If Growing Inequality Is a “Serious Problem,” Please Explain Why

[Collin Li]

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.

[Eriny]

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.

[Eriny]

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.

[costargh]

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

[Collin Li]

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.

[brendan]

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!

[jamesdrv]

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).

[brendan]

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."?

[brendan]

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.

[Eriny]

lovely.

[costargh]

lovely.

Won't be silenced. Great post.

[Collin Li]

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).

[Eriny]

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.

[Collin Li]

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.

[costargh]

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.