You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Proof that liberals are illogical
Liberals want everyone to have a great life. For example, if you get sick, someone should pay for your health care. If you are unemployed, someone should pay you welfare. The list goes on and on but you get the idea.
So, for this scheme to work, someone has to pay for these benefits and the only way you can get people to pay for these benefits is if there are a hell of a lot more people with money than people without money or if one person has ALL the money. But even if you took ALL the money in the world and divided it equally among everybody, eventually you would still end up with a group of poor people and a group of rich people. So why bother?
Now, as liberals have been telling us for quite some time now, there are a hell of a lot more poor people than rich people. So, eventually you would be forced to take at least some of the money from the poor people in order to give it to people wo are even poorer. Unless, of course, you increase the population in order to have more people that you can tax. But liberals are for abortion!!! But even if they were against abortion, the more people there are, the less jobs there are and the lower the wages (supply and demand) and the higher the number of people looking for a handout.
Another way to make it work is to get more people to go to work so that they can get taxed. But who the hell wants to work when they can just get a handout?
It just doesn't make any sense. But liberals act like they are the intellectuals and everyone else is a red neck even though it is clear to see that liberals lack common sense.
In order for liberal ideas to work, someone has to be forced to fund their programs...., and if you noticed, the word fund begins with the letters F U!!! Why should anyone be forced to do something they do not want to do? When you are born, the world doesn't owe you a damn thing. Why should you owe the world anything?
This man, Joecavalry is a champ he used this argument twice, and it rings true both times. "We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle." -That crazy bastard Winston Churchill.
Wrong. The litany of factual errors and errors of reasoning disqualify the argument from the good category.
The argument stumbles around at every stage and eventually decides to simply stop rather than actually getting anywhere for it's trouble. Even if one agreed that "liberals are illogical", no one in their right mind could agree that the argument is "Proof that liberals are illogical". If I asked my kid brother to start a debate under the same title then I'd be embarrassed if he couldn't do a better job. Fact.
This is true. I always have failed to see the logic in liberalism. Whenever I questioned such things, I would always be pounded into the very core of the earth with retorts such as: "Glenn Beck is just a big idiot!" or "Sarah Palin is SO stupid!" or "Everything is Bush's fault!" or "Obama will fix everything!" or "Fox News is not a reliable source!" or "Gays are people too!" or- I digress.........
I would be happy to debate you on any number of topics, go ahead and pick one. You are generalizing far too much. There are illogical liberals and logical ones, just as there are illogical conservatives and logical ones. Basing someone's intelligence on political views is...well, illogical I guess.
I always have failed to see the logic in liberalism.
Quick counterpoise: while watching this year's CPAC convention, I saw conservative, Republican women who were planning to vote participate in the ridiculing of progressivism. If you can't figure out the disconnect there, I can understand precisely why you also don't see the logic in liberalism.
Both sides are illogical. What do you recommend we do, allow capitalism to run rampant. We've done that before and all that happens is a concentration of wealth which allows people to make the system unfair for everyone else. Robber barons of the late 19th early 20th century for example. When there are monopoly's the public and the industry loses. The industry involved has no reason to innovate and they can charge whatever they want if its a inelastic item like oil or electricity. I am not a supporter of liberalism by any means but that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a middle ground. Any economist will tell you a strong middle class is the key to a healthy economy. Ours is melting away. A CEO today makes on average 500 times more than the average worker in his employ. 50 years ago it was 20 to 1. Capitalism is by far the best system we have because it plays on our most basic instincts for self improvement but every system needs regulation. Unfortunately in this country the middle ground is being created when there is a rare case of the radicals from both parties pulling on the rope with the same amount of force. We need to get some people in Washington that still think rationally and don't keep pulling so hard they end up as a repersentative of either the ACLU or the Tea Party.
Your economics logic sucks. If more people meant less good jobs, then right now we'd be the poorest people on earth. More people means we produce more. How much the jobs pay is determined mostly by the amount produced.
More people, means more being produced means more real wealth, but about the same wealth per capita.
I could go on about other inconsistencies but I think at this point we know who's really illogical.
There is always about 5-6% of natural unemployment because of both frictional and structural unemployment, however the additional unemployment we are currently facing is because of business cycles. What Obama and other Democrats have tried to do is use expansionary fiscal policies to get us out of this recession quickly. This entails running a budget deficit: or in other words increased spending and lower taxes.
Although you might find welfare payments unfair, they do help to stimulate the economy by giving money to people who will likely spend all of it (when you're on welfare you don't have any room to save). The advantage to policies like progressive income tax and unemployment benefits is that it is an automatic way to work against business cycles. During times when the economy is doing poorly more people get unemployment benefits and less people are in the high tax brackets, meaning that the government is automatically expanding the economy. During times when the economy is expanding, less people need unemployment and more people are in the upper tax brackets, meaning that the government has automatically started running contractionary policies. In short: the government runs a deficit when the economy is doing poorly and a surplus when it is doing well....and that's what we are doing.
OK, so i went back re-read your previous argument were you wrote,
More people means we produce more.
amd
More people, means more being produced means more real wealth, but about the same wealth per capita.
So let me see if I understood what you're saying. The more people we have, the more we produce. Automatically. More people means more jobs, somehow. You know, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around that.
Have you ever worked in a factory? I have, Hewlett Packard. Here's the way an assembly line works. Engineers design the product. Then they design the assembly line. This entails configuring and programing the robots (or designing and building new ones). Now people are needed to load the robots and keep them running (fix them), testing the finished product and fixing those that fail, etc. Everything is measured (called metrics) and different things are tried in order to determine where improvements can be made. Critical jobs are held by HP employees. Non critical jobs are held by temps. Once the line is running at efficiency, the normally move it to another country and fire some of the temps. The other temps go to other assembly lines going through the process I just described. An increase in population does not translate into new jobs.
Now, if you create a crisis, like global warming, you might be able to create new "green" jobs. ;)
You are looking at this at way too small a scale Joe.
More people means that you can produce more. Maybe in the short term a large influx of people could lead to some extra unemployment, but eventually the economy will return to it's long run equilibrium and natural unemployment.
" What Obama and other Democrats have tried to do is use expansionary fiscal policies to get us out of this recession quickly. This entails running a budget deficit: or in other words increased spending and lower taxes. "
My taxes are going down??????????????????????????????????????
Assuming you make less than $250,000 a year, then yes.
"taxes are at their lowest levels in 60 years, according to William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center and director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institution."
Is the death tax going up? Are the tax cuts set to expire, (going up)?
Will the child tax credit be cut in half(taxes going up)? Will the marriage penalty start at the first dollar of income(going up)?Will personal income tax rates rise in Jan 2011(going up)?
I don't about the death tax or the child tax or the marriage penalty. I'm sure I could do some research and find out if those are legitimate grievances -- but I'm not going to, and I'll tell you why:
Which do you think is more likely? That the economists are lying or that you've been manipulated by rich people into voting for their interests?
"Which do you think is more likely? That the economists are lying or that you've been manipulated by rich people into voting for their interests?"
Or you haven't been manipulated and are just in denial.
You have pieces of the truth down, taxes now are low, because the Bush tax cuts are in affect until the end of this year but they soon are going up in record numbers.Do some research.
If you own a farm worth more than a million dollars, I'm sorry, but you're pretty fucking rich.
Anyway, if there really is a serious problem with farms getting liquidated, then maybe there should be an exemption in certain cases. I don't know. But I do know the Florida Farm Bureau is not the place to go for objective analysis.
Really? How many tractors does it take to maintain that farm (I'll give you a hint, more than the number of cars a typical family owns)? How much does one of those tractors cost (I'll give you a hint, more than a VW Bug). How much land does a farm worth more than a million dollars cover (I'll give you a hint, more than a city block)? The land and the tractors and (Oh yeah, I almost forgot, the house on the farm) all are tallied to make up the cost of the farm. Now, since ALL of that money is tied up in the physical assets of the farm, it would need to be liquidated in order to pay the taxes. If the money was liquid in the first place, then the farmer would be living in a mansion in Hollywood instead. ;)
Yes, there should be an exemption but here's were I say they are not rich. Their money is tied up in making a living, not luxury items. If they had like 10 cars, that's luxury..., but living in a farm??? ;)
The "death tax" is actually the estate tax. The far right echo chamber likes to use big, simple, scary words for ye easily manipulated. It is a tax on an estate worth more than 3 million when it is inherited.
Not taxes this would be the equivalent of not taxing lottery winners. It's senseless.
So what your saying is; the unemployed are like that because it is their own fault and as a consequence, do not deserve health care? That has got to be one of the stupidest arguments for a stupid policy that no other developed country follows!!!
If you're arguing that political stances are not a matter of logic but of political values then I guess you're right. But most people have essentially the same needs yet they pursue the wildly different values in trying to satisfy those same needs. Some of those values if adopted actually would satisfy the person's needs while other values would not be as effective.
So I argue that it is reasonable to check logic in advocacy for a political stance because some political stances really do serve the supporters and are argued logically while others actually harm their own supporters and are argued in what's sometimes referred to as 'batshit crazy' ways.
Yes, but this applies to todays liberals, if you were in, say, the early 1800's and a liberal you would stand for democracy, separation of church and state, etc.
But i do agree with you that their thinking is somewhat backwards.
Liberal policies are very illogical and will lead to nothing but bad things . Let me use some examples
Gun Control : here is a scenario , if someone breaks into my house I can go into the back of my house and boom , threat over . But with gun control , someone breaks in , I call the cops , it takes them at least 5 minutes to get to my house , I'm most likely dead or wounded because I had to try to fight off an armed robber with my bare hands . And under gun control , cops are the only ones with guns . Have you seen the stupid stuff they do with their guns . Good job Obama . If a person wants to commit a crime they can get a gun to do it , their already going to commit a crime so what's the harm in buying an illegal weapon and make sure you succeed because you'll be stealing from a law abiding citizen without a gun . If you really want to stop school shootings give the guards a gun and tell them to shoot anyone with a gun on sight . At some high schools the guard has a tazer and are told to say "drop your weapon". If your not gonna give them a gun , at least don't allow the shooter to plead insanity . If I have learned anything , it's that giving the government more control is bad .
Health Care : the way universal health care works is money is taken from those who earned it and give it to those who are poor ( most of them through their own bad choices ) . See this is flawed when you think " there are more rich people than poor people so the poor aren't going to get that much while the rich are going to lose a good bit ." The premise of universal health care is that is you don't work free money . This supports not working in a economy that can not afford to have a lack of jobs.
Also , do you know how Hitler rose to power and became one of the world's worst dictators ? He gave the people universal health care , and took away their guns .
But even if you took ALL the money in the world and divided it equally among everybody, eventually you would still end up with a group of poor people and a group of rich people. So why bother?
I don't follow your logic here. If you divided it evenly how can some people have more than others? Obviously you haven't divided it evenly if that's the case.
Now, as liberals have been telling us for quite some time now, there are a hell of a lot more poor people than rich people. So, eventually you would be forced to take at least some of the money from the poor people in order to give it to people wo are even poorer.
If you divided ALL the money in the world equally among everybody, eventually (as times progresses) stupid people would end up losing money to the smarter people and thus we would end up with a group of rich, smart, people and a group of poor, stupid, people.
While this is entirely true, that some people have more isn't the problem. The problem is that a lot of people don't have enough. That some people have no home and others have multiple homes that sit empty most of the time, is kind of a sad reflection on our society. Now, I'm not suggesting that we just take away their belongings, not at all. I'm just pointing out that the system we have in place is designed to benefit the wealthy, because for the most part it's the wealthy that created many of these systems in the first place.
This has always been the nature of things, those in power tend do things that keep them in power, but it doesn't have to be that way. If we were to create a system in which power is more evenly distributed then we would see a drop in corruption. We've heard the old adage "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".
As long as humans are involved no system is absent of corruption. Certainly some systems are more corrupt than others, dictatorship and theocracy being good examples. I strongly believe that either capitalism or socialism in it's purest form will ultimately fail. The most successful governments on earth have some mixture of the two.
I'm just pointing out that the system we have in place is designed to benefit the wealthy....
I beg to differ. I came to this country when I was 9. My sister, my mom, my dad and I lived in a one bedroom apartment. We learned the language and assimilated. My parents now live in a very nice, spacious home. As does my sister and as do I. And we did it by taking advantage of the opportunities already in place. No, we were not on welfare. My sister and I served in the military (we paid our dues) and Uncle Sam helped us with college. If you work hard, you'll make it. Liberalism is a mental disorder that robs other people of their drive to better themselves ;)
I'm not going to delve into the details of your particular situation, but what i will say is this: Rags to riches stories, are the exception not the rule. Not everybody has the same opportunities. People who grow up and go to schools in bad neighborhoods don't get the same educational opportunities as someone who goes to a private school. Apartments and trailers are income sinks, while buying a house becomes an asset. A person whose parent's can afford to send them to an expensive college does not have the same opportunities as someone who is barely able to afford a community college despite the fact that often times they will both teach the same classes. The majority of a person's wealth is inherited.
I beg to differ. I came to this country when I was 9. My sister, my mom, my dad and I lived in a one bedroom apartment. We learned the language and assimilated. My parents now live in a very nice, spacious home. As does my sister and as do I. And we did it by taking advantage of the opportunities already in place. No, we were not on welfare. My sister and I served in the military (we paid our dues) and Uncle Sam helped us with college. If you work hard, you'll make it. Liberalism is a mental disorder that robs other people of their drive to better themselves ;)
Incorrect rebuttal choice. The statement you disputed wasn't asking if people could become wealthy or better in the current system. It was making a statement that, irregardless of however many people are able to make wealth from poverty, the system is still created by the wealthy for the wealthy.
My mom has held many different kinds of jobs. We even went bankrupt once and had to start all over again (one bedroom apartment). The point is that we didn't collect welfare. We buckled down, tightened our belts and worked hard.
So you think there was no luck involved in your success? None at all?
You're probably smarter than like 80% of people. Which implies your parents are probably really smart too. That by itself is really lucky.
The fact is that a whole lot of people in your circumstances would not have been able to make it out, regardless of whether or not they got welfare. So why not do a little to mitigate their suffering?
Why should money be coerced from half of the masses and paid to someone else who has a cell-phone payment? cable tv? smokes?
Wouldn't it be easier to coerce the weak and make them stronger through your choices than drag the strong down to the weaker of society through your coercion? Be careful with your answer here. Your coercion is good but mine would be bad right?
A small amount of money should be coerced from those who can afford in order to provide a minimal quality of life to those who can't afford it. So they won't suffer and die. It's basic morality.
Coerce the weak to be strong? How do you propose doing that? Taxation is simple. Living someone's life for them is not.
Coerce the weak to be strong,take them off the public payroll. Funny thing happens when you quit paying people to sit at home,they look for work.Nowhere do people become productive by paying them to do nothing,has never happened,will never happen.
A small amount is fine, the top 20% paying 80% of the bill is not fine anymore.
Yes, that's why unemployment is temporary. Man, you guys really can't comprehend that. If you don't find work within X number of days, benefits go away. Do you think jobs just appear magically whenever they are needed?
Isn't that what you are doing by coercing me to fund someone else's life?
But you say it's moral so it's ok?
I don't think it's moral to take a hand-out and have non-essential things like a cell phone or cable tv but I can't legislate that because it's cruel correct?
Wait...., what...., lucky...., no! Being smart is 90% sweat. You work hard, you make the grade. You slack off, you don't. Why should I pay for the slackers? I worked hard for what I have. I earned it. How about they mitigate their own suffering by going back to school and applying themselves the second time around?
It doesn't even cost that much to provide basic welfare.
"2.7% of GDP pays for Medicaid, food stamps, family support assistance (AFDC), supplemental security income (SSI), child nutrition programs, refundable portions of earned income tax credits (EITC and HITC) and child tax credit, welfare contingency fund, child care entitlement to States, temporary assistance to needy families, foster care and adoption assistance, State children's health insurance and veterans pensions."
" the system we have in place is designed to benefit the wealthy, because for the most part it's the wealthy that created many of these systems in the first place"
The system we have in place is the greatest system ever brought about by man. It is the reason so many immigrants have come here and it rarely is them who complain about an unfair system.
Who has more power than a free person?To be whatever they want to be? Where else has this ever been done? Go get you some.
The system we have in place is the greatest system ever brought about by man.
If you are asserting that the economic, social, religious and political systems that we have in the united states are the best on earth, you are sorrily mistaken. Only with a sharp sense of nationalism would one make such bold claims.
It is the reason so many immigrants have come here and it rarely is them who complain about an unfair system.
Historically immigrants have come to the united states to escape poverty, and religious persecution. This does nothing to refute my statement that our system is designed to benefit the wealthy. You only have to look at the wage gap, to realize this. The fact of the matter is that the middle class is disappearing.
I am asserting that the free market system along with liberty is the greatest experiment by man of all time and has brought about more prosperity and great acheivments than any other society.
More individuals have been raised out of poverty due to this system than any other in history.
I am asserting that the free market system along with liberty is the greatest experiment by man of all time and has brought about more prosperity and great acheivments than any other society.
You really have no idea of this nation's history. In the 19th century, when it had what could be called a mostly free market, it was far from the most prosperous in the world. By the time the US reached its superpower stage, the market was no longer free, but regulated to prevent monopolies, permit unions, and child labour was outlawed.
Well here is a teachable monent for you then, tell us how regulations will bring about prosperity in other nations.Are their unions in China? If child labour is outlawed in Africa, would it then become a super-power?Tha's all it takes right? teach us
Here was an opportunity for you to teach not only myself but to all the readers here the views you so much believe in and instead you throw out insults.
A moment when the liberal view could have changed the minds of so many has just been wasted by you.
The truth is you have to disguise your views and any attempt to make you voice them in public automatically brings about the response of "shut up" or "your an idiot".
You're just trying to manipulate the situation to save face. You said something stupid and I called you out on it:
If child labour is outlawed in Africa, would it then become a super-power?
The truth is you have to disguise your views and any attempt to make you voice them in public automatically brings about the response of "shut up" or "your an idiot".
The correct thing to say:
A juvenile attempt to make you voice your thoughts in public automatically brings about the response of "shut up" or "you're an idiot".
Of course, anyone who types "your an idiot" deserves to be called one, and only cements my accusation in place.
YOUR STATEMENT- "By the time the US reached its superpower stage, the market was no longer free, but regulated to prevent monopolies, permit unions, and child labour was outlawed"
Pointing out that the free market did not make us a the greatest but those regulations did.
You stated this but after three attempts for you to teach everyone how a regulated market can make a country a super-power, you still refuse.
No, I will not "get over it". A man who sees grave injustices and says nothing, is a traitor to his people. He has sealed his own fate should those injustices come his way.
I owe something to society because it has given me so many wonderful things. Among them, an education, modern medicine, clean water to drink, food to eat. You should never forsake a bearer of gifts.
In a country as incredibly wealthy as the United States of America, should people be left without the basic essentials needed for life?
Say a guy gets fired from his minimum wage job. If it weren't for unemployment, he wouldn't be able to pay rent and would probably become homeless. Does that sound fair to you?
Say a woman can't afford health insurance. She gets really sick but doesn't get treatment because it will bankrupt her. When she finally ends up in the emergency room they find she has cancer and it has progressed too far to be treated. She dies. Is that the way life should be?
the more people there are, the less jobs there are and the lower the wages
That's not necessarily true. Life is not a zero sum game. The mentality that for you to win someone else has to lose is wrong and destructive. Wealth can be created. People can trade fairly. Everyone can win.
But who the hell wants to work when they can just get a handout?
What handouts are you referring to? Stuff like unemployment is strictly short term and comes with the requirement that people look for a job. It seems like no matter how many times I say this, you don't hear me. Could it be that you're just looking for someone to hate?
If we didn't have minimum wage there would be more jobs to go around and he probably wouldn't have lost his job. Also you said fired not laid off, so someone could do his job better than he could. Maybe he should have tried harder. And the unemployment. Why should I have to involuntarily pay for someone's life, if they have no incentive to get a job?
I actually agree with you that minimum wage laws are harmful, but have serious doubts that getting rid of them would be politically feasible. We live in a democracy, after all, and that means dumb ideas can win if they are popular enough.
I didn't realize there was a difference between "fired" and "laid off". I should have said laid off, because that's what I meant. If the guy loses his job through no fault of his own, he ought not be forced into homelessness.
Why do you say he has no incentive to get a job? Unemployment benefits are strictly temporary. They only provide the minimum needed to survive. He will be motivated to get a job in order to increase his standard of living. And if that's not enough motivation, then he will be cut off after a certain period of time.
If we didn't have minimum wage there would be more jobs to go around and he probably wouldn't have lost his job.
So living off a dollar a day is better? The people are still going to be on some type of welfare program...ultimately more people, any job that's in the private sector. The reason why we have a minimum wage is because the cost of living is so high.
The reason why we have a minimum wage is because the cost of living is so high.
Wage is not based on cost of living. It is based on skills and talents.
Minimum wage actually creates more poverty because these laws enforce employers not hire those with low skills and talents. If the minimum wage is $7.25/hr, and lets say a person's skills are suppose $7.00/hr, they will not be hired because the extra 25 cents per hour is charity work. Thus, minimum wage laws protect unions from competition and restricts open opportunity for all members of society who want to gain entry into that occupation.
Furthermore,
The problem is not necessarily minimum wage but unions. The unions are the biggest problem because when unions lobby for minimum wages in Congress and State legislatures, they are no advocating for the poor, they are doing the exact opposite; they are protecting the unions from any competition and create less free labor market. Minimum Wage hurts the poor because it is protecting those who already have jobs in the union and limits the number of available jobs.
Without minimum wages, the market forces would not cause lower paying rates in America like that of China, Africa, or any other developing nation simply because of the supply and demand of labor in the market. For example, if there are 10 million willing Chinese manufacturing workers in which they get paid 1.00/hr, while in the U.S. if it was the same manufacturer in which they are only 2 million willing America manufacturing workers, they get paid $8.00/hr just based on the short supply of labor; this doesn't include the increase in demand. Or, why does Alex Rodriquez get paid so much? Because union protection and supply and demand. The union protects him by guaranteeing him and all players a minimum wage. on the supply and demand, how many people are going to hit 30 HRS, 100 RBI's 20 SB, .300 AVG and team leadership every season? Well the supply is likely 1 and demand is very high, like 32 teams. When companies are freely allowed to compete for the most skilled in their profession, wages will increase.
Since the inception of minimum wage, it has incrementally risen to its current state of $7.25 and limit job creation.
The reason why we have a minimum wage is because the cost of living is so high.
The cost of living is so high because of minimum wage. If an employer has to pay more he has to raise prices on his goods/services and that increases the cost of living.
Wages are not based on cost of living. Government wants you to think that. Wages are based on skills and talents.
If that's the case, then why do teachers that live in certain areas get paid different salaries? The median salary for an elementary school teacher in Los Angeles, California is about $57,000 a year, while a teacher in Riverside, California (about 50 miles away) gets paid about $55,000 a year.
Then, if cost of living meant something, why is there a minimum wage?
The cost of living strictly relates to inflation. Cost of living is higher than minimum wage.
Why do teachers get different salaries because they have different skill levels and negotiations on compensation with that school.
Therefore, across the nation, why does McDonald's have minimum wage in every single restaurant? Well, because it is based on the job, which has low skills.
If a teacher has a masters degree, true they get paid more than someone that only has a bachelors, but each teacher has a set salary that is same for each year. Teachers don't negotiate their salaries.
Sure, with the set salaries, they are protected by unions from competition.
For instance, rookies in the NFL are drafted, and with the unions, they are protected from competition because their salary is based on what number they are drafted with guaranteed money and signing bonuses rather than playing and proving it on the field.
Sure, with the set salaries, they are protected by unions from competition.
I agree with that statement to a point. Unions do help with job security and salaries, but they don't completely control the teacher pay. If all teachers got paid for the amount of work they did in and out of the classroom, then the county wouldn't be able to afford the hourly rates, so they set up a yearly salary to avoid budget problems.
You are both right. Inflation, cost of living, and minimum wage are all inter-connected. Minimum wage can affect the cost of living and the cost of living can affect minimum wage.
Inflation is connected to cost of living. Correct. However minimum wage is not. Why because minimum wage is a set standard of skills perceived by the government and unions. Therefore, if skills are lowering than minimum wage, then no employment.
My mentality is NOT that "In order for me to win someone else has to lose." My mentality is that "In order for me to win, people have got to stop taking MY MONEY!!!!"
I'm not looking for someone to hate. I'm looking for someone I can get fired up ;)
Why isn't life fair? Should we try to make it more fair?
What percentage of your salary do you pay in taxes? If you didn't pay any taxes would your life be substantially different?
Funny how you never try to get conservatives fired up. Seems to me like you just want to bitch. The "fired up" thing is just a cover, an excuse for engaging in selfish behavior.
How much do I spend on taxes? Let me put it this way, I need a new car. I can currently afford a Honda Civic. If I didn't pay any taxes I would be able to afford a low end BMW. So yeah, life would be substantially different. People would be like, "Look at that beaner in the beamer" ;)
It's really hard to get conservatives fired up. Show me on this site where you've seen a conservative totally lose it. Or better yet, create a debate about conservatives and see how many conservatives bother to show up.
It's not about paying no taxes,taxes must be paid for things such as the defense of the country.It is about forcably taking money from the working class and handing it to individuals that choose to produce nothing.
There are freedoms here and some people want to be bums,just don't have those of us who chose to work our way out of it finance their lifestyles.
Life will never be fair, you can only make the oppourtunities equal. Outcomes never will be equal because everyone puts in different amounts of work.Freedom
I don't think these "bums" you guys like to talk about actually exist in any significant quantity. There are a few, maybe, who cheat the system, but they are vastly outweighed by large numbers of people who just had a run of bad luck and need some temporary assistance.
I think you guys conjure up this image of an army of bloodsucking parasites threatening to undermine the integrity of our nation for one simple reason: selfishness. You don't care about what's right and what's wrong. You only care about grabbing everything you can and fucking everybody else.
Nobody wants equal outcomes. That's another thing you guys constantly say even though it's complete bullshit. As I've said over and over, people should just be provided with a minimal quality of life. Food, shelter, education, healthcare. And they should only get that much if they make an effort to work. That's not too much to ask.
"temporary assistance" is fine, sign us up. Generational welfare has got to go.
A small percentage need medical coverage,fantastic, let's set a cap and regulate it as hard as we regulate wall street.
The reaction you are seeing across the country now is a result of help not being "temporary" but expanded time after time for the sole purpose of buying votes. 99 weeks of unemployment is not acceptable anymore.
Social security was supposed to be "temporary", now if you bring that up the fear police come out screaming , "They're gonna take your social security!"Where's it going to end?
What exactly is this "generational welfare" you're referring to?
I know what the term means, but I'm not convinced that it's a serious problem. Providing any sort of safety net is going to make some people reliant on it. That doesn't mean we should just get rid of it.
I think it's far more likely that the problem is blown out of proportion by rich Republicans looking to scare people into voting even more money their way. I think you must be incredibly naive if you don't see that.
Why isn't life fair? Why aren't we born all knowing? Why aren't we born with a golden spoon in our mouth? Why is it that bullfrogs don't have wings so that they don't bust their ass every time they hop? Are you starting to get the message? Life is just not fair because that's just the way it is.
Should we try to make it fair? Where do we draw the line? Who decides where we draw the line. You? It isn't fair that I don't have a BMW in my garage. It isn't fair that I don't have a millions dollars. It isn't fair that my home dropped in value. It isn't fair I don't get better odds in Las Vegas. It isn't fair that I don't get paid overtime.
If you want to make life fair for the homeless, fine. Go right ahead. No one is stopping you. You can start by inviting one of them to live with you. Or do you just want to help people with other people's money?
Hmmm...., lions will kill cheetah cubs when they find them. They wont eat it, they just kill it. As far as the cheetah may be concerned, it's not fair. But since I've never heard a cheetah whining about life not being fair, I can't be certain. As far as the lion is concerned, she just increased her chances of survival by eliminating the competition. As far as the lion may be concerned, every time an adult cheetah brings down pray, it reduces her chances for survival and that's just not fair. But since I've never heard a lion whining about life not being fair, I can't be certain of that either. The concept of fairness is subjective. Stating that you can't define fairness but you know it when you see it, is illogical. ;)
Rhetorical bantering aside, what does this have anything to do with what I just said? We can't control what lions and cheetah's do. We certainly can control what WE do.
The point is that the concept of fairness is subjective. You may think that taking money from me (in the form of taxes) to give to the poor is fair. You may think that the system we developed is not fair because it allowed me to prosper. I would disagree because ANY and EVERY system allows some to prosper and others fail. It just so happens that I prospered. Punishing me for prospering would not be fair, by your definition, because it is an unfair man made system.
In other words, humans were the ones who made it unfair to begin with by punishing/taxing me for being successful.
Minimal quality of life. Food, shelter, education, healthcare.
Who decides where we draw the line. You?
Yes me. And also you. And the rest of the voting public.
It isn't fair that I don't have a BMW in my garage.
You keep acting like I want to make everybody equal, but you know that's not true. I just want mitigate suffering as much as possible without having to pay too great of a cost.
If you want to make life fair for the homeless...inviting one of them to live with you.
Helping one homeless person won't have any significant effect on the big picture. I can't personally provide housing to every homeless person. Charity is insufficient. Coercion is necessary.
Minimal quality of life. Food, shelter, education, healthcare.
"Minimal" is a subjective term. We would never be able to agree on how much food or what type. We wouldn't agree on the size of the house or the location. We wouldn't agree on what type of education or how much. We wouldn't agree on how much health care.
Yes me. And also you. And the rest of the voting public.
Then we don't have a consensus because you and I already don't agree.
You keep acting like I want to make everybody equal, but you know that's not true. I just want mitigate suffering as much as possible without having to pay too great of a cost.
That means that you want take other people's money so that you can give a "minimal" quality of life to someone else and make yourself feel better.
Helping one homeless person won't have any significant effect on the big picture. I can't personally provide housing to every homeless person. Charity is insufficient. Coercion is necessary.
You don't have to provide for every single homeless person. Just one. There are more liberals than homeless people. If each homeless person had one sponsoring liberal family, he can then be rotated among the other liberal families that don't have a homeless person living with them.
Can we make life more fair?
No, we can't because liberals and conservatives do not agree on what constitutes "minimal" quality of life and liberals are not about to take turn sponsoring a homeless person in their home.
We would never be able to agree on how much food or what type...
But would you agree that there should be something? Non-zero? Most extreme case I can think of: Say there's some orphan who can't provide for herself. Say there's one guy who has billions of dollars. Everybody works for this guy for less than a dollar a day. They can barely afford to feed themselves. He doesn't care about this little orphan and will just let her starve. Is it ok to take a dollar from this guy to buy some rice for the girl?
Then we don't have a consensus because you and I already don't agree.
We don't need a consensus. I was just answering your question: "Who decides?" The majority decides.
That means that you want take other people's money so that you can give a "minimal" quality of life to someone else and make yourself feel better.
I want to take other people's money, yes. But it's not about making myself feel better. It's about making the poor person feel better.
If each homeless person had one sponsoring liberal family...
That's kind of an interesting idea, actually. I would be down for it if enough other people would be to actually solve the problem. But I doubt they would. Because, yes, it's easier to take somebody else's money. Unemployment benefits are the only politically feasible solution.
But homelessness is not the only problem. Food, education, and healthcare all cost money. It's not fair to place the burden on providing for those people exclusively on liberals. The burden should be shared. And those who can most afford to pay should pay a disproportionate amount.
No, we can't because liberals and conservatives do not agree on what constitutes "minimal" quality of life
We can't make life more fair because we don't agree on what constitutes minimal quality of life... Do you know what a non-sequitur is? It means "does not follow". Don't you see? We obviously can make life more fair. It's not physically impossible to do so. Whether or not we agree on what constitutes minimal quality of life is an entirely separate question.
Anyway, what is your definition of minimal quality of life? And do you agree that taking may be justified in order to provide it under certain circumstances?
Look, you're a bleeding heart, I get it. But no, it is not OK. It is stealing. If you want to feed the orphan, find some other way. Share your food with her. Find other people who feel like you and each of you pitch in and feed her.
I always get the impression that liberals want to help people as long as they get to do it by using someone else's money or forcing someone else to do it. Your argument is based on emotions, "Oh poor little orphan Annie. It's for the children!" I try to NOT make decisions based on emotions. I try to use logic. Which is why liberals are viewed as illogical. Convince me with logic, not emotional crap.
Why is stealing wrong under the given circumstances? Which would be the greater evil, taking a dollar from the guy or letting the child starve?
find some other way
Suppose there is no other way.
liberals want to help people as long as they get to do it by using someone else's money or forcing someone else to do it
Why use such broad generalizations? "Liberal" is just a label. People are not that simple. Some liberals just want to take whatever they can, yes. Some legitimately want to help people.
Speaking for myself, I can say that I want to make the world a better place. The harm caused by taking a little from the rich is outweighed by the benefits gained in feeding the hungry. It's just that simple.
Convince me with logic, not emotional crap.
I am using logic. I'm just stating the most extreme example to get an understanding of your viewpoint. I think you must see that taking a dollar in this case would be ok. Once you agree that (at least in theory) it is ok to redistribute wealth in certain situations we can discuss where the line should be drawn.
No, it is not a lesser evil. Stealing money to give to give to someone else in the form of charity is not the lesser evil. The lesser evil is asking for charity.
I am not avoiding the question. You keep on NOT listening. Taking money from a person that doesn't want to give you his money is called stealing (regardless of how much he has).
Stealing is worse than letting someone die. Thou shall not steal is one of the ten commandments. Thou shall not let someone die is not one of the ten commandments. Thou shall not steal unless you are trying to keep someone from dying, is also not one of the ten commandments. Ergo, Stealing is worse than letting someone die.
But your example is flawed because there is no reason to steal from the rich because the person is not going to die because all he has to do is pan handle until he has enough for 3 happy meals every day. And the reason he can make enough for 3 happy meals a day is because charity DOES WORK. Otherwise, that homeless guy I see at the corner every day pan handling would have given up and moved on. And he looks pretty well fed to me, so.... ;)
Death is no big deal because everyone dies. Non sequitur. The fact that death happens to everyone doesn't change the fact that it's undesirable for the vast majority of people.
Death for the old is not such a big deal, death for the young is more so.
There's no flaw. What you said is absolutely true. It is for this reason that the liberal, unproductive, poor masses have been so successful at stealing from the rich :)
There is a flaw. One act of theft is no big deal, but many acts of theft aggregated together are a big deal. Stick enough raindrops together and you get an ocean.
Same thing with preventable deaths. One death isn't so bad, but many deaths are indicative of a systematic problem.
Says who? Where's the data to back this up? This is a subjective statement. You will find that the older you get, the less incentive there is to live. And it is during that revelation that you become a conservative ;)
A few hundred??? A FEW HUNDRED!!!! Try thousands! Besides, you only think that way because you are young. When you get old, you'll change your tune. Who the hell wants to fill out tax forms every year for the rest of their life? I know I don't. It wouldn't be so bad if it was a flat tax and there were no forms to fill out. But that's just not the way it is. ;)
But homelessness is not the only problem. Food, education, and healthcare all cost money. It's not fair to place the burden on providing for those people exclusively on liberals.
Take one problem at a time. Start with the homeless. Start an organization that takes these people into their home and rotates them among the available homes. Make it non-profit. Start small, just one city (that way you don't have to spend money on airfare to get him to his next destination.).
Believe me, there are a lot more caring people than there are homeless. If you really care, you would do something about it instead of taking the easy way out and voting democrat in order to force others to pay.
Ok, thinking about how to solve homelessness, I guess it would be better to get one building with a bunch of beds. And now I see that what I'm describing is a homeless shelter. That's probably the most effective way to deal with the problem.
Having them residing in people's houses has too many logistical problems.
Also, managing homelessness sounds like a full-time job, which means the person doing it will need to be payed a decent salary. Sounds like charity is going to be insufficient here.
If I understand non-profit organization correctly, it means that the people still get a salary but no bonus and everything else after that gets plowed right back into the business. So you just have to make a modest salary and still call it non-profit. ;)
Right, but do you think charity is going to be sufficient to provide $100,000 a month (or whatever it takes to run a shelter)? And that's just for one shelter.
"$28.5 billion was allotted to homeless programs ran through HUD (Housing and Urban Development)"
$28.5 billion?!?!?! Does that sound efficient to you? What the hell did these homeless people get? How many homeless people do you think there are in the entire country?
There are 312 million people in the U.S. Let's say 1% are homeless. That's about 3 million homeless. Now you give each one 95,000 dollars. That's 28.5 billion dollars. Does that sound reasonable? Where is this money going? Does anyone stop to say, "Wait..., what...., no!!!!" ;)
Actually, my math error proves that there is a better way. If it only takes $9500 per homeless person, that can be divided up between a bunch of liberals. It is more affordable than I previously thought. The libs can sponsor a homeless person for just a few dollars a day. ;)
Hmm, ok. There would still be some logistical problems. But if we had a "homeless tax" that was automatically deducted from your income unless you opted out... that might work. It might be interesting to see how much money we would end up with if all taxes were optional like that...
Still, aside from homelessness, we also ought to provide healthcare and education. Those cost money too. Asking liberals to bear the weight of society's welfare alone is asking for too much.
Taking a little from those who have a lot is not a big deal. The benefits outweigh the costs.
People generally want to get money. Therefore getting money is good. You've got that part right.
But actions generally come with both costs and benefits, and we need to take both into account.
The cost and benefit in your example would depend on how much money each person had. This is because the marginal utility of money drops as you get more of it. A million dollars is worth a lot to a starving person but comparatively little to a billionaire. So, leaving all other variables aside, failure to equalize wealth is bad -- and the greater the wealth disparity, the worse it is. Assuming the two people have an equal amount of money, the transaction would take away more utility from the giver than it would give to the recipient, and therefore the transaction would be a bad one.
Even if it were a rich person and a poor person, handing over a million dollars would be too much. It would drastically eliminate the person's incentive to create value, while alleviating comparatively little suffering.
The best answer is to give just enough to meet minimal quality of life. Which means food, shelter, healthcare and education.
failure to equalize wealth is bad, and the greater the wealth disparity, the worse it is
Says who? Where's the data to back up that statement? That is a subjective statement and I disagree with it. Just because some people aren't happy with the way things are does not mean that others aren't OK with it. And once you start trying to meet this mystical minimal quality of life you will see that it is never enough. There will always be a group of people clamoring for more and claiming that you have not met their minimal quality of life. And it is during this revelation that you become a conservative ;)
It's not subjective. It follows logically from the facts. Like I said:
"The marginal utility of money drops as you get more of it. A million dollars is worth a lot to a starving person but comparatively little to a billionaire."
There will always be a group of people clamoring for more
Irrelevant. The fact that people will always want more has no bearing on the question of where we should draw the line.
The fact that people will always want more has no bearing on the question of where we should draw the line.
Oh yes it does. I want to draw the line in the opposite direction of were you want it. At the very least, force it to stay exactly were it currently is.
As far as the billionaire, if he can't buy that yacht because he just had to pay a million dollars worth of taxes, then the "marginal utility of that money" did NOT drop!
What does end up happening is that people with money get tired of the incessant begging for money from everyone around you. Just as famous people get tired of being hounded by the masses every time they step outside.
Money is a curse and rich people are the selfless people that want to keep you safe from that curse. It's not that we are greedy, it's just that we are doing you a favor. Think about it, if poor people knew how to handle money properly, they'd have some. If you gave a red neck a million dollars, he would buy a mansion and then park his truck on the lawn. trust me, rich people are doing the masses a great good by keeping money away from them. You should thank us ;)
Let me rephrase: the fact that people will always want more is irrelevant to the question of whether stealing is acceptable in certain situations (because it avoids a greater evil).
As far as the billionaire, if he can't buy that yacht because he just had to pay a million dollars worth of taxes, then the "marginal utility of that money" did NOT drop!
It's like eating apples. If you're really craving an apple you might be willing to pay a dollar for one. But after you eat it, you're craving is mostly satisfied. So you would only be willing to pay, say 75 cents for another one. If you ate a couple more after that, you would probably start to get sick of apples and the amount you would pay for another one would start to approach 0. Get it?
If you go from zero to a million dollars that means you can get food, a house with air conditioning and heat, a car, the ability to support a family, healthcare, etc, etc.
If you go from a billion to 1.1 billion you get a yacht.
You don't seem to understand the concept of marginal utility
Neither does anybody else.... That's my point!
No one understands "marginal utility" because it means different things to different people. The fact that there will always be people asking for more "marginal utility" underscores the fact everybody has their own interpretation/meaning for "marginal utility", thus rendering "marginal utility" meaningless.... and arguing for something that has no meaning is crazy.
The only meaning that you can give to "marginal utility" is that at some "given" point, a "given" person wont want more apples (in your example). But the fact that we CANNOT apply a given amount to a predetermined group of people makes the definition useless.
What? I'm not sure I really understand your argument. I think what you're trying to say is:
1) People value things differently.
2) Therefore the concept of "value" is meaningless.
3) Therefore you can't say food is more valuable than a yacht.
It's true that some people like watching basketball and others don't, therefore the ability to watch a basketball game can hold more utility for one person than another. But there are some things that are universally valued by all people. Food, for example. Food will always be more valuable to a starving person than a yacht to a rich person.
The more apples you eat, the less you want. The value of each additional dollar drops as you get more of them. Marginal utility is a well defined economic concept.
Food is not so valuable to an anorexic person. That's my point. You want to be able to say, "This is the value of this thing for everyone, everyone has to abide by it and everyone will be OK with this decision because marginal utility dictates that they will be satisfied with the amount that I set and the amount I let them keep." You shouldn't have the power to do that. That's stealing. It's dictatorial and I rather die than live under a dictatorial regime. I mean, you can pull that off on other liberals that rather be red than dead but you can't pull that crap on me. ;)
Yes, yes, obviously the rules don't apply to the mentally ill. But the vast majority of people are not mentally ill. Besides, even anorexics value food significantly, or else they would starve to death. Anyway, you're missing the point.
This is the value of this thing for everyone...
No, that's not what I'm saying. Diminishing marginal utility just means the value of each additional thing drops as you get more it. The "absolute" value is irrelevant. It seems like you're not really understanding the concept or marginal utility, and if you can't grasp it then we're not going to be able to move forward here...
It's dictatorial and I rather die than live under a dictatorial regime.
No, Joe... the amount of coercion done by the government lies in a spectrum with anarchy on one end and totalitarianism on the other. You can't just point to any act of coercion and claim dictatorship.
No, "marginal utility" is irrelevant because it is different for everyone. Therefore you would just be wasting your time trying to do anything based on "marginal utility" because it is not something you can measure. That's like trying to build a box that is 3 "marginal utilities" per side... since 3 "marginal utilities" is not a unit of measure you can measure, it is useless because if you can't measure it, it means nothing. if it means something different to different people, it means nothing. That's why we have standard units of measurements.
Now, please bear in mind that the title of this debate is, " Proof that liberals are illogical." I would advice you not to argue that "marginal utility" is just as useful as standard units of measurements...., unless you want to prove the truthfulness of the debate. But something tells me you're going to try... aren't you ;)
You keep using the phrase "marginal utility" as though it means "utility". This tells me you don't understand what the "marginal" part means. But since I've already tried to explain it twice, I'll just let that go.
You're sort of right that we can't measure utility precisely. However, we can approximate it. For example, in the vast majority of cases, we know that when people are starving, they value food more highly than a yacht. You don't need numbers to know that. It's obvious. We can use that judgment to conclude that giving food to a thousand starving people would carry greater utility than giving a yacht to a rich person (at least in the short term).
Furthermore, in theory we could measure utility exactly. It just comes down to neurons firing. The amount of subjective value obtained from a hamburger vs a yacht could be measured through some extremely complicated equation. The number may be too hard for us to find, but it does exist. And even if we can't determine the exact value of a given thing to a given person, through careful study, we can bring our approximations closer and closer to the true value.
I mean, say I kicked someone in the balls. Would it be reasonable for me to say the other guy's suffering was meaningless because it couldn't be precisely quantified?
We obviously can make life more fair. It's not physically impossible to do so.
We can never make life more fair because fairness is not an objective term. It is subjective. As long as there are people, you will always find a group that thinks that your definition of fairness is disproportionate. And since fairness is a subjective term, there's no objective way to measure it and so those groups that disagree with your version of fairness have as much right to claim their version is better than yours.
Here's your version of fair:
The burden should be shared. And those who can most afford to pay should pay a disproportionate amount.
If you notice, your version of fairness has an element of unfairness, "...those who can most afford to pay should pay a disproportionate amount."
Look, life is just not fair. It never was, and it never will be. People who think that it can be achieved, are just fooling themselves. People who tell you that it can be achieved are trying to get something from you. I'm sorry but that's just the way it is and I know that I will never change your mind. I guess you're stubborn that way ;)
But I think you have moments of lucidity because even you admit, "That's kind of an interesting idea, actually. I would be down for it if enough other people would be to actually solve the problem. But I doubt they would. Because, yes, it's easier to take somebody else's money. "
Anyway, what is your definition of minimal quality of life?
If they are alive, they have met my definition of minimal quality of life.
And do you agree that taking may be justified in order to provide it under certain circumstances?
No. Stealing is stealing and stealing is wrong. There are other ways to solve the problem. The people who chose to steal are taking the easy way out.
Ok then let's go with "better" instead. Better means "more good". And good is an objective term. Good means "the extent to which desires are satisfied."
We can make the world a better place.
I guess you're stubborn that way
You're only stubborn if you're wrong. If you're right then the word is patient. :)
If they are alive, they have met my definition of minimal quality of life.
Wow... So even if they're going to starve to death in a few hours... no big deal, huh? I mean, they're alive now, aren't they?
"My mentality is NOT that "In order for me to win someone else has to lose." My mentality is that "In order for me to win, people have got to stop taking MY MONEY!!!!""
And unemployment benefits are calculated using the wage you had when you did have a job. The unemployed are people who WERE employed and are now not employed through no fault of their own.
Welfare & food stamps are another matter entirely though. Still far better for the economy than tax cuts for the wealthiest few, though.
To your first point, I agree. These things certainly are not fair. But that is the way of life, and we cannot change that. If we did make it "fair" for them, it would only come at the expense of someone else forced to pay for welfare "charity". Taxing citizens for services they do not benefit from or going dangerously far into debt is not fair for the taxpayer, or the government. You cannot remove an injustice by substituting it with another injustice.
Proof may be defined as "a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it" (Wordnet). Colloquially, it is a set of statements which demonstrate the truth of a conclusion by logical steps from premises known or uncontroversially held to be true. Nothing of the sort has been provided here. Instead, a lot of claims have been made without evidence.
It is illogical to believe that a lot of random and false claims strung together constitute a proof that liberals are illogical.
It simply isn't true that all liberals believe someone else should pay anytime anybody needs money to pay bills. Whether or not some liberals do have such a stupid thought, not all do and it's not a necessary aspect of liberalism.
It simply isn't true that there is no way to pay for social entitlements (such as the US already pays). Most governments of developed countries levy taxes effectively, and when the markets they are taxing are huge (like US GDP) the revenue is enormous. This is why the US government is the most powerful organization on Earth for some time now - it effectively taxes the biggest market on Earth. Of course, there are limits even to what the US Government can do, but entitlements vary and the US does provide expansive entitlements as is (e.g. Medicare).
It is implied that there is no possible purpose in redistributing wealth except to create a situation where everyone has the same wealth, but no evidence is provided for this. For example, it may be cheaper and better to pay for some basic benefits than to deal with rioting or revolution (as becomes more likely when people are dying in the streets).
It is asserted that liberals are for abortion. I have never heard this position articulated by anybody. Many liberals believe that it should be the choice of the mother but I have never personally heard anybody saying that children should always be aborted, or even that abortion is a small matter.
It is implied that no one will work when handouts are available. However, living on food stamps is not enjoyable and makes a lot of Americans ashamed enough to get off of them. Everyone prefers to be wealthy or at least have middle-class luxuries rather than living on government cheese. Moreover, social welfare programs in the US generally have limits to prevent people from using them forever.
It is asserted that liberals act like intellectuals, and that non-liberals are rednecks. Some people believe this, but many liberals are not as described. Moreover, there are conservatives who believe the same thing - that all liberals are stupid (or even irrational, illogical or evil).
Given the foregoing, I question whether the poster really knows any liberals; or, alternatively, whether they are honestly representing what they actually see.
Now that's an argument which does meet the standard I was hoping for. Will readers please compare and contrast the above argument with the argument made in the main description of the debate. Take particular note of standards of logical coherency and factual correctness.
I'm less concerned by whether someone agrees or disagrees with me than I am about whether they're able to give sensible reasons for taking whatever position they've taken.
For example, if you get sick, someone should pay for your health care.
If by someone you mean the state then you appear to be describing a state which is realistic about the fact that the population it serves can get sick and that the most prudent thing to do is to insure against disease on a national scale with vaccination programs and immediate good quality treatment for disease and trauma. ("... of the people, by the people, for the people ...". Remember?)
If you are unemployed, someone should pay you welfare.
Again by someone you mean the state. If the state recognises that even from a hypothetical situation of full employment the number of workers needed in each kind of role will vary over time as a society develops (i.e. full employment cannot be maintained as excess workers are made redundant due to shrinking demand for the role) then the state should act on that. If a worker is not well resourced enough to maintain themselves at all then they have few options other than crime. If a worker is only resourced enough to maintain themselves for a certain period then the state would have to hope that the worker's skills are in demand again within that time frame since at that point they will have few options other than crime. An even better situation is where the worker is well resourced enough to both maintain themselves and retrain for a role which is in demand. This leads to the most versatile population able to adapt to it's own societal development.
So, for this scheme to work, someone has to pay for these benefits and the only way you can get people to pay for these benefits is if there are a hell of a lot more people with money than people without money or if one person has ALL the money.
Wrong. There are many ways to pay for the above but I'll give one example for each case taking the second case first.
A worker is made redundant as his skills are no longer in high demand. The state maintains and retrains the worker and a company wishes to purchase the worker's newly gained skills. The company pays the worker for his time and effort and the company also pays the state for having made the worker employable again. It's called income tax.
In the case of healthcare then we have a service which may be required by anyone at any time. One way to pay for that is to have everyone contribute from their income to maintain the service whether they are presently a service user or not. That's called national insurance.
But even if you took ALL the money in the world and divided it equally among everybody, eventually you would still end up with a group of poor people and a group of rich people. So why bother?
In you're reply to Bohemian, you clarified what you mean by this in the following way: If you divided ALL the money in the world equally among everybody, eventually (as times progresses) stupid people would end up losing money to the smarter people and thus we would end up with a group of rich, smart, people and a group of poor, stupid, people.
I've encountered the words smart and stupid before and they seem to have different meanings in different contexts. In some contexts they correspond well to intelligent and unintelligent. In this context however, we can determine the meaning of the terms empirically as you've basically outlined an experiment which can and has been performed. Perhaps you've even done the experiment yourself without realising it.
In a game of poker where all players start with the same number of chips, the chips get passed around and eventually a few players end up with vastly more chips than the rest. They achieve this by being skilled at deceiving other players into positions where they are able to exploit them for their own gain. So here smart means skilled at deception and exploitation with a concern for selfish ends. By extention, stupid means the lack of one or more of these traits. Certainly, a society which makes no attempt to curb the exploits of those with sociopathic tendencies will ultimately find itself ruled by such like.
Now, as liberals have been telling us for quite some time now, there are a hell of a lot more poor people than rich people. So, eventually you would be forced to take at least some of the money from the poor people in order to give it to people wo are even poorer.
Yes. They're called tax brackets.
Unless, of course, you increase the population in order to have more people that you can tax. But liberals are for abortion!!!
No. It's not the population you want to increase but the tax you're able to raise. Forcing a teenage girl to have a child which will probably end her hopes of leading a better life will increase the population but will also increase the welfare demand in the present and decrease the taxes raised in the future as she will inevitably be a less skilled worker having had to spend time on childcare while studying.
But even if they were against abortion, the more people there are, the less jobs there are and the lower the wages (supply and demand) and the higher the number of people looking for a handout.
Wrong. You appear to have overlooked the fact that it is people who generate demand for goods and services by existing. The more people there are the more demand there is for goods and services. Demand for goods and services raises the supply of jobs. Low wages arise when the supply of a skill set in the population outstrips the number of roles requiring that skill set. Also, as previously argued, the more rational thing to do is to retrain the worker with a skill set which is currently in higher demand but poorly represented in the population.
Another way to make it work is to get more people to go to work so that they can get taxed. But who the hell wants to work when they can just get a handout?
I find this comment very telling of your attitude to work and your lack of understanding that most people do not share this attitude. It is true that no one likes drudgery and no one likes being overwhelmed and either case impacts productivity. However, there is a sweet spot where challenge is matched to competency. This is when someone loves their job and are quite surprised that others are willing to pay them to do it.
It just doesn't make any sense.
In writing this contribution, I've come to understand why it doesn't make sense to you. You are labouring under a number of false notions and where you have the facts right you're messing up the logic.
But liberals act like they are the intellectuals and everyone else is a red neck even though it is clear to see that liberals lack common sense.
True and false. Initially, intellectuals come from all sides of a debate. Over time as the facts are verified and putative 'facts' are discredited and as the logic of the competing arguments have been scrutinised, one perspective or a few related perspectives get the lion's share of the intellectuals. Now, having the lion's share of the intellectuals does not mean a perspective has the lion's share of the population. This is because intellectuals, being characterised by an uncommon intellectual aptitude, are always in the minority and on some questions the perspectives adopted by the intellectuals may be too nuanced to comprehend by common sense alone. Common sense is often a reasonable start but ultimately there's no substitute for a good education and reasoning logically from physical evidence.
I get the distinct impression that I've spent substantially more time thinking about this 'proof' than you have. There may be a good argument for liberals being illogical but this isn't it.
1)Why does the state have to insure against diseases? Would not the most prudent thing to do be that an individual insure against disease?
2)Why should the state insure against un-employment? Again,would not the most prudent thing to do be for the individual to insure against this which would eliminate alot of goverment waste by having administrations upon administrations doing this? Think of the savings.
3)" It's called income tax." Companies don't pay income tax(technically).Companies take their portion from what they would have paid you and send it to the goverment.If there was no income tax,YOU would receive higher pay from your company from two sources,what you pay in income tax and also from what they take from you for their portion.The money you say is paid by companies is actually taking away from what you would be paid.
" That's called national insurance."- Again,would it not be more prudent for me to insure myself and less costly (beuracracy). It is proven that an individual will spend their own money more prudent than others would.
4)" end up with vastly more chips than the rest" Life is not a zero sum game, trade and cooperation are mutually beneficial to all parties despite differences among them in terms of capacity and talent.Everyone is made wealthier through cooperation and market economy leads to the benefit of everyone.
5) And the war on poverty has been going on for how long while the same percentage of people remain poor.
States don't have to do anything. State governments are, in the end, umbrella companies governing all other companies and individuals within a nation. They both regulate and facilitate companies' and individuals' conduct and opportunities. Some things are better handled by such an umbrella organisation precisely because the individual case is less relevant than the group condition.
1) In epidemiology, the key factor is not individual immunity but herd immunity. A vaccine is of little value to a society without a sensible vaccination programme. Individuals can vaccinate themselves against a disease but can do little to vaccinate themselves against the social unrest caused in their society if all others go unvaccinated.
2) Because the state would ideally be "... of the people, by the people, for the people ..." Governments used not to concern themselves much with such issues but that was hundreds of years ago when hardly anyone had a vote. Individuals can and do attempt to insure against unemployment by holding down a job. The state steps in when Plan A fails. Why should the state step in? Because it is responsible for the rule of law and should take measures to see to it that none are put in a position where their very survival depends on their willingness to act contrary to the laws.
3) When it comes to income tax, you need only consider the following hypothetical scenario: if a government decided one year that income tax should be 0% for all workers then how much of the money saved would companies pass on to the employees? I would expect different answers for different nations. In the UK, I would expect something near or around 50%. In the US, I would expect something much closer to 0%. Once you understand that you see that, despite the usual sense that it is you who is paying income tax, the fact is it's money you don't see in practice and, in the US, wouldn't ever see even in principle. However, it is money spent by the companies. So your income tax is being paid by your employer and if income tax didn't exist then you would still be paid just the same. No passing on of savings. Sorry to have to break it to you.
" That's called national insurance."- Again,would it not be more prudent for me to insure myself and less costly (beuracracy). It is proven that an individual will spend their own money more prudent than others would.
Yes, and individuals do insure against disease by purchasing a wide array of cleaning products and exercising good hygiene practices. The point is that it would be prudent of a state to have a plan B in place in case individual precautions fail.
Are you using 'proven' in the same sense as used in the title of this debate? Does 'proven' actually mean your firmly held opinion lacking any actual evidence? How thoughtfully a government spends it's budget comes down to a number of factors including it's level of corruption and it's decision making efficiency and accuracy. But these are factors you have to contend with whenever you hire a plumber to do a big plumbing job. Unless you're an expert plumber, it's not something you could do yourself. My advice then is that if you're concerned about irresponsible handling of funds then you shouldn't vote in crooks and incompetents just as you wouldn't hire a dishonest plumber.
4) Yes. That's correct in the larger picture. However, there are those who, despite the opportunity for mutually advantageous cooperation, prefer to play for substantially greater personal gains irrespective of the human cost. A poorly conceived market which favours those adopting this kind of strategy finds itself dominated by this strategy.
5) And the war on poverty has been going on for how long while the same percentage of people remain poor.
Really? What percentage would that be and how long has it remained the same? If a plumber is plumbing away endlessly and yet I can see no useful results after a substantial period then I hire a new plumber. I don't suddenly decide that I don't need running water any more.
"So here smart means skilled at deception and exploitation with a concern for selfish ends. By extension, stupid means the lack of one or more of these traits."
That's right. And you end by implying that being "skilled at deception and exploitation with a concern for selfish ends" is a "sociopathic tendency" .... which "by extension" means that animals are sociopaths.
Now you can claim that there are altruistic animals but it can be shown that even the most altruistic animal has some selfish tendencies.
You can also claim that humans are somehow better than animals (or that they should at least try to lift themselves up above the animals) but I think you would be hard pressed to prove that given human history. You can argue that just because the current human condition is so abysmal doesn't mean that we should stop trying but I would argue that we should just accept human nature for what it is and stop banging our head against the wall. I mean, it's 2010, for crying out loud. If we haven't gotten there yet by now, how much longer do you want to keep trying?
A good education is often a reasonable start but ultimately there's no substitute for good old fashion common sense given years of physical evidence. ;)
And you end by implying that being "skilled at deception and exploitation with a concern for selfish ends" is a "sociopathic tendency" .... which "by extension" means that animals are sociopaths.
Animals? Kind of a broad category you have there. Sociopathy is a meaningful term in the context of social species i.e. species which depend on cooperation amongst individuals in order to get on with the business of survival. In all other cases, the animal is simply surviving.
Now you can claim that there are altruistic animals but it can be shown that even the most altruistic animal has some selfish tendencies.
Yes. An animal acting in it's pack's interest doesn't simply set aside it's own individual needs. If an individual is not particularly altruistic then it doesn't often do things for the benefit of the group or other members of the group. But that's still not selfish. To be selfish, an individual would need to show a persistent pattern of serving their own interests despite the substantial cost to the group and other members of that group.
You can also claim that humans are somehow better than animals (or that they should at least try to lift themselves up above the animals) but I think you would be hard pressed to prove that given human history. You can argue that just because the current human condition is so abysmal doesn't mean that we should stop trying but I would argue that we should just accept human nature for what it is and stop banging our head against the wall. I mean, it's 2010, for crying out loud. If we haven't gotten there yet by now, how much longer do you want to keep trying?
Humans are animals. Humans can no more lift themselves above the animals than it is possible for Los Angeles to be north of California. Current human conditions aren't abysmal precisely because generation before us have strived to improve things regardless of the time and effort involved. Things are as they are today precisely because someone kept banging the rocks together instead of simply accepting the cold and wet darkness as the natural order of things. It's called progress.
A good education is often a reasonable start but ultimately there's no substitute for good old fashion common sense given years of physical evidence.
Where to start? Personal impressions aren't physical evidence. Roughly 300,000 years of all humans relying on personal impressions have proved puny compared to 300 years of a few scientists attending to actual physical evidence. Similarly, an education attending to physical evidence is more than a thousand times (and probably more than a million times) more effective than widely held personal impressions (i.e. common sense).
;)
Just keep banging the rocks together, not your heads.
Things are as they are today precisely because someone kept banging the rocks together instead of simply accepting the cold and wet darkness as the natural order of things. It's called progress.
I think you are onto something there. Most people wouldn't bang rocks together to get fire. Only an engineer/scientist would have made the connection between sparks and fire. Scientists and engineers don't need other people. They can create a great life for themselves ;)
Whereas I don't see why most people can't become scientists and engineers. Everyone should be everything they are at the moment and also scientists and engineers too. Same social roles but with scientific and engineering training. We'd have a more capable society across the board.
But failing that, I don't think a society consisting of purely scientific and engineering roles could survive for long. Scientists produce the scientific knowledge for engineers to use to build the society's technology. But who's going to operate it all? Who's going to fight the wars, plough the fields and build the houses? I think you still need the various professional occupations and skilled craftsmen... at least until the robots rise up to enslave humanity.
This piece is written with illogical assumptions about liberal beliefs- like absolutes. Open your mind to a wider margin of thinking for a moment and you'll find that most liberals don't believe "someone should pay for" everything. Liberals believe it is the duty of the state to help its people. What else does it exist for? If it was defense alone, it would be a military rule. Sure Conservatives tend to lower taxes, but they still come in. Collected taxes, no matter how small, is a lot of money. Where does the money go if not to social programs focused on helping the people?
ummm a political stance or party is just a set of political ideals, not everyone of that political ideals, or stance are part of it for illogical reason. secondly not all liberals share the EXACT same political opinions, they can end agreing with the conservative political ideals once in a while. what makes a liberal a liberal is the majority of thier political opinions being apart of the liberal stance not all this that your projecting onto us. liberal/democrat, conservative/republican are all just labels for political opinions that tend to go togethor.
In Australia, the Liberal party is equivalent to the U.S. Republican party (conservative). Luckily, we are not given to the extreme conservatism of the U.S. Both parties have supported national health care together with strong private health care for those who can afford it. The U.S. is the only western country that believes only those with money deserve health care.
On a side note, the extremes of both are illogical:
- Left wingers want to control business but not your personal life.
- Right wingers want to control your personal life but not business.
