Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Need Killer Neg/Aff for living wage debate

Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 3:09:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/28/2015 8:59:52 AM, NoviceLDebator wrote:
Theory arguments are also accepted

Negative for living wage debate comes from any microeconomics text book, use a price floor graph. The graph will demonstrate how wages above an equilibrium reduces the number of jobs.

For a positive argument, again a textbook example, use a macroeconomics text book graph on increasing aggregate demand by putting currency in hand of people that will spend it.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 10:16:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 3:09:55 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 1/28/2015 8:59:52 AM, NoviceLDebator wrote:
Theory arguments are also accepted

For a positive argument, again a textbook example, use a macroeconomics text book graph on increasing aggregate demand by putting currency in hand of people that will spend it.

Not necessarily IMO. If the demand for labour is elastic, the percentage increase in wage rate will be smaller than the percentage decrease in quantity transacted. Then the total income of workers will increase, decreasing consumption and shifting the AD curve to the left and creating a deflationary gap and thus unemployment on the way.

Maybe the impact on the Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient might be a better argument for positive...
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 10:18:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 10:16:14 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
Not necessarily IMO. If the demand for labour is elastic, the percentage increase in wage rate will be smaller than the percentage decrease in quantity transacted. Then the total income of workers will increase, decreasing consumption and shifting the AD curve to the left and creating a deflationary gap and thus unemployment on the way.


Also, when I said 'quantity transacted', I totally meant 'employment level'. I know workers aren't goods LOL.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2015 11:36:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 10:16:14 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/31/2015 3:09:55 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 1/28/2015 8:59:52 AM, NoviceLDebator wrote:
Theory arguments are also accepted


For a positive argument, again a textbook example, use a macroeconomics text book graph on increasing aggregate demand by putting currency in hand of people that will spend it.

Not necessarily IMO. If the demand for labour is elastic, the percentage increase in wage rate will be smaller than the percentage decrease in quantity transacted. Then the total income of workers will increase, decreasing consumption and shifting the AD curve to the left and creating a deflationary gap and thus unemployment on the way.

Maybe the impact on the Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient might be a better argument for positive...

Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient measure a fictional inequality problem. A household that has more income or wealth than another does not harm any lower household. If anything higher income inequality helps the lowest incomes. The great income gap forces prices for essentials down and luxury goods up, thus increasing opportunities for lower income people to make income increases from the consumption of the people with higher incomes.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 8:13:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/31/2015 11:36:27 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 1/31/2015 10:16:14 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/31/2015 3:09:55 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 1/28/2015 8:59:52 AM, NoviceLDebator wrote:
Theory arguments are also accepted


For a positive argument, again a textbook example, use a macroeconomics text book graph on increasing aggregate demand by putting currency in hand of people that will spend it.

Not necessarily IMO. If the demand for labour is elastic, the percentage increase in wage rate will be smaller than the percentage decrease in quantity transacted. Then the total income of workers will increase, decreasing consumption and shifting the AD curve to the left and creating a deflationary gap and thus unemployment on the way.

Maybe the impact on the Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient might be a better argument for positive...

Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient measure a fictional inequality problem. A household that has more income or wealth than another does not harm any lower household. If anything higher income inequality helps the lowest incomes. The great income gap forces prices for essentials down and luxury goods up, thus increasing opportunities for lower income people to make income increases from the consumption of the people with higher incomes.

Income inequality reduces the chance of social mobility. As the lower income groups have fewer resources for educating their children to help them escape poverty in the future while the higher income groups have much more, intergenerational poverty will occur. The socioeconomic status of low-income parents will be inherited by their children. See the Great Gatsby Curve for evidence of this. This is especially serious since, in our modern world, we have a widening digital divide.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2015 11:06:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 8:13:56 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/31/2015 11:36:27 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 1/31/2015 10:16:14 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 1/31/2015 3:09:55 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 1/28/2015 8:59:52 AM, NoviceLDebator wrote:
Theory arguments are also accepted


For a positive argument, again a textbook example, use a macroeconomics text book graph on increasing aggregate demand by putting currency in hand of people that will spend it.

Not necessarily IMO. If the demand for labour is elastic, the percentage increase in wage rate will be smaller than the percentage decrease in quantity transacted. Then the total income of workers will increase, decreasing consumption and shifting the AD curve to the left and creating a deflationary gap and thus unemployment on the way.

Maybe the impact on the Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient might be a better argument for positive...

Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient measure a fictional inequality problem. A household that has more income or wealth than another does not harm any lower household. If anything higher income inequality helps the lowest incomes. The great income gap forces prices for essentials down and luxury goods up, thus increasing opportunities for lower income people to make income increases from the consumption of the people with higher incomes.

Income inequality reduces the chance of social mobility. As the lower income groups have fewer resources for educating their children to help them escape poverty in the future while the higher income groups have much more, intergenerational poverty will occur. The socioeconomic status of low-income parents will be inherited by their children. See the Great Gatsby Curve for evidence of this. This is especially serious since, in our modern world, we have a widening digital divide.

Income inequality is a pointless argument, one person's income harms nobody else. Harm is only done by punishing those that earn money, to correct precieved injustices in the name of fictional equality. Societal equality should never be measured by result.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 12:32:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/1/2015 11:06:22 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Income inequality is a pointless argument, one person's income harms nobody else. Harm is only done by punishing those that earn money, to correct precieved injustices in the name of fictional equality. Societal equality should never be measured by result.

- Whether equality should be measured by outcome or opportunity (or anything else) is normative.
- As I pointed out, inequality of outcome leads to inequality of opportunity.
- Progressive taxation is not 'punishing those that earn money'. High-income people do no necessarily work harder or better than low-income people. The possession of capital, for example, allow bankers' children to earn higher income than farmers' children.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 4:58:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 12:32:19 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/1/2015 11:06:22 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Income inequality is a pointless argument, one person's income harms nobody else. Harm is only done by punishing those that earn money, to correct precieved injustices in the name of fictional equality. Societal equality should never be measured by result.

- Whether equality should be measured by outcome or opportunity (or anything else) is normative.
- As I pointed out, inequality of outcome leads to inequality of opportunity.
- Progressive taxation is not 'punishing those that earn money'. High-income people do no necessarily work harder or better than low-income people. The possession of capital, for example, allow bankers' children to earn higher income than farmers' children.

No person is harmed by the wealth of another, unless government is involved. A wealthy banker leaving millions of dollars to his kids, can not harm the kids of a subsistence farmer.

Progressive taxation is nothing other than punishment. Governments should treat every citizen equally regardless of income.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 10:13:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 4:58:24 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/2/2015 12:32:19 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/1/2015 11:06:22 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Income inequality is a pointless argument, one person's income harms nobody else. Harm is only done by punishing those that earn money, to correct precieved injustices in the name of fictional equality. Societal equality should never be measured by result.

- Whether equality should be measured by outcome or opportunity (or anything else) is normative.
- As I pointed out, inequality of outcome leads to inequality of opportunity.
- Progressive taxation is not 'punishing those that earn money'. High-income people do no necessarily work harder or better than low-income people. The possession of capital, for example, allow bankers' children to earn higher income than farmers' children.

No person is harmed by the wealth of another, unless government is involved. A wealthy banker leaving millions of dollars to his kids, can not harm the kids of a subsistence farmer.
Wealth itself inflicts no harm, but the disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor does. Good jobs in society are scarce goods, and some people (with rich parents) can obtain them more easily than others not because of their ability or attitude, but because of their background. That is inequality of opportunity and the rules of the game are unjust. It is thus necessary to step in to change them.

Progressive taxation is nothing other than punishment. Governments should treat every citizen equally regardless of income.
Society is failing to treat everyone equally. What's wrong with equalising society using government powers? It's no different from the government taxing polluting firms, except for the fact that equity rather than efficiency is taken care of by the government.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 6:11:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 10:13:00 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/2/2015 4:58:24 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/2/2015 12:32:19 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/1/2015 11:06:22 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Income inequality is a pointless argument, one person's income harms nobody else. Harm is only done by punishing those that earn money, to correct precieved injustices in the name of fictional equality. Societal equality should never be measured by result.

- Whether equality should be measured by outcome or opportunity (or anything else) is normative.
- As I pointed out, inequality of outcome leads to inequality of opportunity.
- Progressive taxation is not 'punishing those that earn money'. High-income people do no necessarily work harder or better than low-income people. The possession of capital, for example, allow bankers' children to earn higher income than farmers' children.

No person is harmed by the wealth of another, unless government is involved. A wealthy banker leaving millions of dollars to his kids, can not harm the kids of a subsistence farmer.
Wealth itself inflicts no harm, but the disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor does. Good jobs in society are scarce goods, and some people (with rich parents) can obtain them more easily than others not because of their ability or attitude, but because of their background. That is inequality of opportunity and the rules of the game are unjust. It is thus necessary to step in to change them.

Again the wealth of another harms no one else. Any attempt to forcefully transfer wealth is the real injustice.


Progressive taxation is nothing other than punishment. Governments should treat every citizen equally regardless of income.
Society is failing to treat everyone equally. What's wrong with equalising society using government powers?

Taking from one to give to another is wrong.

It's no different from a government taxing polluting firms, except for the fact that equity rather than efficiency is taken care of by the government.

Governments fine firms for polluting as punishment. Any tax that is not equally applied should be considered a fine.

Governments should ensure that the rule of law, taxation, and property rights are distributed equally, not income.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 7:44:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 6:11:24 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:13:00 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/2/2015 4:58:24 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/2/2015 12:32:19 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/1/2015 11:06:22 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Income inequality is a pointless argument, one person's income harms nobody else. Harm is only done by punishing those that earn money, to correct precieved injustices in the name of fictional equality. Societal equality should never be measured by result.

- Whether equality should be measured by outcome or opportunity (or anything else) is normative.
- As I pointed out, inequality of outcome leads to inequality of opportunity.
- Progressive taxation is not 'punishing those that earn money'. High-income people do no necessarily work harder or better than low-income people. The possession of capital, for example, allow bankers' children to earn higher income than farmers' children.

No person is harmed by the wealth of another, unless government is involved. A wealthy banker leaving millions of dollars to his kids, can not harm the kids of a subsistence farmer.
Wealth itself inflicts no harm, but the disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor does. Good jobs in society are scarce goods, and some people (with rich parents) can obtain them more easily than others not because of their ability or attitude, but because of their background. That is inequality of opportunity and the rules of the game are unjust. It is thus necessary to step in to change them.

Again the wealth of another harms no one else. Any attempt to forcefully transfer wealth is the real injustice.
I have already displayed many posts ago that disparity of wealth (not wealth itself) undermines equality of opportunity, but it seems that each time, you've only repeated 'the wealth of another harms no one else' without directly responding to my argument...


Progressive taxation is nothing other than punishment. Governments should treat every citizen equally regardless of income.
Society is failing to treat everyone equally. What's wrong with equalising society using government powers?

Taking from one to give to another is wrong.
The system that determines who has more and who has fewer resources was unfair from the beginning. Yes, progressive taxation does 'take one to give to another', but it serves to 1) mitigate the effects of the unfaireness which was there in the first place and 2) in the case of intergenerational poverty, allow the low-income groups a reasonable living standard and gives their children a better environment and thus a better chance to succeed in the future, thus increasing the fairness in the future.

It's no different from a government taxing polluting firms, except for the fact that equity rather than efficiency is taken care of by the government.

The 'punishment' is made to force polluting firms to consider the negative externalities caused by their production in to consideration so that they produce at the socially optimal level (where marginal social benefit = marginal social cost) and the deadweight loss is cleared. It is a case of the government stepping in because there is market failure - the invisible hand is failing to meet desirable goals.

Governments fine firms for polluting as punishment. Any tax that is not equally applied should be considered a fine.

Governments should ensure that the rule of law, taxation, and property rights are distributed equally, not income.

Governments also have the responsibility to ensure equality of opportunity.

If anything, the inequality of opportunity caused by social inequity is 'social failure' (I term I just coined from market failure). Inequality of outcome is causing inequality of opportunity in the form of intergenerational poverty. That must be remedied by government actions as well.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2015 10:29:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 7:44:48 PM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/2/2015 6:11:24 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:13:00 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/2/2015 4:58:24 AM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/2/2015 12:32:19 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/1/2015 11:06:22 AM, Chang29 wrote:
Income inequality is a pointless argument, one person's income harms nobody else. Harm is only done by punishing those that earn money, to correct precieved injustices in the name of fictional equality. Societal equality should never be measured by result.

- Whether equality should be measured by outcome or opportunity (or anything else) is normative.
- As I pointed out, inequality of outcome leads to inequality of opportunity.
- Progressive taxation is not 'punishing those that earn money'. High-income people do no necessarily work harder or better than low-income people. The possession of capital, for example, allow bankers' children to earn higher income than farmers' children.

No person is harmed by the wealth of another, unless government is involved. A wealthy banker leaving millions of dollars to his kids, can not harm the kids of a subsistence farmer.
Wealth itself inflicts no harm, but the disparity of wealth between the rich and the poor does. Good jobs in society are scarce goods, and some people (with rich parents) can obtain them more easily than others not because of their ability or attitude, but because of their background. That is inequality of opportunity and the rules of the game are unjust. It is thus necessary to step in to change them.

Again the wealth of another harms no one else. Any attempt to forcefully transfer wealth is the real injustice.
I have already displayed many posts ago that disparity of wealth (not wealth itself) undermines equality of opportunity, but it seems that each time, you've only repeated 'the wealth of another harms no one else' without directly responding to my argument...

Your argument is based on fiction. This issue can not be measured in macro terms. No individuals wealth can harm another.


Progressive taxation is nothing other than punishment. Governments should treat every citizen equally regardless of income.
Society is failing to treat everyone equally. What's wrong with equalising society using government powers?

Taking from one to give to another is wrong.
The system that determines who has more and who has fewer resources was unfair from the beginning. Yes, progressive taxation does 'take one to give to another', but it serves to 1) mitigate the effects of the unfaireness which was there in the first place and 2) in the case of intergenerational poverty, allow the low-income groups a reasonable living standard and gives their children a better environment and thus a better chance to succeed in the future, thus increasing the fairness in the future.

It's no different from a government taxing polluting firms, except for the fact that equity rather than efficiency is taken care of by the government.

The 'punishment' is made to force polluting firms to consider the negative externalities caused by their production in to consideration so that they produce at the socially optimal level (where marginal social benefit = marginal social cost) and the deadweight loss is cleared. It is a case of the government stepping in because there is market failure - the invisible hand is failing to meet desirable goals.

Rent seeking by the wealthy to limit punishments causes much more harm to society. By taxing some people more than others, government encourages rent seeking for the benefit of the politician.


Governments fine firms for polluting as punishment. Any tax that is not equally applied should be considered a fine.

Governments should ensure that the rule of law, taxation, and property rights are distributed equally, not income.

Governments also have the responsibility to ensure equality of opportunity.


If anything, the inequality of opportunity caused by social inequity is 'social failure' (I term I just coined from market failure). Inequality of outcome is causing inequality of opportunity in the form of intergenerational poverty. That must be remedied by government actions as well.

In your view, how should a society have equal income distribution?
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2015 8:18:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/2/2015 10:29:22 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Your argument is based on fiction. This issue can not be measured in macro terms. No individuals wealth can harm another.
When it comes to society as a whole, however, there is a problem and it needs to be solved. Why do you say that it 'cannot be measured in macro terms'? I'm not sure I understand there.

Rent seeking by the wealthy to limit punishments causes much more harm to society. By taxing some people more than others, government encourages rent seeking for the benefit of the politician.
IMO, negative side-effects do not necessarily undermine the value of a policy since there can be ways to prevent these side effects...

In your view, how should a society have equal income distribution?

I'm not saying there should be a Lorenz curve where x = y, but there should be as much equality of opportunity as possible - maybe through a perfect examination system.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2015 6:52:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/4/2015 8:18:53 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:29:22 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Your argument is based on fiction. This issue can not be measured in macro terms. No individuals wealth can harm another.
When it comes to society as a whole, however, there is a problem and it needs to be solved. Why do you say that it 'cannot be measured in macro terms'? I'm not sure I understand there.

Macro terms cannot measure individual action. Wealth is held by a person, not by a group of people. One person's wealth cannot harm another, a government is needed to cause harm.

Rent seeking by the wealthy to limit punishments causes much more harm to society. By taxing some people more than others, government encourages rent seeking for the benefit of the politician.
IMO, negative side-effects do not necessarily undermine the value of a policy since there can be ways to prevent these side effects...

The side effects are that government is taking away opportunities from a wealthy children. Government keeps a piece for itself, then provides the poor with a lifetime of subjugation.

Regardless of individual circumstance, if a person takes money from one person just to give to another, that is theft. If a gang does the same, it is theft. Yet, if there is an election first then this theft is lawful. Since the victim had a vote in if his money would be stolen. The side effects of transfer policies are far worse that the fictional original problem.

In your view, how should a society have equal income distribution?

I'm not saying there should be a Lorenz curve where x = y, but there should be as much equality of opportunity as possible - maybe through a perfect examination system.

In my view income is earned not distributed with people transferring their wealth as they see fit. The viewed problem is how the wealthy influence politics, that problem is a governmental power problem. If a nation wants to reduce the power of the wealthy, then reduce the power of government.
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.
Diqiucun_Cunmin
Posts: 2,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 10:37:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/5/2015 6:52:42 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/4/2015 8:18:53 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:29:22 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Your argument is based on fiction. This issue can not be measured in macro terms. No individuals wealth can harm another.
When it comes to society as a whole, however, there is a problem and it needs to be solved. Why do you say that it 'cannot be measured in macro terms'? I'm not sure I understand there.

Macro terms cannot measure individual action. Wealth is held by a person, not by a group of people. One person's wealth cannot harm another, a government is needed to cause harm.
I guess there's no point continuing to argue this point, because I believe it is unfair from society's perspective, but you're looking at individuals.

Rent seeking by the wealthy to limit punishments causes much more harm to society. By taxing some people more than others, government encourages rent seeking for the benefit of the politician.

The side effects are that government is taking away opportunities from a wealthy children. Government keeps a piece for itself, then provides the poor with a lifetime of subjugation.

Regardless of individual circumstance, if a person takes money from one person just to give to another, that is theft. If a gang does the same, it is theft. Yet, if there is an election first then this theft is lawful. Since the victim had a vote in if his money would be stolen. The side effects of transfer policies are far worse that the fictional original problem.
I don't think it's theft when the government taxes some people more. The tax eventually goes not only to transfer payments and transfers to the poor in kind but also other public services - like the judiciary. I've faintly remember reading on DDO an argument where the user said the rich use more of public resources than the poor (or something like that), like the judiciary. I don't know if this is true, but it is possible (the poor consume a greater quantity, but those long court battles tell me the rich also benefit from a great quantity of resources from the government.)

In my view income is earned not distributed with people transferring their wealth as they see fit. The viewed problem is how the wealthy influence politics, that problem is a governmental power problem. If a nation wants to reduce the power of the wealthy, then reduce the power of government.
It's not just the wealthy influencing politics, chang. There are many ways in which access to a greater amount of capital leads to inequality of opportunity. Look at the wealthy in every society: They send their kids to the best private schools, their children have a much greater chance of finding employment in their parents' corporations... All the while, the poorest sectors of society cannot even afford and Internet connection, let alone have access to the wealth of resources that most people can enjoy. It's for this reason that a power must step in to change this inequality.
The thing is, I hate relativism. I hate relativism more than I hate everything else, excepting, maybe, fibreglass powerboats... What it overlooks, to put it briefly and crudely, is the fixed structure of human nature. - Jerry Fodor

Don't be a stat cynic:
http://www.debate.org...

Response to conservative views on deforestation:
http://www.debate.org...

Topics I'd like to debate (not debating ATM): http://tinyurl.com...
Chang29
Posts: 732
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/7/2015 8:26:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/7/2015 10:37:02 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/5/2015 6:52:42 PM, Chang29 wrote:
At 2/4/2015 8:18:53 AM, Diqiucun_Cunmin wrote:
At 2/2/2015 10:29:22 PM, Chang29 wrote:
Your argument is based on fiction. This issue can not be measured in macro terms. No individuals wealth can harm another.
When it comes to society as a whole, however, there is a problem and it needs to be solved. Why do you say that it 'cannot be measured in macro terms'? I'm not sure I understand there.

Macro terms cannot measure individual action. Wealth is held by a person, not by a group of people. One person's wealth cannot harm another, a government is needed to cause harm.
I guess there's no point continuing to argue this point, because I believe it is unfair from society's perspective, but you're looking at individuals.

Rent seeking by the wealthy to limit punishments causes much more harm to society. By taxing some people more than others, government encourages rent seeking for the benefit of the politician.

The side effects are that government is taking away opportunities from a wealthy children. Government keeps a piece for itself, then provides the poor with a lifetime of subjugation.

Regardless of individual circumstance, if a person takes money from one person just to give to another, that is theft. If a gang does the same, it is theft. Yet, if there is an election first then this theft is lawful. Since the victim had a vote in if his money would be stolen. The side effects of transfer policies are far worse that the fictional original problem.
I don't think it's theft when the government taxes some people more. The tax eventually goes not only to transfer payments and transfers to the poor in kind but also other public services - like the judiciary. I've faintly remember reading on DDO an argument where the user said the rich use more of public resources than the poor (or something like that), like the judiciary. I don't know if this is true, but it is possible (the poor consume a greater quantity, but those long court battles tell me the rich also benefit from a great quantity of resources from the government.)

In my view income is earned not distributed with people transferring their wealth as they see fit. The viewed problem is how the wealthy influence politics, that problem is a governmental power problem. If a nation wants to reduce the power of the wealthy, then reduce the power of government.
It's not just the wealthy influencing politics, chang. There are many ways in which access to a greater amount of capital leads to inequality of opportunity. Look at the wealthy in every society: They send their kids to the best private schools, their children have a much greater chance of finding employment in their parents' corporations... All the while, the poorest sectors of society cannot even afford and Internet connection, let alone have access to the wealth of resources that most people can enjoy. It's for this reason that a power must step in to change this inequality.

We see the world much differently, to me, individual rights are more important than anything else. If every individual's personal and property negative rights are protected a government has done its only job.

You seam to view the good of an entire society as more important than rights of individuals measured in aggregates.

For economic issues, using America as a example, other that the Interstate commerce clause (which was not meant for total economic control) of the Constitution where does American government derive its economic authority?
A free market anti-capitalist

If it can be de-centralized, it will be de-centralized.