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

[Eriny]

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?

[Collin Li]

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.

[costargh]

Lovely

[Collin Li]

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.

[costargh]

I said emotional appeals can be logical. CAN! Geez watch your wording.

I'll make contributions as I see fit.

[brendan]

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.

[Collin Li]

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

[Eriny]

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'?

[excal]

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.

[brendan]

What your suggesting

What did I suggest? Quote me.

[Eriny]

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.

[brendan]

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.

[costargh]

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?

[brendan]

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

[Collin Li]

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.