ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => News and Politics => Topic started by: Collin Li on January 21, 2008, 07:31:58 am
-
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2006/12/07/if-growing-inequality-is-a-serious-problem-please-explain-why
Via Greg Mankiw comes this suggestion of Yale economist Robert Shiller reported in Tax Notes Today:
The IRS should be instructed to automatically adjust tax rates to keep economic inequality from getting worse, according to a new proposal outlined by Robert Shiller, a Yale University economics professor.
“We have a serious problem, and it’s a problem of growing inequality,” Shiller said on December 6 at a Library of Congress discussion in Washington. Shiller developed the proposal with Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, and the two are planning to write a book on the idea.
“We need a standard or principle of income inequality. We don’t have one now,” he said. Inequality provides motivation to work harder and benefits hard work, he said, so “we do want some inequality, but we don’t have any clear idea about where we’re going and what is appropriate.”
The standard, which Shiller calls “inequality indexation” of the tax system, would instruct the IRS to adjust brackets and rates whenever inequality worsened beyond an agreed-on level.
The question that leaps to mind is: why?
An interesting article that challenges society's implied value of equality. It could make your blood boil, or you might just agree. Discuss here.
-
http://www.cis.org.au/policy/autumn04/autumn04-1.htm
I would simply add that there is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and actually trying to make them equal.
It's not exactly clear why government force should be used to actually try to make people equal. In fact it sounds more like a dystopian nightmare to me.
-
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/may-june-magazine-contents/the-upside-of-income-inequality/
"Should an increase in earnings inequality due primarily to higher rates of return on education and other skills be considered a favorable rather than an unfavorable development? We think so. Higher rates of return on capital are a sign of greater productivity in the economy, and that inference is fully applicable to human capital as well as to physical capital. The initial impact of higher returns to human capital is wider inequality in earnings (the same as the initial effect of higher returns on physical capital), but that impact becomes more muted and may be reversed over time as young men and women invest more in their human capital....
For many, the solution to an increase in inequality is to make the tax structure more progressive—raise taxes on high-income households and reduce taxes on low-income households. While this may sound sensible, it is not. Would these same individuals advocate a tax on going to college and a subsidy for dropping out of high school in response to the increased importance of education? We think not. Yet shifting the tax structure has exactly this effect."
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/04/why_rising_inco.html
Why Rising Income Inequality in the United States Should Be a Nonissue by Richard PosnerRichard Posner is currently a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.
"As society becomes more competitive and more meritocratic, income inequality is likely to rise simply as a consequence of the underlying inequality--which is very great--between people that is due to differences in IQ, energy, health, social skills, character, ambition, physical attractiveness, talent, and luck. Public policies designed to reduce income inequality, such as highly progressive income taxation and middle-class subsidies, are likely to reduce the aggregate wealth of society...
The "problem" of income inequality should not be confused with the problem of poverty. The first, I have argued, is, at least in the United States at present, a pseudo-problem. Poverty is a genuine social problem, because by definition it signifies a lack of the resources necessary for a decent life. It is only tenuously if at all related to income inequality, since one could have zero poverty in a society in which the gap between the income of the worst-off members of society was huge--imagine if the poorest person in America earned $100,000 a year and the wealthiest $1 billion.
The more competitive and meritocratic a society, the more intractable the problem of poverty. The reason is that in such a society the poor tend to be people who are not productive because they simply do not have the abilities that are in demand by employers. It is unlikely that everybody (other than the severely disabled) can be trained up to a level at which there is a demand for his or her labor, and so there is likely to be an irreducible amount of poverty even in a wealthy society such as ours, unless we provide generous welfare benefits--which will discourage work."
What about equality of happiness?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/25/business/25scene.html?ex=1327381200&en=47c55edd9529cae7&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
"Studies of personal happiness, based on questionnaires and self-reporting, indicate that the inequality of happiness is not growing over time in the United States. Furthermore, the United States has an inequality of happiness roughly comparable to that of Sweden or Denmark, two nations with strongly egalitarian reputations. (See the symposium in Journal of Happiness Studies, December 2005.) American society offers good opportunities for people to be happy, even if not everyone becomes rich...
The broader philosophical question is why we should worry about inequality — of any kind — much at all. Life is not a race against fellow human beings, and we should discourage people from treating it as such. Many of the rich have made the mistake of viewing their lives as a game of relative status. So why should economists promote this same zero-sum worldview? Yes, there are corporate scandals, but it remains the case that most American wealth today is produced rather than taken from other people.
What matters most is how well people are doing in absolute terms. We should continue to improve opportunities for lower-income people, but inequality as a major and chronic American problem has been overstated."
-
Aren't around 12 million americans below the poverty line?
Hardly seems an overstatement really
I'm not so sure inequality and poverty can be so easily seperated. If all people are equal and inequality really is a "pseudo problem", they why are only some poeple in poverty, and others not.
-
People are not equal. People should be treated equally by the law, not treated unequally so that they are made to be equal.
-
Yes, but unregulated society would not be equal either, i realise that mot of the natrual world is "survival of the fittest", but even though our resources are scarce, we still have the means to ensure that those less fortunate have a means to exist. Call it inefficiency if you want, call minimum wage counter productive to the poor, but it is better than doing nothing and watching a noticeable proportion of our society attempt to compete and fail without the assistance they need. If laws effectively make people unequal in attempt to make them equal, then so be it. Some of these people may lack intiative and be ultimately undesrving of this treatment, but many are not, and despite government intervention, must still rely on the goodness and charity of others to survive. Whilst i have reservations on the idea that this is a growing problem, given that historically inequality has been much worse, these are still people, they can't help themselves, and few other individuals will help them. This might be unsubstantiated emotional rhetoric, but i don't care.
-
call minimum wage counter productive to the poor, but it is better than doing nothing and watching a noticeable proportion of our society attempt to compete and fail without the assistance they need. If laws effectively make people unequal in attempt to make them equal, then so be it.
This is what I call ruthless compassion. This is like how Mike Huckabee said that the Americans have to stay in the Iraq War for honour, rather than for any particular goal. We cannot afford to continue propping up these government interventions to save face, or to pander to the people to appear 'compassionate.' We need to educate the people and let them know that these policies aren't working to help the poor. The poor people are hurting, and it's because the government is getting in their way.
Some of these people may lack intiative and be ultimately undesrving of this treatment, but many are not, and despite government intervention, must still rely on the goodness and charity of others to survive.
Well why don't we leave it up to the goodness and charity of others? If we leave the market free, we would both agree that the pure economic output of the nation would be boosted. You agree that government intervention causes inefficiency. If we had a larger economic pie, there would be more to go around. Inequality is only tenuously linked to poverty, poverty would probably decrease while inequality is increasing, but the final outcome is that there is more wealth and less poverty, and thus there is a better ability of voluntary charity to meet the needs of the needy.
-
Well, other than 'compassion'...
Pure meritocracy is incoherent because, without redistri-bution, one generation's suc-cessful individuals would become the next generation's embedded caste, hoarding the wealth they had accumulated. Social justice demands that high incomes and large concentrations of wealth be spread more widely, in order to recognise the contribution made by all sections of the community to building the nation's wealth.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200506270022
There is a study (I can't seem to find the actual document, so my source is wiki, lol). Anyway, it said that there is an ideal level of income redistribution in order to have the best possible level of economic growth. When the gini coefficient is high, it negatively impacts growth due to "incentive traps, erosion of social cohesion, social conflicts, [and] uncertain property rights", but if it's too low then that's bad too because of "incentive traps, free-riding, labour shirking, [and] high supervision costs".
Also, 'equality' isn't really what this is about, it's 'equity'. They're different.
-
The term I prefer is equality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality
I avoid equity because it is often associated with finance, but here is the economic meaning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_%28economics%29
The empirical evidence for this Gini coefficient relationship is particularly strong in the socialist European countries, but it is not so in the United States, where they have a much freer market. This is to be expected, because if there is a free-market that has sustained under a representative democracy, then it means that people are less averse to competition, and there is a smaller degree of flirting with the politics of envy. Meanwhile, in the countries that have redistributionist policy, it is less acceptable to have a large degree of economic inequality, and thus in those regions, such factors such as "social cohesion" may cause a decrease in economic output.
It is short-sighted for societies to think that relative income is more important than absolute real income (relative to the value of money). This macroeconomic problem would cease in the long-run, as society's values change over time and realise that severing ties with society is only at your own cost (disincentive). Thus, there would be no relationship between social cohesion and inequality (or lack of redistribution) as long as redistribution was gradually phased out.
-
minimum wage counter productive to the poor, but it is better than doing nothing
Wait a minute. If the objective is to assist the poor, how can it be that doing something that is counter-productive is better than doing nothing. If by definition it is counter-productive, then you would be better off not doing anything! If I was poor man, and you were doing things with the intention of helping me, but all you did was make me worse off each time, then safe to say that i would probably tell you to piss off.
If laws effectively make people unequal in attempt to make them equal, then so be it.
If the goal was to actually try to make people equal through the use of government force, then how can one say to be achieving that goal if one is to enact laws that do the complete opposite. It makes no sense.
There is nothing wrong with helping the poor, in fact, I would encourage it, and I would say that we ought to be compassionate to the poor, but on two conditions:
(1) you must do it using your own resources, your own money - not your neighbor's money extracted from him by force.
(2) do no harm - this sounds pretty obvious, but its pretty important in my view. Out of all things, harming the poor would have to be the lowest act, even if it is done with the best of intentions.
-
I believe that it is short-sighted for societies to think that relative income is more important than absolute real income (relative to the value of money). I think that this macroeconomic problem would cease in the long-run, as society's values change over time, with the help of people like brendan and I who help to educate on the merits of a free society. As someone who is concerned with individual liberty, I prioritise the defence of freedom over the defence of maximum outcomes. Although microeconomic theory has always supported the freedom fighter in showing that there are maximum outcomes associated with a free society, even if this were not the case (as it can be with some empirical studies) I would still be in defence of individual liberty.
I do not believe in a need for some wise men in some bureaucracy to tinker with our economy in order to maximise it's growth rate. We should ultimately be seeking a free society first, rather than setting our eyes on maximum economic output. It only helps our cause that microeconomics projects that a free society will naturally lead to the maximum possible economic output. But as for the minor macroeconomic short-run reductions, what is the point of a fast growing economy if you are not free from the coercive arms of the government?
Freedom and liberty for whom though? It seems to me that it's just "freedom for those who can afford it", while the rich will have it, poorer people cannot obtain it because they don't have access to the resources necessary for them to be able to achieve what they want in life.
-
Freedom and liberty for whom though? It seems to me that it's just "freedom for those who can afford it", while the rich will have it, poorer people cannot obtain it because they don't have access to the resources necessary for them to be able to achieve what they want in life.
Would you agree that freedom is the ‘ability to do what I want’ or the power to satisfy our wishes?
-
I agree with Eriny (perhaps because we both did VCE Economics...); equity in the distribution of income is what presides as the main focus of the government, not income equality. To seek equality would erode efficiency and dissolve all motivation, and so a natural level of inequality is perfectly acceptable. However, equity is important in ensuring access to basic goods and services and the opportunity for everyone to earn an income, thus avoiding absolute poverty (which Australia has done almost completely).
There are some issues where the efficiency of the free market should be rejected in favour of government intervention to ensure "social harmony". People are often born into poverty and without government intervention and support, have very little chance of improving their situation. To propose we should leave the re-distribution of wealth to "voluntary charity" seems entirely unrealistic and perhaps lacking any form of empathy for the less fortunate.
-
equity
What is it? Can you define it?
-
Freedom and liberty for whom though? It seems to me that it's just "freedom for those who can afford it", while the rich will have it, poorer people cannot obtain it because they don't have access to the resources necessary for them to be able to achieve what they want in life.
I have changed the focus of my post, as I have edited it and I did not realise it was active here. I will still respond though:
Freedom and liberty for individuals. Of course there will be people who cannot afford things, but there is no better alternative. People do not have an inherent right to whatever they want. They only have a right to work for it, and try to achieve it, through voluntary and mutual means. This is the only humanitarian solution. For the truly needy who may never be able to earn enough, they must rely on the goodwill and charity of others, and that is the nature of life.
The problem is that once we coerce the wealthy to fund the poor, it drives out the wealthy and it creates an incentive trap for the poor to remain reliant on other people's hard earned resources. This cannot be sustained without substantially affecting the economic output of the entire society, hence producing more poverty than before. There will always be poverty and no solution will completely rid of it, but a free society can help the economic pie expand to it's maximum, and so people will have more surpluses so that voluntary contributions will be more effective in reaching the poor.
-
There are some issues where the efficiency of the free market should be rejected in favour of government intervention to ensure "social harmony".
I have addressed this:
"The empirical evidence for this Gini coefficient relationship is particularly strong in the socialist European countries, but it is not so in the United States, where they have a much freer market. This is to be expected, because if there is a free-market that has sustained under a representative democracy, then it means that people are less averse to competition, and there is a smaller degree of flirting with the politics of envy. Meanwhile, in the countries that have redistributionist policy, it is less acceptable to have a large degree of economic inequality, and thus in those regions, such factors such as "social cohesion" may cause a decrease in economic output.
It is short-sighted for societies to think that relative income is more important than absolute real income (relative to the value of money). This macroeconomic problem would cease in the long-run, as society's values change over time and realise that severing ties with society is only at your own cost (disincentive). Thus, there would be no relationship between social cohesion and inequality (or lack of redistribution) as long as redistribution was gradually phased out."
People are often born into poverty and without government intervention and support, have very little chance of improving their situation. To propose we should leave the re-distribution of wealth to "voluntary charity" seems entirely unrealistic and perhaps lacking any form of empathy for the less fortunate.
I responded to this before by calling it 'ruthless compassion.'
"We cannot afford to continue propping up these government interventions to save face, or to pander to the people to appear 'compassionate.' We need to educate the people and let them know that these policies aren't working to help the poor. The poor people are hurting, and it's because the government is getting in their way."
Voluntary charity is more realistic than re-distribution, because redistribution reduces the size of the economic pie, which means there is less to share around (the more you tax, the more you compress the economy).
-
To propose we should leave the re-distribution of wealth to "voluntary charity" seems entirely unrealistic and perhaps lacking any form of empathy for the less fortunate.
Why is promoting voluntary charity mean that the person cannot be compassionate to the poor? It just doesn't follow.
Secondly, why doesn't anyone acknowledge that with government intervention comes coercion. You cannot get something for nothing. There is no money fairy. Government cannot give without taking and government always does it through force. If taxes weren't coercive and involuntary they simply wouldn't be called taxes - they would be called donations.
Lastly, it's one thing to say that a person ought to be compassionate to the poor, its completely another to say that the fruits of his labour ought to be confiscated by the State where then civil servants distribute such confiscated resources with the intention of helping the poor. They are two very different things. If you are going to argue for the second which most of here seem to be, then at least be honest about it and acknowledge it and don't hide behind the cloak of "i wanna help the poor". I haven't even started with measures that have been enacted with the intention with helping the poor, but have turned out to do nothing of the sort, in fact some have done the complete opposite, i.e. taken resources from the poor by force, and then given to the rich.
-
equity
What is it? Can you define it?
In this context equity refers to fairness. To achieve equity would ensure everyone is given the opportunity and ability to earn an income, and to ensure the poor have access to goods and services that will assist in attaining at least a basic standard of living.
-
In this context equity refers to fairness.
Well then what is fairness? How do you define fairness? Why only in this context? Why not in others?
equity would ensure everyone is given the opportunity and ability to earn an income, and to ensure the poor have access to goods and services that will assist in attaining at least a basic standard of living.
How do you define the basic standard of living? Where do you draw the line? How do you give everyone "the opportunity and ability to earn an income"? It's one thing to give them an opportunity, but the ability too? What if through misfortune a person is simply born disabled? Can it be said they have an ability to earn an income? What if no employer wants to hire a person you see as deserving, what then?
-
I will still respond though:
Freedom and liberty for individuals. Of course there will be people who cannot afford things, but there is no better alternative. People do not have an inherent right to what they want. They have a right to work for it, and try to achieve it, through voluntary and mutual means. This is the only humanitarian solution. For the truly needy who can may never be able to earn enough, they must rely on the goodwill and charity of others, and that is the nature of life.
Sorry, I poorly defined what I though of freedom. It is the right to be able to work towards what you want in life (not necessarily to get it), but many people below the poverty line will not even get this opportunity (unless they aren't big dreamers). If you want a family and can't even pay rent or enough food, and you can't work towards being in a better financial situation due to poor skills and the inaccessability of education, for example, I believe that you are being opressed merely for being the class you were born in. Thankfully, I don't think this happens in Australia. While I would argue that Australians deserve more social freedoms, economically I think we're doing quite well. Clearly, this is an ideological judgement though.
The problem, I think, with relying on charity is that it's a reconstruction of a system of dependence. Poor people must rely solely on rich people for an income and in doing so have a kind of debt to them. This brings up an issue of classist heirachies. Rich people should not be able to command the amount of control that they would get as a 'donor' which would be a perversion of the intended effect and lower income earners may not have the power to access freedom as they would feel or have the feeling projected onto them that they are subserviant to their rich funders. It would be a better system where each person in society is equally accountable to all people because the distribution of power, if you will, becomes fairer. Furthermore, it's much more likely that if charity alone is relied upon then people will 'fall through the gaps', so to speak. Is this so called 'liberty' more important than fairness? I would say that both are equally important and both need to be upheld, especially given that they are very much interrelated.
The problem is that once we coerce the wealthy to fund the poor, it drives out the wealthy and it creates an incentive trap for the poor to remain reliant on other people's hard earned resources. This cannot be sustained without substantially affecting the economic output of the entire society, hence producing more poverty than before. There will always be poverty, no solution will completely rid of it, but a free society can help the economic pie expand to it's maximum, and people will have more surpluses so that voluntary contributions will be more effective in reaching the poor.
Yes, I agree, if income distribution is completely equal that would basically suck for society. But there are different shades of redistribution, and as I said earlier, a certain amount is good for growth in an economy. And while it's true that there will always be relative poverty, absolute poverty has been abolished in Australia. These things are actually effective. I'm also not sure if it's correct to say that we're forcing the wealthy to fund the poor, the money collected from tax goes into a range of different things, including the services used and needed by rich people.
-
Is this so called 'liberty' more important than fairness? I would say that both are equally important and both need to be upheld, especially given that they are very much interrelated.
Is this so called "fairness" more important than human freedom?
Fairness deserves the quotations marks because what is fair to you might very well be unfair to me. You haven't defined "fairness". What is "fairness"? On the other hand, freedom has a very specific meaning, freedom is the absence of coercion or aggression by one man on another man.
-
Fairness gives everyone freedom to work towards what they want...
Freedom involves ensuring all people have access to it.
-
Fairness gives everyone freedom to work towards what they want...
Freedom involves ensuring all people have access to it.
"it" being "work towards what they want"?
So in your view, freedom involves ensuring all people have access to work towards what they want. What is access? What if the person hasn't got the ability? What if through misfortune a person is simply born disabled? What then? What if no one wants to provide you with this person with a job? What then?
-
Freedom:
The condition of being free of external restraints.
Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.
Having some access to the means of production or failing that, the ability to thrive without this access.
A disabled person can be free if their only restraint is themselves. Obviously, you have to want something that is physically possible. The other person in your scenario may be free if they have access to further training in order to get a job - the restraint isn't someone not letting them have a job, the restraint only occurs if they don't have access to the resources they need in order to get the job.
Fairness:
To give every person an equal opportunity to command the same level of social power.
Lastly, it's one thing to say that a person ought to be compassionate to the poor, its completely another to say that the fruits of his labour ought to be confiscated by the State where then civil servants distribute such confiscated resources with the intention of helping the poor. They are two very different things. If you are going to argue for the second which most of here seem to be, then at least be honest about it and acknowledge it and don't hide behind the cloak of "i wanna help the poor". I haven't even started with measures that have been enacted with the intention with helping the poor, but have turned out to do nothing of the sort, in fact some have done the complete opposite, i.e. taken resources from the poor by force, and then given to the rich.
Not all rich people actually had to "labour" in order to do so. See the quote above about how "one generation's suc-cessful individuals would become the next generation's embedded caste, hoarding the wealth they had accumulated. Social justice demands that high incomes and large concentrations of wealth be spread more widely, in order to recognise the contribution made by all sections of the community to building the nation's wealth."
Also, recognise that the highest earners in an economy aren't always the hardest workers or the people who take risky ventures.
-
Not all rich people actually had to "labour" in order to do so. See the quote above about how "one generation's suc-cessful individuals would become the next generation's embedded caste, hoarding the wealth they had accumulated. Social justice demands that high incomes and large concentrations of wealth be spread more widely, in order to recognise the contribution made by all sections of the community to building the nation's wealth."
That implies that it's some sort of zero-sum game. If my neighbor has a higher an income me, than therefore it must be that there is only so much income to go around, and i therefore get less. If only he had less, I would have more. That is completely wrong, that's just not how it is.
Also, recognise that the highest earners in an economy aren't always the hardest workers or the people who take risky ventures.
Does Puff Daddy work hard? What does it matter? The question here is are you justified in using government force to confiscate his wealth/income?
-
If you want to call it confiscation, then yes, I do believe that it is justified. Because it does matter if the rich are only rich because they were born that way. Why would it not matter? Isn't the whole point of democracy and capitalism that anyone can achieve anything? Well I have news... unless the proper safe guards are put in place, they can't. And isn't it equally coercive if rich people profit from the hard work of their underlings without doing much at all?
That implies that it's some sort of zero-sum game. If my neighbor has a higher an income me, than therefore it must be that there is only so much income to go around, and i therefore get less. If only he had less, I would have more. That is completely wrong, that's just not how it is.
I don't understand. I didn't say it was like that...
-
Freedom:
The condition of being free of external restraints.
Well I am restrained by gravity, does that therefore mean I am unfree? Freedom solely refers to the relation of men to other men and the only infringement on it is coercion by other men. Hence, it is nonsensical to say that it i am unfree because i am restrained by gravity. Likewise, it is nonsensical to say that gravity is "unjust" or "unfair".
Having some access to the means of production or failing that, the ability to thrive without this access.
How do you ensure that? How are you going to do that?
The other person in your scenario may be free if they have access to further training in order to get a job - the restraint isn't someone not letting them have a job, the restraint only occurs if they don't have access to the resources they need in order to get the job.
Where is this training going to come from? Who is going to pay for it? Nothing is free. Does "access" mean that person you refer to can get it for free?
Fairness:
To give every person an equal opportunity to command the same level of social power.
Well then how do you define "opportunity"? What conditions have to be met for everyone's "opportunity" to be equal? What is "social power"? Why is "social power" desirable?
I don't understand. I didn't say it was like that...
Alright then, what is "social justice" and what conditions have to be met for there to exist "social justice"? How are you to achieve "social justice"? Why is it necessarily undesirable for a parents to give assets to their children? Secondly "nations" don't own wealth, people own wealth. Thirdly why limit it to just arbitrarily political boundaries of nations? Why not extend it beyond nations?
-
Freedom:
The condition of being free of external restraints.
Well I am restrained by gravity, does that therefore mean I am unfree? Freedom solely refers to the relation of men to other men and the only infringement on it is coercion by other men. Hence, it is nonsensical to say that it i am unfree because i am restrained by gravity. Likewise, it is nonsensical to say that gravity is "unjust" or "unfair".
[/quote]Obviously, you have to want something that is physically possible.
No need to be trivial here.
Having some access to the means of production or failing that, the ability to thrive without this access.
How do you ensure that? How are you going to do that?
By giving people money or capital...
The other person in your scenario may be free if they have access to further training in order to get a job - the restraint isn't someone not letting them have a job, the restraint only occurs if they don't have access to the resources they need in order to get the job.
Where is this training going to come from? Who is going to pay for it? Nothing is free. Does "access" mean that person you refer to can get it for free?
Not necessarily. As long as they can get it.
Fairness:
To give every person an equal opportunity to command the same level of social power.
Well then how do you define "opportunity"? What conditions have to be met for everyone's "opportunity" to be equal? What is "social power"? Why is "social power" desirable?
I'm interested as to why you're asking all these questions of me. Is it some kind of tactic? Is it to just be annoying?
Opportunities are a chance for progress or advancement (thank-you dictionary.com!). So, like, the ability to go to school and be educated to get a better career. Or the ability to have healthcare so that you are better able to work. The ability to have money to buy food and some kind of shelter so that you have stability and can build your life from there. Opportunities like these should not be inherrent to rich people and nonexistent to poor ones. Both need the same amounts of opportunity.
Social power was more a reference to what I was saying earlier. It means that whether you're poor or you're rich, you can still lead your life without being a slave and you can live in a dignified way.
-
Why don't we have a flat income tax rate?
I don't think people on high wages should be punished for it. I think everyone should pay the same tax on their income because to me that seems the fairest.
-
Why don't we have a flat income tax rate?
I don't think people on high wages should be punished for it. I think everyone should pay the same tax on their income because to me that seems the fairest.
Good idea though i would add an exemption for those on the low incomes, say an exemption up to 30k. I don't think those at the bottom should be taxed.
I'm interested as to why you're asking all these questions of me. Is it some kind of tactic? Is it to just be annoying?
You made some claims, now you have to explain them. If you find thinking about your own posts annoying well then..
ability to go to school and be educated to get a better career.
How are you going to provide that? Where is it going to come from?
Or the ability to have healthcare so that you are better able to work.
How are you going to provide that? Where is it going to come from? Who is going to provide that?
The ability to have money to buy food and some kind of shelter so that you have stability and can build your life from there.
How are you going to provide that? Who is going to provide that?
Opportunities like these should not be inherrent to rich people and nonexistent to poor ones. Both need the same amounts of opportunity.
These "opportunities" seem more like goods and services.
Social power was more a reference to what I was saying earlier. It means that whether you're poor or you're rich, you can still lead your life without being a slave and you can live in a dignified way.
So you want to give every person an equal "chance for progress or advancement" to command the same level of "life without being a slave and you can live in a dignified way".
How exactly are you going to make these chances equal? What is living in "dignified way"? 50k a year? 60k a year? Lastly, and most importantly, what exactly does it mean to "live like a slave"?
By giving people money or capital...
Where is that money going to come from? There is money fairy. Who is to give it? How are you get this money? Who is going to provide that? Secondly, the typical definition of capital is "plant and equipment", why would you give someone plant and equipment? That seems quite silly, what definition of capital are you using?
I don't understand. I didn't say it was like that...
Alright then, what is "social justice" and what conditions have to be met for there to exist "social justice"? How are you to achieve "social justice"? Why is it necessarily undesirable for a parents to give assets to their children? Secondly "nations" don't own wealth, people own wealth. Thirdly why limit it to just arbitrarily political boundaries of nations? Why not extend it beyond nations?
-
Why don't we have a flat income tax rate?
I don't think people on high wages should be punished for it. I think everyone should pay the same tax on their income because to me that seems the fairest.
Good idea though i would add an exemption for those on the low incomes, say an exemption up to 30k. I don't think those at the bottom should be taxed.
Yeh I agree that people on low incomes should not be taxed as it gives them an incentive to actually stay in the workforce . But prior to new income tax reforms (not sure about the highest level of income tax) I remember looking at the highest threshold and thinking (around) 50%! Thats ridiculous when other people are on between 25-35%. Even possibly a 2 tier tax bracket would be better than how it used to be (about 5 or so brackets?)
-
I doubt very much that there will be as many people who live in poverty as some of you believe. It is only the case now because they have been trapped in to the incentives of a welfare state. Once we start to dissolve these elements of government, the incentive traps will fall apart, and more people will begin to work again. The economy will become kick-started by liberalisation in the labour market. Although the increase in supply of labour may decrease wages, it will also decrease prices of goods. The Australian consumer benefits, and the ones who consume the most percentage of their income are the poor. All of this would come without sacrificing liberty at all.
-
I think certain welfare benefits should remain in place but I think their is a disincentive to go out into the workforce because our welfare system is too generous. If the inconvenience, stress and time restraints imposed on an individual outweigh the relatively small increase in income that they receive a week, then where is the incentive to work?
-
I'm interested as to why you're asking all these questions of me. Is it some kind of tactic? Is it to just be annoying?
You made some claims, now you have to explain them. If you find thinking about your own posts annoying well then..
ability to go to school and be educated to get a better career.
How are you going to provide that? Where is it going to come from?
Or the ability to have healthcare so that you are better able to work.
How are you going to provide that? Where is it going to come from? Who is going to provide that?
The ability to have money to buy food and some kind of shelter so that you have stability and can build your life from there.
How are you going to provide that? Who is going to provide that?
Opportunities like these should not be inherrent to rich people and nonexistent to poor ones. Both need the same amounts of opportunity.
These "opportunities" seem more like goods and services.
Social power was more a reference to what I was saying earlier. It means that whether you're poor or you're rich, you can still lead your life without being a slave and you can live in a dignified way.
So you want to give every person an equal "chance for progress or advancement" to command the same level of "life without being a slave and you can live in a dignified way".
How exactly are you going to make these chances equal? What is living in "dignified way"? 50k a year? 60k a year? Lastly, and most importantly, what exactly does it mean to "live like a slave"?
By giving people money or capital...
Where is that money going to come from? There is money fairy. Who is to give it? How are you get this money? Who is going to provide that? Secondly, the typical definition of capital is "plant and equipment", why would you give someone plant and equipment? That seems quite silly, what definition of capital are you using?
This is all very well and good but we're getting caught in definitional debate. If I were to write a real essay then I would have much more clarity, but given that I can't be bothered and this is a forum, I'm not willing to go through every one of those questions. Does it weaken my argument? Probably, unless by answering your questions my argument sinks down in semantics which is really quite trivial to my original answer posed to the question of this thread. The truth is that the free market is not perfect. One of the ways in which it is not perfect is because it causes inequities, and some (Note: not total) redistribution of income is positive for the economy in terms of encouraging growth and is fair for all in acknowleging their contribution to the overall wealth of the nation, and indeed to the world. Further, it ensures that classist heirachies are less prevelant: children of the hard workers of last generation aren't completely riding off that previous success, children of the impoverished of last generation don't have to remain that way. Nobody has actually addressed my points, and have tended to detract from them in order to make the debate confusing and trivial. That's it. If you disagree, then you disagree. There's no need to continue pushing the libretarian utopian agenda because I'm not going to be moved by it. Just like my ideals, libretarian ideals are simply that, ideals, don't pretend that they are inherrently correct.
-
Of course the free market causes inequities, real life causes inequities! This is the natural order of life. Therefore, it is up to the redistributionist to provide a justification as to why inequality is bad, and how to overrules freedom. It is not about "pretending" that freedom is correct, but it is about asking: why should we disrupt this?
People can be more unlucky than others. Is it the government's role to take from the lucky and give to the unlucky? Why? What is the principle behind this, and what does it achieve?
I can list many examples that have always failed to help the poor. The minimum wage, foreign aid, social welfare... the list goes on. Now, I ask, what is the point is government intervention, if these policies do not even achieve their intended effect? In fact, if you want to help the poor the best thing is the leave the markets free:
Further, it ensures that classist heirachies are less prevelant: children of the hard workers of last generation aren't completely riding off that previous success, children of the impoverished of last generation don't have to remain that way.
People often analyse capitalism based on today's problems, but that is an incorrect analysis. Today, we do not live in capitalism, we live in a highly regulated market.
This is fuelled by the failures of government policy. This on-going cycle is magnified under redistributive policy because of incentive traps and laws that prevent their freedom to work (minimum wage)! If the government would leave them alone, they could find a job and work slowly to build a wealth. It is freedom that fosters dreams, not government intervention. Social welfare traps the poor, while minimum wages make sure the poor can never start. Many migrants from Communist countries moved to Western nations for their freedom. Back then, there was little or no minimum wage or social welfare benefits, but instead, migrants could begin to amass their wealth. The wealth that they build up is passed on to their children, who can then achieve a middle-class life and aspire for things that you and I do.
-
I'm not willing to go through every one of those questions. Does it weaken my argument? Probably
I don't think it weakens your argument at all. I know Brendan's ploy and I think that both of you have argued extremely well and brought out some valid points.
-
I don't think it weakens your argument at all. I know Brendan's ploy and I think that both of you have argued extremely well and brought out some valid points.
Uhm, sorry? Brendan's "ploy"? That is bullshit. What about Eriny's "ploy"?
This is all very well and good but we're getting caught in definitional debate. If I were to write a real essay then I would have much more clarity, but given that I can't be bothered and this is a forum, I'm not willing to go through every one of those questions. Does it weaken my argument? Probably, unless by answering your questions my argument sinks down in semantics which is really quite trivial to my original answer posed to the question of this thread.
This can be considered a cop-out.
There's no need to continue pushing the libretarian utopian agenda because I'm not going to be moved by it. Just like my ideals, libretarian ideals are simply that, ideals, don't pretend that they are inherrently correct.
This is labelling, and I have provided a defence of accused "pretending" in my above post. The utopian idea is not libertarianism, it is the idea that we should take from the rich and give to the poor and believe that things will work out nicely afterwards.
Brendan is asking relevant questions to get to the core of Eriny's beliefs. He is doing what Milton Friedman would do in a debate.
-
Yes, they should continue to be asked, because there is more to it than what others have plainly said.
It is not "annoying." If you refuse to clarify your viewpoint, that is your own problem. Please continue with the actual debate.
-
I never said that its annoying. Eriny said that or something along those lines.
-
Then what is wrong with questions? I could simply list all of the sentences you have made that end in a full-stop. Stop making redundant posts.
-
You were the one that questioned my post in the first place and I should have a right of reply. I Pm'd you about it and you decided to post it here anyway.
-
I am asking you: what is wrong with these questions?
Here are the PMs:
His ploy is to play 21 questions to piss Eriny off so she ends up bantering and looking weak.
You know it.
Sorry, you are wrong. I have responded.
If he doesn't ask those questions, Eriny appears stronger than she actually is. That is not a "ploy" but it is exposing the truth. Government interventions don't actually deliver the miracles it promises, there is always a cost and in many ways, it can hurt who the intended beneficiary was.
Theres a difference between exposing the truth and harassing someones argument by asking them to define every word they use.
I don't think Eriny's got it right but I don't think she should be picked on like she is being.
Asking for definitions is important. It is too easy to hide behind the cloak of "social justice" and "fairness" when the meaning is very ambiguous. Then there were questions that didn't ask about definitions. These ones are also important, as they reveal the hidden costs of government intervention (which are always lurking due to scarcity of resources).
-
Voluntary charity is more realistic than re-distribution, because redistribution reduces the size of the economic pie, which means there is less to share around (the more you tax, the more you compress the economy).
Government spending on welfare is about $96 billion per year. You're logical enough to realize this could not be matched or bettered through voluntary charity. I think you do know this, but you seem to have made a commitment to apply pure libertarian ideals to every issue you come across, regardless of whether the resulting argument makes sense or not. I've said what I wanted to say and see no point in answering every question Brendan has proposed.
-
If you find thinking about your own posts annoying well then..
From here on is what I found a ploy.
Whats your point? about my PM's?
Kk saw your edit now.
Still is asking the same question 2-3 times necessary?
-
Voluntary charity is more realistic than re-distribution, because redistribution reduces the size of the economic pie, which means there is less to share around (the more you tax, the more you compress the economy).
Government spending on welfare is about $96 billion per year. You're logical enough to realize this could not be matched or bettered through voluntary charity. I think you do know this, but you seem to have made a commitment to apply pure libertarian ideals to every issue you come across, regardless of whether the resulting argument makes sense or not. I've said what I wanted to say and see no point in answering every question Brendan has proposed.
You wouldn't need to have $96 billion of charity to feed a free market. Because the entire economic pie is increased in size, there will be less people who will have less than what they absolutely need to survive. These people will be able to survive: there are so many churches and private charity institutions that do the feeding much better than social security does.
I find it annoying that you say my arguments don't make sense when you completely ignore posts like:
Of course the free market causes inequities, real life causes inequities! This is the natural order of life. Therefore, it is up to the redistributionist to provide a justification as to why inequality is bad, and how to overrules freedom. It is not about "pretending" that freedom is correct, but it is about asking: why should we disrupt this?
People can be more unlucky than others. Is it the government's role to take from the lucky and give to the unlucky? Why? What is the principle behind this, and what does it achieve?
I can list many examples that have always failed to help the poor. The minimum wage, foreign aid, social welfare... the list goes on. Now, I ask, what is the point is government intervention, if these policies do not even achieve their intended effect? In fact, if you want to help the poor the best thing is the leave the markets free:
Further, it ensures that classist heirachies are less prevelant: children of the hard workers of last generation aren't completely riding off that previous success, children of the impoverished of last generation don't have to remain that way.
People often analyse capitalism based on today's problems, but that is an incorrect analysis. Today, we do not live in capitalism, we live in a highly regulated market.
This is fuelled by the failures of government policy. This on-going cycle is magnified under redistributive policy because of incentive traps and laws that prevent their freedom to work (minimum wage)! If the government would leave them alone, they could find a job and work slowly to build a wealth. It is freedom that fosters dreams, not government intervention. Social welfare traps the poor, while minimum wages make sure the poor can never start. Many migrants from Communist countries moved to Western nations for their freedom. Back then, there was little or no minimum wage or social welfare benefits, but instead, migrants could begin to amass their wealth. The wealth that they build up is passed on to their children, who can then achieve a middle-class life and aspire for things that you and I do.
-
Still is asking the same question 2-3 times necessary?
If it is unanswered.
However, I'd probably give up and illustrate the logical consequence of the idea myself (while making some sort of straw-man assumption, possibly). Brendan is more careful than that, and will prefer to hear the logical consequence from the person who proposed the idea.
-
I was worried that that post would be seen as a cop-out, and I suppose it is to some extent. I really don't have the time or ability to be the proper debater Milton Friedman would like me to be. I'm sorry, I'm just not good enough :| I hope that there are enough people out there who can argue the same convictions I have about the world much more eloquently than I can. Although, that said, I'm starting an Artsy degree this year, so hopefully my eloquence can develop from where it is now. I also think that because I'm posting on a forum, typing out long essays is pretty annoying. If this were for a class or something, and I had a proper plan and did lots of reading on the subject, I'd feel much better about debating.
It's unfortunate though, I think, that some people fail to recognise that one idea isn't intrinsically "right". I see other peoples point and their merits to them and I can explain why I still think what I do. I recognise that there are flaws on both sides.
-
Still is asking the same question 2-3 times necessary?
If it is unanswered.
That is a problem though, sometimes it has been answered earlier. That's pretty frustrating to be honest. Sometimes I wonder if what I'm saying is being read or if the whole point of it is to make me frustrated.
-
In some situations it has been asked 2-3 times in the same post.
I'm not going to continue with this. All I said was that it was a ploy. For all you know that could mean just the way he goes about his arguments. I don't see what you find so offensive about it
-
I hope that there are enough people out there who can argue the same convictions I have about the world much more eloquently than I can.
Noam Chomsky debates your viewpoint rather well.
It's unfortunate though, I think, that some people fail to recognise that one idea isn't intrinsically "right". I see other peoples point and their merits to them and I can explain why I still think what I do. I recognise that there are flaws on both sides.
I agree. It applies to both sides of the spectrum, but I doubt that if you are a learned libertarian you would believe that it is the correct way. However, it is the only consistent set of principles that ensure the same amount of freedom for everyone (not more for some and less for others). It is also supported by the fact that government intervention has often failed to take society in the direction it originally intended to.
In some situations it has been asked 2-3 times in the same post.
I'm not going to continue with this. All I said was that it was a ploy. For all you know that could mean just the way he goes about his arguments. I don't see what you find so offensive about it
Okay. Everyone has a ploy then. A ploy is just a strategy to win the argument. What was the point of highlighting that brendan had a ploy? There was nothing wrong with it.
If the question has been answered, just simply re-quote it and state that you have already answered it. That would hurt him more than it hurts you. It would portray him as the non-listener, rather than portray yourself as an aggravated and annoyed.
-
This is all very well and good but we're getting caught in definitional debate.
There is no doubt in my mind what that is: a complete cop-out. If you find that clarifying your own arguments "confusing and trivial" then maybe your arguments are simply "confusing and trivial" - unless you clarify them of course.
Furthermore questions like the ones below are not "definitional":
Or the ability to have healthcare so that you are better able to work.
How are you going to provide that? Where is it going to come from? Who is going to provide that?
Yet you have not answered them.
causes inequities,
You mean inequality? But then inequality ....in what?
some (Note: not total) redistribution of income is positive for the economy in terms of encouraging growth
Where is the empirical evidence to support this claim?
fair for all in acknowleging their contribution to the overall wealth of the nation
How are you to determine how much each individual has contributed to the "wealth of the nation". A nation can't own wealth - it's nonsensical. People own wealth. How exactly are you going to proceed to redistribute income - through what mechanism? Are you going to do it by force or is it going to be voluntary? And why income? Since your talking about wealth, why not redistribute wealth instead?
it ensures that classist heirachies are less prevelant: children of the hard workers of last generation aren't completely riding off that previous success, children of the impoverished of last generation don't have to remain that way.
Where is the empirical evidence to support this unsubstantiated claim?
The truth is that the free market is not perfect.
Who ever said it was? Why does it need to be? Comparing something to perfection settles nothing. You have to compare real with real. Nothing in life is ever absolutely perfect.
equity would ensure everyone is given the opportunity and ability to earn an income, and to ensure the poor have access to goods and services that will assist in attaining at least a basic standard of living.
How do you define the basic standard of living? The poverty line? 50k? 20k? How are you going to give everyone "the opportunity and ability to earn an income"? It's one thing to give them an opportunity, but the ability too? What if through misfortune a person is simply born disabled? Can it be said they have an ability to earn an income? What if no employer wants to hire a person you see as deserving, what then?
I've said what I wanted to say and see no point in answering every question Brendan has proposed.
Why not? Because it is simply easier just to rattle off a few glib slogans rather than to explain your own arguments? Seriosuly, just how exactly are you going to "ensure everyone is given the opportunity and ability to earn an income, and to ensure the poor have access to goods and services that will assist in attaining at least a basic standard of living."?
In some situations it has been asked 2-3 times in the same post.
I'm not going to continue with this. All I said was that it was a ploy. For all you know that could mean just the way he goes about his arguments. I don't see what you find so offensive about it
A ploy? Is that what you call an opportunity to clarify one's own arguments that one has used earlier? All I am doing is trying to understand where Eriny is coming from, giving her an opportunity to elucidate and clarify her thoughts. It says quite a lot that she would refuse to explain her own points and then accuse others of not addressing her points!
-
What more do you need me to say? I thought my stance was pretty clear, and I don't see how providing definitions to single words will make it any clearer. I think pursuing income equality would erode motivation and participation in the economy, but the pursuit of greater equity is important in raising standards of living and can boost the strength of the economy. I totally agree with part of coblin's statement; a more deregulated economy would ultimately work to improve economic growth, leading to a fall in unemployment and a possible improvement in equity in the distribution of income. Promoting free-trade can boost efficiency and productivity, helping to expand our productive capacity and perhaps alleviate inflationary pressure. This would also assist equity as, as a proportion of their income, the poor are affected more severely by inflation. However, I don't think cutting taxes and relying on "voluntary charity" for welfare is realistic, but that's just my opinion.
To continue to raise 10 questions from every point made guides the debate/discussion towards triviality and simply characterizes you as a Tireless Rebutter, which I don't think you are (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/tirelessrebutter.htm).
-
What more do you need me to say? I thought my stance was pretty clear, and I don't see how providing definitions to single words will make it any clearer.
You said "equity" is "fairness" but that is just another subjective and undefined term. See http://www.cis.org.au/policy/autumn04/autumn04-1.htm for a whole discussion on how "fairness" can mean different things to different people. If you think that clarifying your own arguments is trivial, then that reflects the very nature of your own arguments. Accusing someone of engaging in "definitional debate" is a complete cop-out - an excuse to not explain your own arguments.
If you are going to use terms in your post, be prepared to define it; if you are going to make arguments be prepared to explain them; and if you are going to make claims, be prepared to substantiate them. And if you want to cunningly throw personal attacks then that says a lot about your character.
Furthermore you haven't answered the question of how exactly you going to "ensure everyone is given the opportunity and ability to earn an income, and to ensure the poor have access to goods and services that will assist in attaining at least a basic standard of living."?
-
If you want to call it confiscation, then yes, I do believe that it is justified.
It is confiscation, it is involuntary. Taxes are by definition involuntary. If they were voluntary they wouldn't be called taxes! They would be called donations.
Because it does matter if the rich are only rich because they were born that way. Why would it not matter? Isn't the whole point of democracy and capitalism that anyone can achieve anything?
The point is freedom. Freedom from tyranny. Freedom from arbitrary arrest by the State. Freedom to speak your mind, without having the State cover your mouth.
isn't it equally coercive if rich people profit from the hard work of their underlings without doing much at all?
No, it isn't coercion. That is a voluntary transaction between two parties. What you have said is simply Orwellian double speak "Freedom is slavery". "Slavery is freedom." You know it's one thing to argue that it's worth it to sacrifice freedom to have equality,etc. But it's completely another to say that you are in fact increasing freedom. You are definitely not doing anything of the sort. That takes some real Orwellian style manipulation. You could be a perfect Socialist State official.
-
lovely.
-
lovely.
Won't be silenced. Great post.
-
If apathy is great, then yes, it is a great post.
You can be banned for repeatedly reversing a moderator's decision you know. You were not being "silenced." You simply don't need to make a karma change and a post that says exactly the same thing your karma does, especially if your reason is "LOL" or "great post." I don't do it, and others don't either (see the maths forums where people thank by karma rather than by a post - unless they are under 50 posts, i.e.: cant change karma).
-
If apathy is great, then yes, it is a great post.
You confuse apathy with tiredness, and attempting to recover from a pretty harsh, hyperbolic insult (not mean, eh?). And seriously, contrary to the fact that brendan thinks I'm illogical, arrogant, hypocritical, unworthy of respect, and frankly quite dense: I understand the arguments being set forth. How many people really give a shit anymore? So what if people die and lose their homes after the first couple of bouts of 'donor fatigue' and an inability to continue carrying large burdens, as long as we don't have to pay taxes?! Good, fine.
-
If apathy is great, then yes, it is a great post.
You confuse apathy with tiredness, and attempting to recover from a pretty harsh, hyperbolic insult (not mean, eh?). And seriously, contrary to the fact that brendan thinks I'm illogical, arrogant, hypocritical, unworthy of respect, and frankly quite dense: I understand the arguments being set forth. How many people really give a shit anymore? So what if people die and lose their homes after the first couple of bouts of 'donor fatigue' and an inability to continue carrying large burdens, as long as we don't have to pay taxes?! Good, fine.
Emotional appeal. The problem is that what you propose does not fix the problems you are concerned about! Like brendan said, there is no point comparing a political system to perfection.
-
If apathy is great, then yes, it is a great post.
You confuse apathy with tiredness, and attempting to recover from a pretty harsh, hyperbolic insult (not mean, eh?). And seriously, contrary to the fact that brendan thinks I'm illogical, arrogant, hypocritical, unworthy of respect, and frankly quite dense: I understand the arguments being set forth. How many people really give a shit anymore? So what if people die and lose their homes after the first couple of bouts of 'donor fatigue' and an inability to continue carrying large burdens, as long as we don't have to pay taxes?! Good, fine.
Emotional appeal. The problem is that what you propose does not fix the problems you are concerned about! Like brendan said, there is no point comparing a political system to perfection.
I agree with Eriny. But Bredan will ask you to show where he called you " illogical, arrogant, hypocritical, unworthy of respect, and frankly quite dense" so be prepared LOL
So what if its an emotional appeal. We are emotional being and shes appealing to our humanity.
-
Unfortunately in this case, it also comes with the side-effect that you are ignoring our logical arguments.
-
What else is there but emotional appeal, really? The only catalyst for change is if people get riled up and feel something about it.
And he called lefties those above things in another thread (not in all cases a direct quote), so I guess that includes me. But I must repeat: I am by no stretch of the imagination a socialist! (not that there's anything wrong with that, lol).
Oh, and I concede the debate, so, you win! Well done! Although I'm sure you didn't need me to tell you that.
-
I am not ignoring your logical arguments. I find Eriny's posts very logical
-
What else is there but emotional appeal, really? The only catalyst for change is if people get riled up and feel something about it.
There is nothing wrong with making an emotional appeal. I also reserve the rights to guard people from buying it and pointing the way to logical arguments instead, or pointing out said flaws in your emotional appeal.
I am not ignoring your logical arguments. I find Eriny's posts very logical
Yes, this comes right after you support an emotional appeal and ignore the proposition that her beliefs don't solve the problems she wishes to protect (logical argument).
-
I am not ignoring your logical arguments. I find Eriny's posts very logical
Yes, this comes right after you support an emotional appeal and ignore the proposition that her beliefs don't solve the problems she wishes to protect (logical argument).
I find her posts logical. You don't. Its opinion. Deal with it
I find it to be a rather persistent trend that any opposing argument to yourself or Brendan is illogical and your's is logical. If it was that easy then their would be no argument.
-
costargh: you have ignored a previous argument between you and brendan about how logic is objective, not subjective. You cannot find an emotional appeal logical: there is no logical connection - there is only an emotional appeal.
Don't reduce this into a karma war: I justified my reasons for highlighting "emotional appeal." It was to "guard people from buying it and pointing the way to logical arguments instead." It is petty to throw karma because you disagree, rather than based on the merit of a post. Look at my karma edits, they have been controlled and based on merit or humour. That is just my opinion though: deal with it.
-
I said I find Eriny's post logical. Meaning I support most of her contribution to this forum and find it logical. Emotional appeals can be logical.
-
Why wasn't my post considered humour then? I found Erinys post funny so I added to it. You deleted it and negative karma-ed. So what I interpret to be humour, you don't.
I gave you karma because this isn't a language analysis. As if any argument that uses an emotional appeal is illogical.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion
I forgo my right of reply and forfeit any hope to convince you.
You were not being "silenced." You simply don't need to make a karma change and a post that says exactly the same thing your karma does, especially if your reason is "LOL" or "great post." I don't do it, and others don't either (see the maths forums where people thank by karma rather than by a post - unless they are under 50 posts, i.e.: cant change karma).
Enjoy arguing with brendan alone.
-
So why didn't you just delete one?
I don't see how it could escalate into a karma war anyways. We both have one round of ammunition every 12 hours so its pretty futile.
Appeal to emotions is not always illogical. You can try convince me but I will not accept it and every post past this one in this thread will have the famous words of Eriny enshrined upon them
"lovely".
You started this a while back ago when you accused me of being a people supporter in my support of Eriny and failed to realise that anyone who disagrees with you or Brendan may just hold a differnt view.
-
What else is there but emotional appeal, really? The only catalyst for change is if people get riled up and feel something about it.
There is nothing wrong with making an emotional appeal. I also reserve the rights to guard people from buying it and pointing the way to logical arguments instead, or pointing out said flaws in your emotional appeal.
Ah, yes, but anything that's persuasive (including plain ol' logic) would appeal to you emotionally. It makes you say/think "that's true! I feel angry/sad/happy/whatever and I resolve to do x about it." We aren't all robots, even though we are able to assess arguments based on whether it's shown how one got from a to b, it's also important that they feel right.
And coblin, are you sure that you only give karma based on humour/merit? I've seen some of the karma you have awarded to brendan (not all). I suppose they could have been a particularly good posts... but it seems to me that it has been awarded on the basis that you agree with him. e.g. "uhm no, mao, exactly this, not that."; "talking about "fair" justice, as much as we hate the word"; "bringing rational economics back"... I'm not saying that you're unfairly awarding karma necessarily (although you may be, I don't know), but you can certaintly see how it could be perceived as such.
-
So why didn't you just delete one?
I did, then you reposted. What are you talking about?
people supporter
This was a typo. The intended response was "your supporters." You started it because I saw what I believed was a stupid karma edit. That is a justifiable karma edit. See Toothpick's replies to some Karma changes on enwiabe.
-
And coblin, are you sure that you only give karma based on humour/merit? I've seen some of the karma you have awarded to brendan (not all). I suppose they could have been a particularly good posts... but it seems to me that it has been awarded on the basis that you agree with him. e.g. "uhm no, mao, exactly this, not that."; "talking about "fair" justice, as much as we hate the word"; "bringing rational economics back"... I'm not saying that you're unfairly awarding karma necessarily (although you may be, I don't know), but you can certaintly see how it could be perceived as such.
Merit based. They usually come from link dumps, so karma edits can highlight the good from the boring. costargh makes karma edits in the middle of ideological battles. Smiting in response is justified in my opinion, because what he does adds more irrationality (favouritism) to the heat of the debate. Karma is just a social measure of you. I am attacking costargh's karma edits because I think they are stupid, but I have no right to stop them at all, of course. Consistent with this, I am opposed to enwiabe's -50000 karma policy.
-
Thats your belief. I saw a post of yours which I found to be stupid so I gave it a negative karma. Of course you won't agree with it but in what circumstances would you? Probably none so I hold the right to use my karma as I see fit.
You will also notice I have given you positive karma so you can quite easily see its your post I have a problem with and not you.
-
But so if you agree with someones post you can give them good karma but if I agree with someone and give them good karma I get negative karma for doing so?
Hmm
-
Merit based. They usually come from link dumps, so karma edits can highlight the good from the boring. costargh makes karma edits in the middle of ideological battles. Smiting in response is justified in my opinion, because it adds more irrationality (favouritism) to the heat of the debate. Karma is just a social measure of you. I am attacking costargh's karma edits because I think they are stupid, but I have no right to stop them at all, of course. I am opposed to enwiabe's -50000 karma policy.
Well, actually, two of the edits of yours I posted earlier were also in the middle of a debate of some sort. Unless you karma'd the wrong post?
I'm also opposed to the -5000 thing because it reduces accountability. But I'm not sure if anyone takes karma too seriously anyway?
-
Thats your belief. I saw a post of yours which I found to be stupid so I gave it a negative karma. Of course you won't agree with it but in what circumstances would you? Probably none so I hold the right to use my karma as I see fit.
Of course you do, but I have to right to attempt to convince you otherwise.
I also reserve the rights to guard people from buying it (the emotional appeal) and pointing the way to logical arguments instead, or pointing out said flaws in your emotional appeal.
You have misinterpreted me. You can make any karma edit you want, I can criticise you for them. Simple. I can also defend my edits.
Well, actually, two of the edits of yours I posted earlier were also in the middle of a debate of some sort. Unless you karma'd the wrong post?
Which ones? I can only find one, and it was in response to someone who started a similar action before me to balance the playing field.
-
Lovely
-
Lovely
This just exposes you as stubborn and not open to reason. Considering that you just recently defended an emotional appeal as a sound logical argument, I don't think watchers of this argument hold any weight on your posts. How about actually making an argument for why inequality is a serious problem, and how this is a mandate for government intervention, rather than fighting over the integrity of an emotional appeal. I can make emotional appeals too. They're unbeatable if you accept them, but the problem is that not everyone accepts them: if you impose an emotional appeal onto society by coercion, then it is oppression.
-
I said emotional appeals can be logical. CAN! Geez watch your wording.
I'll make contributions as I see fit.
-
it's also important that they feel right.
Whats actually important is whether the argument is actually right, whether it actually is logical. Not whether you "feel" it is nor whether you "believe" it is.
I find her posts logical. You don't. Its opinion. Deal with it
I find it to be a rather persistent trend that any opposing argument to yourself or Brendan is illogical and your's is logical. If it was that easy then their would be no argument.
Can we get outside this notion that "there is no such thing as a wrong answer"? Yes you can utter a completely illogical and nonsensical argument.
Take for example this statement that was made to support the proposition that there existed a god:
i know for a fact that even the greatest scientists of the past believe the existence of something superior. are you saying that they were all illogical to think that way?
I pointed out that it is logical mistake to conclude that a proposition is true just because of the fact that someone believes it to be true. This is a logical mistake regardless of whether I pointed it out. It doesn't matter that I even existed. It doesn't matter that you exist. It is a mistake regardless. It doesn't matter whether you believe it to the statement to be logical or not. The logical coherency of the argument independent of messenger or the observer.
Take this argument:
All dogs are animals
Therefore all animals are dogs
That argument is completely nonsensical. Not because I think it is nonsensical, not because most people would think of it nonsensical. It is simply not logical. The validity of the logic of an argument is independent of who uttered it or who is hearing it.
My point is this: Yes, there is such thing as a completely illogical and nonsensical argument. The question of persuasiveness may depend from person to person, but the validity of the logic of an argument does not.
-
I said emotional appeals can be logical. CAN! Geez watch your wording.
I'll make contributions as I see fit.
Emotional appeals can be coupled with a logical argument. Technically the emotional appeal is not logical though. You watch your wording ;)
-
it's also important that they feel right.
Whats actually important is whether the argument is actually right, whether it actually is logical. Not whether you "feel" it is nor whether you "believe" it is.
See, that's where your arguments fall down. They seem sound, but they don't sit right, they don't seem workable: you're underestimating the fact that most people's emotional range extends past that of a teaspoon. Have such policies worked (both for a society and an economy) before? Can you guarantee that people won't die because they can't afford medical treatment (that does not happen today)? Can you guarantee that people and families will not lose their homes and have to live in a shelter (which happens seldomly today, usually due to issues other than financial ones)? Can you guarantee that people won't get donor fatigue? That people won't be unable/unwilling to donate because money is as tight as it is (there would be a greater volume of money to households in the economy, which would logically make prices for household items rise because businesses can justify rising prices - that's only the short-term ramification. The completely unregulated market is usually pretty good at following booms with recessions. You argue 'so is the government', but really it should be 'so are some governments')? Of course you can't! When you consider what could happen (not saying it will... COULD), paying taxes is pretty freaking trivial. What your suggesting would be a risky social experiement and my emotions don't like that. Isn't it also true that it's a logical fallacy to suggest that just because one government poorly handles money derived from taxation that means that all governments waste time and money? Both of you have conceeded that you'll obviously need some form of taxes to pay for public goods, is such a policy lacking in freedom as well?
To me, you seem to be just asking lots of questions to characterise your opponent as a socialist so they are easier to oppose (straw man) when actually, how I view an economy isn't socialist at all, it's basically in line with the current and previous governments (apart from a few individual policies I haven't entirely agreed with). Are you saying that they're socialist too? lol. Really, it's great that you're bagging me for refusing to answer your questions when it's impossible to debate appropriately with someone who doesn't respect you, it just makes you look like a masochist. Great way to lock me in there, right?
Well, actually, two of the edits of yours I posted earlier were also in the middle of a debate of some sort. Unless you karma'd the wrong post?
Which ones? I can only find one, and it was in response to someone who started a similar action before me to balance the playing field.
Would that be considered as being a 'karma war'? For example, I lowered brendan's karma because I was genuinely offended by what he said, then he lowered mine because he's 'not mean'. Is this kind of thing appropriate too? Anyway, "uhm no, mao, exactly this, not that" seems to be an example of you editing karma because you agree. "lol. saying what i was thinking" to a post in which brendan made a scathing remark to someone who had shared what they wrote for English could be on the border here too - how many people found that 'funny'?
-
http://www.cis.org.au/policy/autumn04/autumn04-1.htm
I would simply add that there is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and actually trying to make them equal.
It's not exactly clear why government force should be used to actually try to make people equal. In fact it sounds more like a dystopian nightmare to me.
You'd have to remember that anything that government does / legislates tends to be reactive rather than proactive. Would this not mean that any attempt to create social equailty by means of government intervention would be inherently delayed until after the fact (where social problems have already arisen?).
In other words, we'd have to find more active measure to help create some kind equality in society.
I would argue that a dystopian society would attempt to create equality for most, but not all. But without any particular arguments, I will leave it as purely a thought.
-
What your suggesting
What did I suggest? Quote me.
-
Fine, tell me what you're suggesting we do? Come to think about it, you've been pretty vague yourself. Basically I get the impression that we would have no income tax and lower income earners would rely on private donations.
-
Fine, tell me what you're suggesting we do? Come to think about it, you've been pretty vague yourself. Basically I get the impression that we would have no income tax and lower income earners would rely on private donations.
No your not getting out of this one. What did you imply that I suggested? Go on quote me or admit that I said nothing of the sort in this thread that you imply I did.
-
No your not getting out of this one. What did you imply that I suggested? Go on quote me or admit that I said nothing of the sort in this thread that you imply I did.
LOL Why does it always have to be a battle?
-
No your not getting out of this one. What did you imply that I suggested? Go on quote me or admit that I said nothing of the sort in this thread that you imply I did.
LOL Why does it always have to be a battle?
Ask eriny:
your opponent
-
Humour is subjective, but plain counter-smiting is pretty bad. I wouldn't have done what brendan did to you. Who cares anyway: people can just have a look at the karma log and make their own judgements about the "unjustified" karma edits. I was just criticising costargh mainly for engaging in tactics of using karma poorly. All of the karma changes I have done have only been in response. If someone is increasing yours because they agree with you, then I will increase brendan's (if he has made a good counterargument to the post that got the karma edit).
You are playing the persecution card, in my opinion. I have not been trying to paint you as a socialist, or corner you in to that position, but if you refuse to acknowledge that your position is coercion (which sometimes takes a while), then that is where brendan continues to question you. You should simply accept it is coercion, and then give a reason why your system justifies the need for coercion. This is more effective than complaining that he is painting you as a freedom hater, or something of that sort.
Taxes are an inevitable evil, but they should be minimised, and they should try to be flat (not progressive or regressive). The federal government is really only in charge of military, the states can run everything else (court, police, roads perhaps). Also, you misunderstand our argument. We are not only saying government bureaucracy is usually poor at handling money, we are saying that incentives and disincentives created by government intervention are forcing the economy to go downwards - after all, why work when the government takes 50% of your pay-check?
Today's system of society does not guarantee anything of the sort either. The effects of socialised medicine and social welfare do not necessarily help the poor, despite the obvious direct effect of the policy. Firstly, socialised medicine raises (visible and hidden) prices - this comes from the introduction of an excess demand. This means that if we removed this system, the poor might even be able to afford it (the prices would not be as high as they are today)! Okay, so the poor may not have to pay for this, but the middle and upper class have to. It may seem all and well, now that the poor have their healthcare, but the problem is that the economy consists of more than one good. All this lost money is an opportunity cost for investment into other things: particularly, capital for jobs that labourers of the lower and middle classes could have taken. Here is a system where we can offer increased employment and lowered prices, all while being free from coercion.
This is where you got up to: you argued that this uncertainty is not good enough for you. You prefer safety via coercion. I cannot persuade you if you hold that value at any cost. All I can suggest is that any attempts to guarantee healthcare will not guarantee anything else. The economy does not only consist of one good. Imposing the values of free healthcare for all of society is not only oppressive, but it is inefficient. Resources are scarce, and to take resources from the individual to invest in the "commons" causes free-loading, and also causes other important industries to fail and unable deliver affordable prices (such as food and housing) for the poor.
-
Humour is subjective, but plain counter-smiting is pretty bad. I wouldn't have done what brendan did to you. Who cares anyway: people can just have a look at the karma log and make their own judgements about the "unjustified" karma edits. I was just criticising costargh mainly for engaging in tactics of using karma poorly. All of the karma changes I have done have only been in response. If someone is increasing yours because they agree with you, then I will increase brendan's (if he has made a good counterargument to the post that got the karma edit).
I agree. I just think that it's unfair that you're criticising costargh when really it's pretty subjective anyway. I don't mind if you + brendan if you agree with him, as long as others can do the same.
You are playing the persecution card, in my opinion. I have not been trying to paint you as a socialist, or corner you in to that position, but if you refuse to acknowledge that your position is coercion (which sometimes takes a while), then that is where brendan continues to question you. You should simply accept it is coercion, and then give a reason why your system justifies the need for coercion. This is more effective than complaining that he is painting you as a freedom hater, or something of that sort.
Well, no, you haven't at all and I apologise if it seemed as though I was accusing you of that. I was actually referring to unjustified comments from brendan, for example:
That takes some real Orwellian style manipulation. You could be a perfect Socialist State official.
Today's system of society does not guarantee anything of the sort either. The effects of socialised medicine and social welfare do not necessarily help the poor, despite the obvious direct effect of the policy. Firstly, socialised medicine raises (visible and hidden) prices - this comes from the introduction of an excess demand. This means that if we removed this system, the poor might even be able to afford it (the prices would not be as high as they are today)! Okay, so the poor may not have to pay for this, but the middle and upper class have to. It may seem all and well, now that the poor have their healthcare, but the problem is that the economy consists of more than one good. All this lost money is an opportunity cost for investment into other things: particularly, capital for jobs that labourers of the lower and middle classes could have taken. Here is a system where we can offer increased employment and lowered prices, all while being free from coercion.
This is where you got up to: you argued that this uncertainty is not good enough for you. You prefer safety via coercion. I cannot persuade you if you hold that value at any cost. All I can suggest is that any attempts to guarantee healthcare will not guarantee anything else. The economy does not only consist of one good. Imposing the values of free healthcare for all of society is not only oppressive, but it is inefficient. Resources are scarce, and to take resources from the individual to invest in the "commons" causes free-loading, and also causes other important industries to fail and unable deliver affordable prices (such as food and housing) for the poor.
Sorry, but I do subscribe to things that I think work already. Paying a bit extra for medicine is justified if it means that everyone can have medicine. The situation in the US in which people who can't afford insurance are screwed and even some people who do pay for insurance are also screwed (for stupid reasons like, they didn't claim that they saw a doctor 5 years ago for a headache or something) isn't good enough. I don't care if taxes are coercion, it's irrelevant and trivial. Why should a poor child die of a curable disease and a rich child survive? Just because they earn more, doesn't mean their life is worth more.
Also, you misunderstand our argument. We are not only saying government bureaucracy is usually poor at handling money, we are saying that incentives and disincentives created by government intervention are forcing the economy to go downwards - after all, why work when the government takes 50% of your pay-check?
Well, people do... I haven't seen many Australians move to Dubai lately. Further, Australians are actually better off working then on welfare (unless they literally can't work). I don't know if I think that the wealthy are currently taxed resonably. It's something I'll have to research more in the future to decide.
-
Sure, it might seem to be helping everyone access healthcare, but what about everything else? We are compromising the principle of scarcity by acting as if healthcare is not scarce, by assigning a zero cost to it. This violation of the principle of scarcity means we are not optimising our use of resources, causing inefficiency in other markets. It means resources that could have been invested into capital for other industries, such as the labour market, the housing market or the agricultural industry is now forgone at the expense of a compulsory healthcare contribution. What about the housing and food markets? What about jobs? The poor need housing and food as well, and the root of their problem is that they can't find jobs. Also, if everyone is expected to pay for each other's healthcare bill, then there will be a moral hazard: people don't have as much of a disincentive from undertaking reckless activities - someone else will pay for their medical expenses.
I am not saying anything about the value of a child, I am saying that if the costs cannot be paid for then, that is very unfortunate, but it is not the obligation of the doctor, or the electric company, the entire nation to bail out an individual tragedy. It is up to the family, and/or voluntary services to meet the costs. Your emotional appeal is better suited for convincing the neighbours, friends and family of the child who is in need of medical help - they have a personal and closer connection with them, and their donation will be voluntary and will benefit them (whether it satisfies their conscience, or their philanthropy, etc.). On the other hand, if we continue to ignore the finite number of resources in this world, then not only do we flush our freedoms down the drain, but we will also plunge down the productivity of our nation. We will distort the extent at which people can voluntarily make trade-offs with each other, which would otherwise better all the parties involved. It hurts every other industry.
People do vote with their feet. You don't see Australians moving to Dubai, because there is a cultural and language barrier. People from China move to Hong Kong, emigration from California was highest during the term before incumbent Gray Davis was replaced by Arnold Schwarzenegger (free marketeer).
-
I don't believe in zero cost to healthcare as such, but I do think it should be subsidised to some extent. I don't really understand how good healthcare would make people less responsible about their health though. To the average person:not being sick>having good health care. And realistically, health concerns will come up regardless of how well a person cares for themselves, most illness is not preventable. Some doctors will even argue that things that seem preventable (like obesity) stem from other disorders such as thyroid problems, chemical imbalances, particular hormones, mental illness, etc. and I think it's certainly true that most healthy people would prefer to be a healthy weight.
Also, I'm not sure if I quite understand how healthcare has to come at the cost of other things. Obviously there needs to be a balance and money needs to be shared between different priorities. But I think that in limited cases, government intervention has the potential to really create positive change and really help many people provided that it is done well, under good policy advice. Things like working for the dole can be both empowering to the disenchanted individual and help build practical skills to render someone employable. Now, there will always be unemployment and relative poverty, but the people who want some help will be able to get it much more easily. Oh, and I should also add: the best way to help people is to spend money wisely on initiatives that will empower them, not just to passively throw money.
I think the idea of charity is legitimate, but I definitely worry about people's willingness and ability to fund the care of other people and carry that burden in to the long-term. Donor fatigue is very real and at a certain point, people just get desensitised to these things and dismiss people in need as unfortunate, but 'not my problem'. If the share of donations are carried out then the weight of the collective burden is diluted. Also, the costs of some types of care can be absolutely beyond the means of some families. I read a book quite awhile ago about a woman who had chronic anorexia in the US and her insurance refused to keep funding her stay in a mental health facility, her family then decided to help her fund treatment (like any family would, I guess) until they pretty much ran out of money and she had to leave even though she hadn't even recovered. Although I'm sure that some people would donate sometimes, this sort of thing would happen if there was no funding to health care (especially in regard to long-term illness), and I don't think that's okay.
I won't bother you with the whole 'correlation =/= causation' spiel, because it's boring. I do think if people do start migrating away from Australia due to disincentives, then we should revaluate our policies, but I've heard nothing about trends of people doing that? All I've heard about is 'brain drain' where scientists move overseas because they aren't getting enough research funding, which isn't really relevant, lol.
-
What your suggesting
You still haven't answered my question. What did I suggest?
I get the impression that we would have no income tax and lower income earners would rely on private donations.
Where did I say or imply that? Quote me.