User:Woozle/debate/2013-09-23

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
        • 1.1.1.1.2. it unfairly disadvantages people who aren't good at climbing (e.g. managing money) while still being perfectly good at their jobs.
        • 1.1.1.1.3. 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."
      • 1.1.1.2 (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?
          • 1.1.1.2.2.2 (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.
            • 1.1.1.2.2.2.2 (Woozle) Why would that be so terrible?

• • • 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.
            • 2.1.1.1.2.1.2 (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)
          • 2.1.1.1.2.2 (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)

• 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.
    • 6.1.3 (Woozle) Most people do pay their taxes voluntarily, even if some of them complain about it.
    • 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.

• 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.
        • 7.2.1.1.1.2 Those who favor a large safety net are also strongly against war.
        • 7.2.1.1.1.2 Those who favor a large safety net are also strongly against imperialism.
  • 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?
      • 7.3.1.2 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.

}}