand, this could be very easily remedied by pegging the minimum wage to inflation.
                  • 1.1.1.2.2.1.1.2.2 (Woozle) The fact that it does this (transferring wealth upward) is further evidence that the wealthy, not the people, are in control of the government -- that as democratic government is diminished, the powerful gain more control. See #2.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.
                • 1.1.1.2.2.1.1.3 (Woozle) I do support BTC -- although I think its utility for mediating core economic activities has yet to be established.
            • 1.1.1.2.2.2 (Noel) Thinking like this would lead to such things as wanting to support a government-run search engine.
              • 1.1.1.2.2.2.1 (Woozle) That is a non-sequitur.
                • 1.1.1.2.2.2.1.1 (Noel) what I said isn't at all a non-sequitur. Many think that if the state doesn't take money in order to fund something, that something will never happen (assuming that that something even ought to happen).
                  • 1.1.1.2.2.2.1.1.1 (Woozle) That's not something that I or anyone else here asserted. From the standpoint of this discussion, it is a non-sequitur.
              • 1.1.1.2.2.2.2 (Woozle) Why would that be so terrible?
                • 1.1.1.2.2.2.2.1 (Noel) Hmm, why would a government-run search engine be so terrible? I wonder what the NSA could do if they didn't have to coerce or go behind the backs of Google, Facebook, Amazon, Dropbox, etc.?
                  • 1.1.1.2.2.2.2.1.1 (Woozle) Why do you assume that everyone would have to use that search engine?
                  • 1.1.1.2.2.2.2.1.2 (Woozle) Actually, the government has stricter rules against mining of private data that it collects itself than it does against mining of data voluntarily handed over by private companies (which they generally seem entirely happy to do). You could, ironically, probably trust a government-operated search engine with your privacy a lot better than you can trust Facebook or Yahoo.
                • 1.1.1.2.2.2.1.1.1 (Noel) [Marc Hartstein's statement that "A liberal would see food assistance as a rung in the ladder out of the hole" implies that he thinks if the state didn't take money from others, there'd be no such thing as food assistance.]
                  • 1.1.1.2.2.2.1.1.1.1 (Woozle) Incorrect. It implies that he thinks more people would be able to get it if the government guaranteed it, as opposed to the situation if private individuals funded it when they felt like doing so. As I said in 1.1.1.2.2.1 (to which you are supposedly responding here), it's a matter of adequacy, not a matter of whether the program exists at all. One soup-kitchen does not a strong safety-net make.
      • 1.1.2. (Doug Leins) Liberals are like to pat themselves on the back for being generous - unfortunately they're only generous with other people's money.
        • 1.1.2.1 (Woozle) "Tell that to Warren Buffett." In other words, some very rich liberals agree that their own taxes should be higher.
        • 1.1.2.2 (Woozle) You're proving my point. Conservatives will make any excuse they can in order to get out of doing their duty as members of a civilized society.?
      • 1.1.3 (Bill McAdory) Liberals may be true to their desire to help people. Liberal politicians are simply buying votes. Don't be gullible.
        • 1.1.3.1 (Woozle) Several points in defense of Democratic politicians:
          • 1.1.3.1.1 Democratic politicians brought us Obamacare -- which, as much of a bastardized compromise with the plutonomy as it is, is still a crapload better than no reform at all, which is what the Republicans were offering.
          • 1.1.3.1.2 Democratic politicians don't cut the social safety net at every opportunity, while telling us it's for our own good (and thereby insulting our intelligence).
          • 1.1.3.1.3 Democratic politicians don't cut funding for emergency-aid programs, and then demand help from those same programs when there's an emergency in their state.
          • 1.1.3.1.4 Democratic politicians don't cut funding for regulatory agencies, and then demand government assistance to clean up disasters caused by lack of regulation (see West, TX).
          • 1.1.3.1.5 Democratic politicians don't talk endlessly about "small government" and then vote for rules about what people can do in their bedrooms, or about what laws towns and municipalities are allowed to pass, or (with the possible exception of Obama) to take people's land for giant boondoggle projects that are going to further destroy the environment and keep us dependent on fossil fuel right until it runs out.
        • 1.1.3.2 (Woozle) Republican politicians are childish and hypocritical:
          • 1.1.3.2.1 Oh, right, they created Obamacare originally -- back when they were afraid Clinton was going to impose universal healthcare on everyone (the horror!)... but now that we've embraced it as a compromise, they don't want it anymore.
          • 1.1.3.2.2 While calling themselves "fiscally conservative" and supporters of the working person, they raided the Social Security fund -- money paid by workers towards their retirement, and which will now have to be paid back with interest.
        • 1.1.3.3 (Woozle) Republican voters are extremely gullible:
          • 1.1.3.2.1.1 [Even though the GOP originally created Obamacare,] their followers cheer every time they have a meaningless vote to de-fund it.


    • 1.2 It breaks a conservative's heart to think one person is getting something they don't "deserve".
      • 1.2.1 (Noel) It breaks a conservative's heart that property is being taken from its owner.
        • 1.2.1.1 (Noel) The owner is the one who ought to be deciding how that property is used. (same as 9. "the owner decides best")
        • 1.2.1.2 (Woozle) Too many conservatives seem perfectly happy to fund the war machine and the security state, and provide subsidies (and other aid such as the use of eminent domain) for "successful" large corporations. Your stand on this issue may be a principled one, Noel, but I don't think that's true for most conservative voters -- and certainly not conservative politicians.?
  • 2. (Noel) Do you categorize bombing others and destroying local economies as 'fraud'? Perhaps not, but it is still part of the cost of granting the state the power to take others' property.?
    • 2.1 (Woozle) I reject this equivalence. That's like saying that my ownership of a car makes me responsible for a criminal who steals it and runs it into a crowd, killing multiple people. We've discussed this before.?
      • 2.1.1 (Noel) Sticking to your analogy, you support the criminal taking others' cars so long as, from time to time, the criminal does a favor to someone who needs a ride all the while turning a blind eye when that criminal runs into a crowd. OK, perhaps you're not turning a blind eye, but once the criminal has taken another's car, that criminal can do what they want with it -- you no longer have control over what the criminal can do with it.?
        • 2.1.1.1 (Woozle) No. I don't support the criminal taking my car at all.
          • 2.1.1.1.1 I support efforts to prevent anyone from misusing cars to hurt people.
            • 2.1.1.1.1.1 (Noel) So do I, which is why I don't support anyone taking another's money and other property.
          • 2.1.1.1.2 You would argue that cars are bad because some people misuse them -- that government is bad because it is currently being misused.
            • 2.1.1.1.2.1 (Woozle) Your proposal for accomplishing that, as I understand it, is to cut government's funding -- but I believe this would have the opposite effect: the good uses would be cut first, and the bad uses would continue unabated.
              • 2.1.1.1.2.1.1 (Noel) My proposal is to cut non-voluntary government funding and replace it with voluntary government funding, time, etc.
                • 2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 (Woozle) I support that, except there needs to be a system to ensure that an adequate level of funding is contributed. We can't rely on ad hoc donations given solely out of people's sense of obligation to society, as has been proven repeatedly.
                  • 2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1 (Noel) I might support that as a step to clean out the system. Let's say the mandatory contribution is X%. Can the money be earmarked towards certain projects, programs, etc? Who chooses the set of projects, programs, etc qualified for donation??
                    • 2.1.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1 (Woozle) (We might actually be getting somewhere with this line of discussion; those are good questions.) My preference is for the funds (and the contribution rate) to be decided by some form of liquid democracy. I have a preferred design for that, but I wouldn't necessarily reject other variations. The key element is that the system must minimize any concentrations of power, because that is where the abuse happens.
              • 2.1.1.1.2.1.2 (Noel) If they're good uses, why would people not contribute to them voluntarily? Or are you defining 'good' as something that you define as good regardless of how others feel about it??
                • 2.1.1.1.2.1.2.1 (Woozle) Because the majority of people would not be in control, obviously; as democratic government is diminished, society tends toward rule by the most powerful. (see 3.1.1)
                  • 2.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1 (Noel) If the majority of people decide to enslave a minority of people, that would be OK??
                    • 2.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1 (Woozle) No, of course not -- but are you proposing that things would be any better in a society controlled by only a few? I believe the historical and contemporary evidence is that it would be considerably worse. Democracy tends toward universal freedom, even if it takes its sweet time getting there.
                    • 2.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.2 (Woozle) Also, this is something I keep asking: do we have any real evidence regarding what the majority thought about slavery, during the time when it was legal? Especially if you count the votes of the slaves, and the votes of those in non-slaveholding states? Democracy works best when it's universal.
            • 2.1.1.1.2.2 (Noel) Not at all -- which is why I support gun ownership rights. What I would argue is that initiation of force itself is bad which is why the state, not governance, is bad.
          • 2.1.1.1.3 (Woozle) I support efforts to prevent those bad uses of government.
            • 2.1.1.1.3.1 (Noel) Then you support voluntary governance and would want to eliminate a non-voluntary state?
  • 3. this point has been moved to 7.3
  • 4. this point has been moved to 10.1
  • 5. (Woozle) Liberals only ally with democrats because there is no other real choice. The dems may be corrupt, but the GOP is fracking insane.
    • 5.1 (Noel) Why are there only two choices in this game? Why can't we opt out of playing the game in the first place??
      • 5.1.1 (Woozle) The short version is: the voting system we use prevents third parties from gaining any significant share of the voting market. (see good cop/bad cop politics)
        • 5.1.1.1 (Noel) Why can't we opt out of playing the game in the first place??
          • 5.1.1.1.1 (Woozle) Could you be more specific? I'm not sure which specific parts of reality you mean by "the game" in this context. Do you mean "not vote", or "not advocate for one of the major parties / advocate for third party candidates", or what?
  • 6.(Noel) Taxation is theft. (collection point for all such arguments)
    • 6.1 (Noel) It's interesting how so many people think tax avoidance is a bad thing. If some entity were trying to take your money, wouldn't you try to avoid that? If you wouldn't, why not simply voluntarily give your money to that entity?
      • 6.1.1 (Woozle) Becoming wealthy in a society gives society the right to reclaim some of that wealth as needed.
      • 6.1.2 (Woozle) Those with the most money to spare are the most inclined and able to find ways of bending the rules to their advantage. This represents a significant loss to society, and very little loss to the individuals.
        • 6.1.2.1 (Noel) This is true only because people grant the state a monopoly on authority. Without the state, those with the most money will have to use their own resources for their own gain.
          • 6.1.2.1.1 (Woozle) You are suggesting that money cannot be coercively. I submit that most of human history suggests that this is quite far from being the case.
        • 6.1.2.2 (Noel) Without the state those with the most money to spare will be the ones most inclined to donate or loan the money. Money is just like any other commodity. The more excess (as defined by the owner) one has of it, the less value it will have to one.
          • 6.1.2.2.1 (Woozle) Then why are the rich fighting so hard against taxation? I challenge you to find evidence for your assertion.
      • 6.1.3 (Woozle) Most people do pay their taxes voluntarily, even if some of them complain about it.
        • 6.1.3.1 (Noel) You'll need to define 'voluntarily' here especially in light of examples like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff.
          • 6.1.3.1.1 (Woozle) By "voluntarily", I mean that most people do not object to the payment of taxes in principle, even as much as they dislike the personal loss and may disagree with the coercive nature of IRS's tax-collection methods, because they understand the value of collective action and the greater benefit everyone receives from higher levels of participation.
      • 6.1.4 The tax-collection system could easily be made much less onerous; many of the ways in which it operates seem designed to frustrate and upset.
        • 6.1.4.1 (Noel) The tax system grew out organically because two or more sides wanted representation of their views and there was lots of compromise. Having said that, each tax legislation is engineered to represent these opposing views. For example, what would you say about a NIT and elimination of all welfare, etc programs? I'm guessing you'll worry about some people not knowing how to handle their piece of the handout.?
          • 6.1.4.1.1 (Woozle) I'm not sure what you mean about the tax system's organic growth and compromise, but I've already reacted positively to NIT; see #7.3.2.1.2.1.1.
  • 7. (omnibus) Big government bad, small government good.
    • 7.1 (Sam Stutter) Big government works incredibly well in the scandinavian countries.
      • 7.1.1 (Noel) Is that why we're having this conversation hosted by a Scandinavian country?
        • 7.1.1.1 (Woozle) We could just as easily be; Facebook is hosted in Norway.
    • 7.2 (Sam Stutter) Big government helped the UK escape the financial hole after WW2 and maintained full employment.
      • 7.2.1 (Noel) Big government is what caused WWII.
        • 7.2.1.1 (Woozle) The specific aspects of "big government" that allowed WWII to happen were imperialism and dictatorship.
          • 7.2.1.1.1 This is an example of why the phrase "big government" is a red herring; it is used to conflate the good manifestations of government with those that are clearly bad.
          • 7.2.1.1.1.1 Those who favor a large safety net also strongly favor democracy.
            • 7.2.1.1.1.1.1 (Noel) Right, democracy in which the majority get to dictate the minority.
              • 7.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 (Woozle) You would rather have it the other way around? See #2.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.1.
          • 7.2.1.1.1.2 Those who favor a large safety net are also strongly against war.
            • 7.2.1.1.1.2.1 (Noel) Does Obama favor a large safety net? Was he pushing for war in Syria?
              • 7.2.1.1.1.2.1.1 (Woozle) Obama hardly represents the position I'm speaking of here; he is at best a centrist, who has tolerated some cutting of the safety net and might be seen advocating against any further cuts. I don't think he seriously wants a larger one.
              • 7.2.1.1.1.2.1.2 (Woozle) ...but perhaps a better way to phrase my point would have been "A large safety net does not require war, and those who favor the former are generally strongly against the latter."
          • 7.2.1.1.1.2 Those who favor a large safety net are also strongly against imperialism.
        • 7.2.1.1.1 (Noel) The specific aspect of "big government" that allowed Jim Crow Laws and the Fugitive Slave Act was 'democracy'.
          • 7.2.1.1.1.1 (Woozle) This is pretty much the same argument as #2.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1.
          • 7.2.1.1.1.2 (Noel) I would even say that the term 'government' itself is a red herring; it is used to conflate the good manifestations, governance, with those that are clearly bad, state.
            • 7.2.1.1.1.2.1. (Woozle) Okay, I think I can accept that. You seem to be agreeing that "governance" is necessary, while "the state" -- which I take to mean that which is hierarchical and/or coercive -- is the problem. Is that correct?
    • 7.3 (Bill McAdory) Big Government is not the route to a successful Nation.
      • 7.3.1 (Woozle) What, exactly, do we mean by "big" vs. "small"? Are we talking dollars, number of government employees, or what?
        • 7.3.1.1 If we're talking dollars: the less powerful the government is, the more powerful the special interests are.
          • 7.3.1.1.1 (Noel) I disagree. The more powerful the state, the more those most influential over it gain at the expense of those with less influence.
            • 7.3.1.1.1.1 (Woozle) There are numerous counterexamples to your assertion; see 7.1, 7.2
              • 7.3.1.1.1.1.1 Even in less-benevolent but very powerful governments such as China, special interests do not seem to have a dominant role.
              • 7.3.1.1.1.1.2 Are there even any good examples to illustrate your claim?
          • 7.3.1.1.2: (Noel) This is an assertion. The truth is that the most influential over the state gain the most benefits and do so at the expense of those with less influence.?
            • 7.3.1.1.2.2: (Woozle) This is a restatement of your assertion #7.3.1.1.1
            • 7.3.1.1.2.3: (Woozle) How does your assertion contradict my statement that "the less powerful the government is, the more powerful the special interests are [proportionally]*"? (*added for clarity)
        • 7.3.1.2 If your ultimate goal is no government, see 8.
      • 7.3.2 (Bill McAdory) It is the opposite. It is a drain on the economy.
        • 7.3.2.1 (Woozle) The benefits it provides -- when it is working properly -- far outweigh the drain.
          • 7.3.2.1.1 (Woozle) Conservatives generally want to replace income tax with sales tax -- that would definitely be more of a drain, as more of the burden would shift to those with less to spare (even with a "prebate").
          • 7.3.2.1.2 (Woozle) If you want less economic drain, you should support a steeply progressive tax, which only takes from those who have the greatest surplus.
            • 7.3.2.1.2.1 (Noel) I would support, as a gigantic first step, a Negative Income Tax. This would also mean eliminating all welfare and social programs and trusting those receiving the benefits of NIT to use that money as they see fit.
              • 7.3.2.1.2.1.1 (Woozle) That sounds fine to me. Eliminate means testing and ensure that everyone has an adequate income. How is this any different from what I have been advocating?
          • 7.3.2.1.3 (Noel) 'Working properly' is subjective. I'm sure those most influential over the state thinks things are working just fine.
            • 7.3.2.1.3.1 (Woozle) Those interests are generally hostile to our own. Of course they disagree with us. You are attempting to use the views of a hostile entity to support your position, a violation of the principle of audience benefit.
      • 7.3.3 (Bill McAdory) It does not create jobs for everyone, which would make government handouts unnecessary.
        • 7.3.3.1 (Woozle interpretation) In other words:
          • 7.3.3.1.1 (interp.) If government created jobs for everyone, it wouldn't need to give them money directly.
            • 7.3.3.1.1.1 (Woozle) Conservatives are constantly claiming (erroneously) that government cannot create jobs -- and therefore scuttling efforts to allow the government to do so.
          • 7.3.3.1.2 (interp.) Because government isn't creating jobs, it therefore it shouldn't exist.
            • 7.3.3.1.2.1 (Woozle) Show me where a lack of government in a highly technological society has ever resulted in a situation where everyone had enough to live on.
              • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1 (Noel) I think this is such a BS question.
                • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.1 (Woozle) It is nonetheless a question which I and others who hold my position consider to be of vital interest. If you wish to convince us of your position, you will need to either answer it or show how it is irrelevant.
                • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.2 (Noel) We could go back to prior to the Civil War and ask for an example of a highly functioning society not using slave labor (the Northern States don't count since they still received benefits from the cheap goods made by slave labor).
                  • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.2.1 (Woozle) I don't think that can be used as an example of a highly technological society. The specific disqualifier is a high level of human labor required in order for society to function.
                • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.3 (Noel) The fact is that free markets generally drive prices down. This makes things much more affordable to wider populations. This is what made automobiles, computers, etc ubiquitous. But you think food is somehow different?
                  • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.3.1 (Woozle) You're conflating free-as-in-equal with free-as-in-unregulated here.
                    • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.3.1.1 I agree that free-as-in-equal markets drive prosperity.
                      • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.3.1.1 Regulation is necessary in order to maintain such a market.
                    • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.3.1.2 I disagree that free-as-in-unregulated markets drive prosperity except for the "top dogs".
                • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.4 (Noel) OTOH, the state biases the economy towards inflation which transfers wealth from the poor to the rich. I think we've had this conversation before but I'm willing to repeat it for those who haven't heard it before.
                  • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.4.1 (Woozle) That is only how our state biases the economy.
                    • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.4.1 (Woozle) Although I don't necessarily approve of this, an argument could be made that printing money to pay for universal welfare would be both a sustainable economic model and a non-coercive means of funding.


  • 8. (omnibus) No government at all would be best.
    • 8.1 (John Poteet) Here is your freedom without government: You can own everything you can carry at a dead run. Anything any other group is strong enough to take from you is not yours. If you join a self-protection group i.e., a tribe, you are participating in government and the tribe has the right to claim all of your possessions.
  • 9. (Noel - paraphrase) The owner of a contribution will make the best decision about how to use that contribution.
    • 9.1 (Woozle) That's backwards.
      • 9.1.1 The (former) owner may or may not know anything about the needs of the recipient, while the recipient generally does.
      • 9.1.2 The (former) owner's priorities may be different from those of the recipient and/or society at large.
  • 10. (omnibus) Government bad, period.
    • 10.1 (Bill McAdory) I for one do not want to be owned or a slave of the government. I cherish freedom above all else.
      • 10.1.1 (Woozle) Nor I. This is why I support the existence of democratic government.
        • 10.1.1.1 (Woozle) The A government for/by the people is the only entity whose responsibilities include the well-being of every citizen. In its absence, we would be subject to the rule of the most powerful.
          • 10.1.1.1.1 (Woozle) We are already seeing large steps in this direction, with the deregulation of the financial sector and the removal of caps on political contributions (Citizens United) -- the plutocrats all but control the government, and the voice of the people is essentially absent from the decisionmaking process.
          • 10.1.1.1.2 (Woozle) I'm still waiting for the capitalist paradise of universal living-wage employment to materialize. Funny, things seem to be going the other way, even...
            • 10.1.1.1.2.1 (Noel) see "Silver and the Minimum Wage". (Main point seems to be that if inflation weren't such a constant problem, minimum wage would currently be at a reasonable level. -W.) Also note that over the last 30 years, the dollar has devalued 40%, IIRC.
              • 10.1.1.1.2.1.1 (Woozle) Even a reasonable minimum wage would not solve the problem when automation is causing increasing permanent unemployment. (See jobsolescence.)
              • 10.1.1.1.2.1.2 (Noel) I'm starting to think the problem here is that people don't really understand what a dollar is. They think more of it is necessarily a good thing since they don't really grok that, due to the state's bias towards inflation, a dollar tomorrow isn't the same as a dollar today. All the while they think they're making more (because they're getting more dollars) but they're really making less (because the purchasing power of those dollars is much less). In other words, the powers-that-be are taking advantage of a psychological trick. The way not to fall for this is to use rationality and mathematics. (My interpretation: people think that printing more money will make them better off, when in fact it increases inflation which makes everyone less well-off. -W.)
                • 10.1.1.1.2.1.2.1 (Woozle) To what claim does this respond? It seems like a tangent. I'm not arguing for printing more money within this context. The only place where I'm willing to defend that activity is in the hypothetical scenario where it is used as a substitute for coercive taxation, with a strong safety-net as a high funding priority -- see 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.4.1
              • 10.1.1.1.2.1.3 (Noel) Part of this is seeing what benefits the state is handing out to, say, the poor, but not really factoring in what it's taking from the poor. As I've said in another discussion, the poor gets scraps and bones and continue to feed the growing monster.?
                • 10.1.1.1.2.1.3.1 (Woozle) When you argue that the rich should not in any way be obliged to pay taxes, you seem to be arguing that more should be taken from the poor. The only explanation I can see is that this statement is faux sympathy -- a purely emotional soldier argument.
          • 10.1.1.1.3 (Woozle) Less government [generally] means less freedom. I left off the "generally" in the original discussion for emphasis and to keep the statement simple; clarification below. -W
            • 10.1.1.1.3.1 Although some areas of government are repressive, it is the benevolent ones that tend to get cut first when there is a budget crisis -- because when government is weak/underfunded, powerful interests -- which tend to favor their own benefit over the common good -- have proportionately more power over it.
          • 10.1.1.1.4 (Woozle - breakdown) A government for/by the people is the only entity whose responsibilities include the well-being of every citizen.
            • 10.1.1.1.4.1 (Noel) This is in theory.
            • 10.1.1.1.4.1.1 (Woozle) Agreed that few governments do this well, but no other type of organization even attempts it.
              • 10.1.1.1.4.1.1.1 (Woozle) A valid counterexample would be any non-governmental entity whose responsibilities include the well-being of every citizen (where "citizen" can be broadly defined, in this context, as every member equally, i.e. without regard to that member's financial resources)
            • 10.1.1.1.4.1.2 (Woozle) To the extent that a government does not accept or adhere to this mission, then it is not for/by the people.
          • 10.1.1.1.5 (Woozle - breakdown) In its absence, we would be subject to the rule of the most powerful.
            • 10.1.1.1.5.1 (Noel) This is in practice. The difference between theory and practice is that, in theory, theory and practice are the same...
              • 10.1.1.1.5.1.1 (Woozle) This is a non-argument.
  • 11. (Woozle) I see liberals accepting a great deal of responsibility, and conservatives largely shucking it off.
    • 11.1 (Noel) I think it's quite the opposite.
      • 11.1.1 (Noel) Liberals aim to spread forcibly the responsibility to everyone while conservatives aim to have people choose to take it on themselves.
        • 11.1.1.1 (Woozle) Phrased that way, you make it sound like a bad thing -- but yes, I think this accurately represents both sides. Conservatives refuse to accept responsibility for the well-being of others.
        • 11.1.1.2 (Noel) For example, not that I consider myself as 'conservative' (I am on the fiscal dimension but not on the social dimension), I'm volunteering to teach basic engineering to elementary school kids. That's something I think conservatives would support. But liberals would rather take money from others in order to fund such a project. (BTW, there're almost 20 of us volunteering in this group and over 80 students registered).?
          • 11.1.1.3 (Woozle) That's a misrepresentation of the liberal -- or at least of my -- position. If such programs were adequate to the task of providing universal education, then I would see no need for anything else.
              • 11.1.1.3.1 (Woozle) Such programs are, unfortunately, too few and too far between. They leave too many kids improperly educated. A free society needs universal education, not patchwork.
              • 11.1.1.3.2 (Woozle) Note that I am saying "too few", not "insufficiently governmental". I think it's great that such programs exist at all -- but I think it sucks that so many kids will not be able to learn engineering. (see 1.1)
      • 11.1.2 (Woozle) Leaving people to take responsibility for themselves, unaided, is equivalent to not taking responsibility for them. Your statement is synonymous with mine.
  • 12. (Woozle) If anyone is forecasting the bankruptcy of SSI, it's because the government borrowed so damn much from it.
    • 12.1 (Noel) Once the state takes our money, it decides how it is used.
      • 12.1.1 (Woozle) That is only true when the government is not for/by the people. I support government for/by the people and oppose other kinds. See 10.1.1.
    • 12.2 (Noel) Does voting conservative or liberal change whether the state is 'borrowing' so much from the SSI fund??
      • 12.2.1 (Woozle) If the voting was (a) well-informed and (b) accurately representative of the people's will, then yes, it would.
        • 12.2.1.1 (Woozle) As I understand it, the borrowing has largely been initiated by self-described conservatives (aka Republicans).
          • 12.2.1.1.1 (Woozle) I've added this (as #1.1.3.2.2) to the list of Republican hypocrisies.
        • 12.2.1.2 (Woozle) Regardless of which political party is responsible for it, I don't think the majority would approve of the borrowing if they knew about it.
  • 13. (omnibus) Printing money is bad.
    • 13.1 (Grizwald Grim) If you run out of money, just have the Fed print some and buy the mortgage backed sec... nevermind.? (My interpretation: people who print more money will use it foolishly. -W.)
      • 13.1.1 (Woozle) How about requiring that the people who sold those mortgage-backed securities and other "structured investment vehicles" in the first place buy them back at the original selling price. If they can't afford to buy them all back, then we'll loan them the difference at 22% interest. Turnabout is fair play.? (In other words: if MBS are an example of foolish spending, how about we point the finger at the people who sold them in the first place?)
        • 13.1.1.1 (Noel) No such requirement is needed. All that was needed was for the state not to have bailed out the banks that made poor decisions. (My interpretation: The state rewarded them, so it's the state's fault. -W.)
          • 13.1.1.1.1 (Woozle) I agree that the banks should not have been bailed out. I don't agree that this was an act of a genuinely democratic government.
          • 13.1.1.1.2 (Woozle) Related issue, not part of main point: This is another example of negative consequences from the wishes of big business overriding the interests of a legitimate democratic government; see #10.1.1.1.1.
        • 13.1.1.2 (Noel) Also note that the banks weren't doing much more wrong than what they're currently doing with money -- Fractional Reserve Banking. Let that sink in.?
        • 13.1.1.2.1 (Woozle) I agree that the idea and extent of fractional reserve banking should be reconsidered. What are the costs and benefits?
  • 14. (omnibus) Socialism is bad.
    • 14.1 (Bill McAdory) When defining socialism as government ownership of the means of production, ostensibly as a proxy for the citizens, then socialism fails over time.
      • 14.1.1 (Woozle) Tell that to the employee-owners of the Mondragon Corporation, who continued to make a profit during Spain's worst recession ever -- and the inhabitants of the company town, where there is no poverty. Tell that to the employees of any of the many thousands of profitable employee-owned companies and worker-self-directed enterprises in the US and across the world.
      • 14.1.2 (Woozle) I submit that your ideas and beliefs about "socialism" are largely shaped by erroneous and misleading consumerist propaganda.
        • 14.1.2.1 (Woozle) Evidence for this includes:
          • 14.1.2.1.1 - your belief that "socialism depends on coercion and the stripping away of freedom in order to exist in its varied guises." This is exactly the opposite of the truth; socialism enables workers to take control of their working environment, and gives them considerably more freedom.
          • 14.1.2.1.2 - your belief that "socialism is government ownership of the means of production". This is incorrect; that is communism. Socialism is worker ownership of the means of production.
          • 14.1.2.1.3 - your belief that socialism has never succeeded over the long run. See #14.1.1.
  • 15. (Bill McAdory) With all the effort, have we come any closer to solving hunger? If all we needed was money, we would have solved the problem. The simplistic notion of take money, spend money and problem solved has proven ineffective. It is far more complex.
    • 15.1 (Woozle) The money has been mis-spent in ways too numerous to count. It should have been given directly to those who needed it.
    • 15.2 (Noel) I agree with +Bill McAdory . When, for example, modern technologies were used to reduce the infant mortality rate in third-world countries, their populations exploded creating many more people that needed to be fed.
      • 15.2.1 (Woozle) My understanding is that this has not generally been the case, and that rising standards of living -- especially if education is included, especially sex education -- most commonly lead to a sharp decline in birthrate.
      • 15.2.2 (John Poteet) That's simply nuts. There are other countries where nobody goes hungry. Why? They provide sufficient social support for people to have housing and still buy food. For those people who for whatever health problem they have cannot prepare meals they bring such people meals, provide vouchers or funds for prepared food purchases or provide food at feeding centers. You can pretend all you want to that money doesn't solve problems but if that's the case I don't see why you would object to taxation. If money won't solve your problems you shouldn't miss any of it if it's gone. ?

}}

to be entered

Bill McAdory +Woozle Hypertwin That is hilarious. So the person to gauge whether a hand out is, is the person receiving the confiscated thing? (money)?

Bill McAdory +Woozle Hypertwin Oh shock and dismay. You mean humanitarian liberals do not give enough and they need to rely on governement to "confiscate" the difference? Do you look at your pay stub and say to others Damn, I did not pay enough taxes again!?

  • 6.1 (Noel) It's interesting how so many people think tax avoidance is a bad thing. If some entity were trying to take your money, wouldn't you try to avoid that? If you wouldn't, why not simply voluntarily give your money to that entity?
    • 6.1.1 (Woozle) Becoming wealthy in a society gives society the right to reclaim some of that wealth as needed for its proper functioning.
  • 6.1.1.1 (Noel) Why? Do you claim that 95% of the world has the right to reclaim 'some' of your wealth as needed for their proper functioning?
  • 6.1.1.2 (Noel) Who defines 'some'?
    • 6.1.2 (Woozle) Those with the most money to spare are the most inclined and able to find ways of bending the rules to their advantage. This represents a significant loss to society, and very little loss to the individuals.
  • 6.1.2.1 (Noel) This is true only because people grant the state a monopoly on authority. Without the state, those with the most money will have to use their own resources for their own gain.
  • 6.1.2.2 (Noel) Without the state those with the most money to spare will be the ones most inclined to donate or loan the money. Money is just like any other commodity. The more excess (as defined by the owner) one has of it, the less value it will have to one.
    • 6.1.3 (Woozle) Most people do pay their taxes voluntarily, even if many of them complain about it.
  • 6.1.3.1 (Noel) You'll need to define 'voluntarily' here especially in light of examples like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff.
    • 6.1.3 (Woozle) The tax-collection system could easily be made much less onerous; many of the ways in which it operates seem designed to frustrate and upset.?
  • 6.1.3.1 (Noel) The tax system grew out organically because two or more sides wanted representation of their views and there was lots of compromise. Having said that, each tax legislation is engineered to represent these opposing views. For example, what would you say about a NIT and elimination of all welfare, etc programs? I'm guessing you'll worry about some people not knowing how to handle their piece of the handout.?
    • 3.1.1.1 (Noel) I disagree. The more powerful the state, the more those most influential over it gain at the expense of those with less influence.
  • 3.1.1.1.1 (Woozle) There are numerous counterexamples to your assertion; see 7.1, 7.2.
    • 3.1.1.1.1.1 (Noel) Actually, 7.1 and 7.2 are examples supporting what I said. In Scandinavian countries, the group that's most influential is different from the most influential group in other countries. All people like you want is to be among the elite with the influence.
    • 3.1.1.1.1.1 (Woozle) Even in less-benevolent but very powerful governments such as China, special interests do not seem to have a dominant role.
  • 3.1.1.1.1.1 (Noel) Huh? The Communist party itself is the most influential. I recently saw an article showing just how rich Chinese politicians are.
    • 3.1.1.1.1.2 (Woozle) Are there even any good examples to illustrate your claim??
  • 3.1.1.1.1.2.1 (Noel) You provided them. Thanks.?
  • 7.3.2.1.3 (Noel) 'Working properly' is subjective. I'm sure those most influential over the state thinks things are working just fine.
    • 7.3.2.1.3.1 (Woozle) Those interests are generally hostile to our own. Of course they disagree with us. You are attempting to use the views of a hostile entity to support your position -- a violation of the principle of audience benefit:

http://issuepedia.org/Principle_of_audience_benefit?

  • 7.3.2.1.3.1.1 (Noel) And your interests are hostile to theirs. Are you suggesting that, for some objective reason, your interests ought to trump theirs??
  • 10.1.1.1.2 (Woozle) I'm still waiting for the capitalist paradise of universal living-wage employment to materialize. Funny, things seem to be going the other way, even...
    • 10.1.1.1.2.1 (Noel) see http://www.24hgold.com/english/contributor.aspx?article=4274825802G10020&contributor=Tim+Iacono - "Silver and the Minimum Wage". (Main point seems to be that if inflation weren't such a constant problem, minimum wage would currently be at a reasonable level. -W.) Also note that over the last 30 years, the dollar has devalued 40%, IIRC.
      • 10.1.1.1.2.1.1 (Woozle) Even a reasonable minimum wage would not solve the problem when automation is causing increasing permanent unemployment. (See #jobsolescence.)
    • 10.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 (Noel) First you bring up universal living-wage employment. Then, when I provide an answer you can't dispute, you change the topic.
    • 10.1.1.1.2.1.1.2 (Noel) Anyway, WRT #jobsolescence , yes, jobs disappear. That's part of efficiency. In fact, elimination of work is part of the point goal itself (eg we trade in order to gain from division of labor so that we may have more time to do the things we want to do).
    • 10.1.1.1.2.1.1.3 (Noel) Now, since jobs disappear due to efficiency gains, and one might not like the fact that jobs disappear, one might want to work towards greater inefficiency. One way to achieve such inefficiencies is to eliminate technological advances. Lots of jobs would be created, for example, if automobiles were eliminated (imagine all the horse manure that would need to be cleaned up, horseshoes that would have to be made, etc).
      • 10.1.1.1.2.1.2 (Noel) I'm starting to think the problem here is that people don't really understand what a dollar is. They think more of it is necessarily a good thing since they don't really grok that, due to the state's bias towards inflation, a dollar tomorrow isn't the same as a dollar today. All the while they think they're making more (because they're getting more dollars) but they're really making less (because the purchasing power of those dollars is much less). In other words, the powers-that-be are taking advantage of a psychological trick. The way not to fall for this is to use rationality and mathematics. (My interpretation: people think that printing more money will make them better off, when in fact it increases inflation which makes everyone less well-off. -W.)
        • 10.1.1.1.2.1.2.1 (Woozle) To what claim does this respond?
      • 10.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1 (Noel) It's not a response to any claim per se. Rather, it's a response to the notion that 'more' is necessarily better when it comes to money -- the belief, usually internalized, that $1.05 next year is necessarily better than $1 today. This internalized belief is implied in discussions about minimum wage, money distribution, subsidies, etc. It's also implied when people don't even consider mentioning things like increased 'purchasing power' such that $1.05 last year may actually be worth less than $1 today.
        • 10.1.1.1.2.1.3.1 (Woozle) When you argue that the rich should not in any way be obliged to pay taxes, you seem to be arguing that more should be taken from the poor. The only explanation I can see is that this statement is faux sympathy -- a purely emotional soldier argument.?
      • 10.1.1.1.2.1.3.1.1 (Noel) First, 'pay taxes' is a misnomer -- rather, the money is taken from people. I want to point that out to demonstrate just how internalized the notion is to you.
      • 10.1.1.1.2.1.3.1.2 (Noel) I don't see how you draw the conclusion that if the 'rich' aren't obligated to 'pay taxes', more should be taken from the poor. Again, free markets are what made automobiles, computers, etc more widely available, accessible, and affordable to the masses. You seem not to see just how much the poor have gained from the rich.
      • 10.1.1.1.2.1.3.1.3 (Noel) I have no idea what you mean by 'faux sympathy'. I thought it's been clear that my arguments are based on the Non-Aggression Principle and that it ought to apply to everyone equally.
      • 10.1.1.1.2.1.3.1.4 (Noel) And if you're talking about emotional arguments, you need only look at your own.?
    • 7.3.2.1.2.1 (Noel) I would support, as a gigantic first step, a Negative Income Tax. This would also mean eliminating all welfare and social programs and trusting those receiving the benefits of NIT to use that money as they see fit.
      • 7.3.2.1.2.1.1 (Woozle) That sounds fine to me. Eliminate means testing and ensure that everyone has an adequate income. How is this any different from what I have been advocating??
    • 7.3.2.1.2.1.1.1 (Noel) Define 'adequate'.
    • 7.3.2.1.2.1.1.2 (Noel) I also think we differ in where to stop. I advocated the NIT as a first step. The goal is to drive down the tax rate to 0%.?
    • 7.3.3.1.2.1 (Woozle) Show me where a lack of government in a highly technological society has ever resulted in a situation where everyone had enough to live on.
      • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1 (Noel) I think this is such a BS question.
        • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.1 (Woozle) It is nonetheless a question which I and others who hold my position consider to be of vital interest. If you wish to convince us of your position, you will need to either answer it or show how it is irrelevant.
    • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.1.1 (Noel) I think I had demonstrated why it's BS. See 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.2.
        • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.2 (Noel) We could go back to prior to the Civil War and ask for an example of a highly functioning society not using slave labor (the Northern States don't count since they still received benefits from the cheap goods made by slave labor).
          • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.2.1 (Woozle) I don't think that can be used as an example of a highly technological society. The specific disqualifier is a high level of human labor required in order for society to function.
        • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.2.1.1 (Noel) Ah, so if we went forward 100 years, you'd still use the same disqualifier since the definition of 'highly technological society' will have changed.
        • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.2.1.2 (Noel) Suppose I requested, "Show me where a lack of religion in a highly technological society has ever resulted in a situation where there was no killing, stealing, etc." Why is that not a BS question?
        • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.2.1.3 (Noel) Show me where the existence of a highly technological society has resulted in a situation where everyone had enough to live on. What are the opportunity costs in that society? Do they gain advantages from societies that create such things like Google, cell phones, the Internet, etc? If so, how are you so sure the wealth they gain from these things along with their government isn't responsible for everyone having enough to live on? IOW, if the rest of the world adopted their government, where would the wealth be generated which sustained everyone in their country having enough to live on?
        • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.3 (Noel) The fact is that free markets generally drive prices down. This makes things much more affordable to wider populations. This is what made automobiles, computers, etc ubiquitous. But you think food is somehow different?
          • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.3.1 (Woozle) You're conflating free-as-in-equal with free-as-in-unregulated here.
            • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.3.1.1 I agree that free-as-in-equal markets drive prosperity.
              • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.3.1.1 Regulation is necessary in order to maintain such a market.
            • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.3.1.1.1 (Noel) This is an false assertion. Regulation wasn't what drove the price of automobiles, computers, etc down. Advances in efficiency is what drove down the prices.
            • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.3.1.2 (Woozle) I disagree that free-as-in-unregulated markets drive prosperity except for the "top dogs".
          • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.3.1.2.1 (Noel) Disagree all you want but it's not going to change the fact that you have a computer because prices were driven down unless you consider yourself to be a top dog.
        • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.4 (Noel) OTOH, the state biases the economy towards inflation which transfers wealth from the poor to the rich. I think we've had this conversation before but I'm willing to repeat it for those who haven't heard it before.
          • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.4.1 (Woozle) That is only how our state biases the economy.
        • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.4.1.1 (Noel) Any state with a central bank will aim to control the economy. Can you name one state with a central bank that doesn't bias their economy towards inflation? What would be the purpose of a central bank if it doesn't aim to control the economy?
            • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.4.1 (Woozle) Although I don't necessarily approve of this, an argument could be made that printing money to pay for universal welfare would be both a sustainable economic model and a non-coercive means of funding.?
          • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.4.1.1 (Noel) One could argue it but such an argument is still flawed in that wealth is taken from those who hold money. If the new money is handed to the poor, those losing out would be the middle class (the rich would hold onto non-cash assets). I'm sure you know what happens when the middle class is eroded.
            • 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.4.2 (Noel) Further, inflation still creates incentives to spend rather than to save. My guess is that you would be against a consumerist society, but that's exactly what you'd be creating.?

Objections to What about Africa have been noted in What about Africa/debate.

Retrieved from "https://issuepedia.org/mw/index.php?title=User:Woozle/debate/2013-09-23&oldid=32216"