Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

There's a Tax for that

Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 6:51:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There's a Benefit from that
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 7:17:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 6:51:52 PM, Contra wrote:
There's a Benefit from that

Moderate amounts of taxes accomplish the same goals, the reasons we have so many taxes is because we are morphing into a nanny state.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 7:19:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 6:51:52 PM, Contra wrote:
There's a Benefit from that

OMG

I KNOW!

Is it to fund unjustified government programs? Like totally....
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 7:20:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Contra, other than defence, law, public goods, and a minuscule safety net, try to justify at least one government program.

I dare you.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 7:43:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 7:20:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Contra, other than defence, law, public goods, and a minuscule safety net, try to justify at least one government program.

I dare you.

Fitting things into those categories is subjective. How about, besides the powers specifically listed in article 1 section 8 of the constitution, try to justify at least one federal program.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 8:38:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 7:20:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Contra, other than defence, law, public goods, and a minuscule safety net, try to justify at least one government program.

I dare you.

The EPA

--By the way, I favor cutting spending in some areas, such as duplicate, ineffective, and wasteful programs. This is what Clinton's "Reinventing Government" initiative performed and did pretty well.

I want a more modern government that can facilitate prosperity. I don't advocate the same antigovernment rhetoric that right wingers do.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 8:57:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 8:38:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/18/2012 7:20:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Contra, other than defence, law, public goods, and a minuscule safety net, try to justify at least one government program.

I dare you.

The EPA

At the status quo, the EPA imposes harmful command-and-control regulations on businesses which might be effective in their principal cause (reducing emissions), but have many more negative causes as a result of this that overweigh it. These regulations reduce incentives for companies to innovate to less pollutionary technology as these regulations impose a limit, which is often at or near the company's current level.

The regulations also inevitably can be treated as taxes on pollution. For that result, the companies incur higher losses. As a result, the company passes down higher prices to the consumer, because of regulation.

Sure, there is market failure, especially within the pollution sector. However, this notion that government failure is somehow superior to market failure is absurd.

We can stop pollution by implementing strict property rights, none of which have anything to do with the EPA.

Next.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 9:27:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 8:57:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/18/2012 8:38:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/18/2012 7:20:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Contra, other than defence, law, public goods, and a minuscule safety net, try to justify at least one government program.

I dare you.

The EPA

At the status quo, the EPA imposes harmful command-and-control regulations on businesses which might be effective in their principal cause (reducing emissions), but have many more negative causes as a result of this that overweigh it. These regulations reduce incentives for companies to innovate to less pollutionary technology as these regulations impose a limit, which is often at or near the company's current level.

Call me ignorant, but how do regulations on carbon emissions discourage cleaner energy?


The regulations also inevitably can be treated as taxes on pollution. For that result, the companies incur higher losses. As a result, the company passes down higher prices to the consumer, because of regulation.

Ok

Sure, there is market failure, especially within the pollution sector. However, this notion that government failure is somehow superior to market failure is absurd.

We can stop pollution by implementing strict property rights, none of which have anything to do with the EPA.

Cap and Trade.

But, when you give a company the right to own land with zero regulations, the company will pollute and it will cause death and devastation. This isn't an exaggeration. Before Theodore Roosevelt and later Presidents regulated pollution, America's water and air were polluted very heavily. The pollution in turn caused numerous health hazards, such as high amounts of children's asthma, heart attacks, and higher health care costs, especially near the areas affected. In Texas, an oil refinery caused many people living in a 5 mile radius to all get sick, and many people required oxygen tanks to live. And they couldn't sell the homes. The oil refinery went up after they moved in.

Next.

Earned Income Tax Credit
Career Academies

http://evidencebasedprograms.org...
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 9:37:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 9:27:01 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/18/2012 8:57:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/18/2012 8:38:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/18/2012 7:20:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Contra, other than defence, law, public goods, and a minuscule safety net, try to justify at least one government program.

I dare you.

The EPA

At the status quo, the EPA imposes harmful command-and-control regulations on businesses which might be effective in their principal cause (reducing emissions), but have many more negative causes as a result of this that overweigh it. These regulations reduce incentives for companies to innovate to less pollutionary technology as these regulations impose a limit, which is often at or near the company's current level.

Call me ignorant, but how do regulations on carbon emissions discourage cleaner energy?

Regulation limits are often put into place on or near the level of current emissions (thanks to self-interested corporations meddling in government). As a result, there is no incentive to implement and innovate new technologies.

The regulations also inevitably can be treated as taxes on pollution. For that result, the companies incur higher losses. As a result, the company passes down higher prices to the consumer, because of regulation.

Ok

Sure, there is market failure, especially within the pollution sector. However, this notion that government failure is somehow superior to market failure is absurd.

We can stop pollution by implementing strict property rights, none of which have anything to do with the EPA.

Cap and Trade.

It creates an imaginary market to trade carbon credits and discourages new firms from entering the marketplace.

But, when you give a company the right to own land with zero regulations, the company will pollute and it will cause death and devastation. This isn't an exaggeration. Before Theodore Roosevelt and later Presidents regulated pollution, America's water and air were polluted very heavily. The pollution in turn caused numerous health hazards, such as high amounts of children's asthma, heart attacks, and higher health care costs, especially near the areas affected. In Texas, an oil refinery caused many people living in a 5 mile radius to all get sick, and many people required oxygen tanks to live. And they couldn't sell the homes. The oil refinery went up after they moved in.

Nobody is arguing for zero regulations. That would be impractical and I am no anarcho-capitalist. However, we must make a distinction between effective regulations and ineffective regulations. Ineffective regulations, such as the ones currently implemented by the EPA, punish the actual act of pollution, with little regard for what happens with it after. Effective regulations, such as the implementation of property rights, punishes companies if their pollution is being a negative externality towards the property of others.

Anyways, this nonsense about pollution before command-and-control regulations is absurd and made up "facts."

Next.

Earned Income Tax Credit

Under an ideal free market policy, taxes would be so low that these credits would not be needed.

Career Academies

Why can't they work privatized?

If something can work privatized, then it is always better off privatized.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 9:57:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 9:37:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/18/2012 9:27:01 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/18/2012 8:57:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/18/2012 8:38:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/18/2012 7:20:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Contra, other than defence, law, public goods, and a minuscule safety net, try to justify at least one government program.

I dare you.

The EPA

At the status quo, the EPA imposes harmful command-and-control regulations on businesses which might be effective in their principal cause (reducing emissions), but have many more negative causes as a result of this that overweigh it. These regulations reduce incentives for companies to innovate to less pollutionary technology as these regulations impose a limit, which is often at or near the company's current level.

Call me ignorant, but how do regulations on carbon emissions discourage cleaner energy?

Regulation limits are often put into place on or near the level of current emissions (thanks to self-interested corporations meddling in government). As a result, there is no incentive to implement and innovate new technologies.

But it wouldn't harm innovation either.

I have few ideas I'll share later.

The regulations also inevitably can be treated as taxes on pollution. For that result, the companies incur higher losses. As a result, the company passes down higher prices to the consumer, because of regulation.

Ok

Sure, there is market failure, especially within the pollution sector. However, this notion that government failure is somehow superior to market failure is absurd.

We can stop pollution by implementing strict property rights, none of which have anything to do with the EPA.

Cap and Trade.

It creates an imaginary market to trade carbon credits and discourages new firms from entering the marketplace.

How does it discourage new firms? What would you prefer, a Cap and Trade system or a carbon tax? I'd prefer choice 1.

But, when you give a company the right to own land with zero regulations, the company will pollute and it will cause death and devastation. This isn't an exaggeration. Before Theodore Roosevelt and later Presidents regulated pollution, America's water and air were polluted very heavily. The pollution in turn caused numerous health hazards, such as high amounts of children's asthma, heart attacks, and higher health care costs, especially near the areas affected. In Texas, an oil refinery caused many people living in a 5 mile radius to all get sick, and many people required oxygen tanks to live. And they couldn't sell the homes. The oil refinery went up after they moved in.

Nobody is arguing for zero regulations. That would be impractical and I am no anarcho-capitalist. However, we must make a distinction between effective regulations and ineffective regulations.

Yes

Ineffective regulations, such as the ones currently implemented by the EPA, punish the actual act of pollution, with little regard for what happens with it after. Effective regulations, such as the implementation of property rights, punishes companies if their pollution is being a negative externality towards the property of others.

I think that if it harms our natural resources of clean air and water, it should be regulated and our environment protected.

Anyways, this nonsense about pollution before command-and-control regulations is absurd and made up "facts."

http://www.epa.gov...

Ironic source, but proves my point ^

Next.

Earned Income Tax Credit

Under an ideal free market policy, taxes would be so low that these credits would not be needed.

Ok, but the negative income tax idea of this has been very effective.

Career Academies

Why can't they work privatized?

They could be. Which would work.

K12 education though needs to be reformed, which school vouchers can't do (other topic in this forum) and which corporate t-shirts and corporate Pepsi ads on the side of buses won't do.

If something can work privatized, then it is always better off privatized.

Always? National Health Care. Better with Single-Payer. Bread and health care are two very different things. Bread is simple, I want white bread that is cheap and tastes good. Done.

Health care is very complex. Does may plan cover Hemoglobin testing? Or the Ericks Test? Hopefully it covers insulin. Or a Polysomnography at the sleep lap, but I hope it covers the one that I want. Or maybe it covers CAT scans, but maybe only so many a year, or maybe hopefully it covers a CA 125 test or contraceptives. Maybe it covers a triple bypass, but doesn't cover extensive knee replacement. Hopefully the plan doesn't change before, and hopefully I don't get a heart attack or a serious sickness which could easily bankrupt me.

Point is, health care is extremely complex, and can't be sold on the market effectively without regulation. Since health insurance firms list medical insurance costs as "losses" it is clear that profits > life.

And with the extreme complexity of health care, many companies have an incentive to limit choice of provider and deny many tests to get profits. And most people are uneducated or cannot grasp the complexity of these plans.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 10:13:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 9:57:56 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/18/2012 9:37:30 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/18/2012 9:27:01 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/18/2012 8:57:45 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/18/2012 8:38:17 PM, Contra wrote:
At 5/18/2012 7:20:13 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
Contra, other than defence, law, public goods, and a minuscule safety net, try to justify at least one government program.

I dare you.

The EPA

At the status quo, the EPA imposes harmful command-and-control regulations on businesses which might be effective in their principal cause (reducing emissions), but have many more negative causes as a result of this that overweigh it. These regulations reduce incentives for companies to innovate to less pollutionary technology as these regulations impose a limit, which is often at or near the company's current level.

Call me ignorant, but how do regulations on carbon emissions discourage cleaner energy?

Regulation limits are often put into place on or near the level of current emissions (thanks to self-interested corporations meddling in government). As a result, there is no incentive to implement and innovate new technologies.

But it wouldn't harm innovation either.

I have few ideas I'll share later.

As the status quo, it does.

The regulations also inevitably can be treated as taxes on pollution. For that result, the companies incur higher losses. As a result, the company passes down higher prices to the consumer, because of regulation.

Ok

Sure, there is market failure, especially within the pollution sector. However, this notion that government failure is somehow superior to market failure is absurd.

We can stop pollution by implementing strict property rights, none of which have anything to do with the EPA.

Cap and Trade.

It creates an imaginary market to trade carbon credits and discourages new firms from entering the marketplace.

How does it discourage new firms? What would you prefer, a Cap and Trade system or a carbon tax? I'd prefer choice 1.

It discourages new firms from going big because they do not have the existing technology necessary to reduce emissions to acceptable levels.

I prefer neither.

But, when you give a company the right to own land with zero regulations, the company will pollute and it will cause death and devastation. This isn't an exaggeration. Before Theodore Roosevelt and later Presidents regulated pollution, America's water and air were polluted very heavily. The pollution in turn caused numerous health hazards, such as high amounts of children's asthma, heart attacks, and higher health care costs, especially near the areas affected. In Texas, an oil refinery caused many people living in a 5 mile radius to all get sick, and many people required oxygen tanks to live. And they couldn't sell the homes. The oil refinery went up after they moved in.

Nobody is arguing for zero regulations. That would be impractical and I am no anarcho-capitalist. However, we must make a distinction between effective regulations and ineffective regulations.

Yes

Ineffective regulations, such as the ones currently implemented by the EPA, punish the actual act of pollution, with little regard for what happens with it after. Effective regulations, such as the implementation of property rights, punishes companies if their pollution is being a negative externality towards the property of others.

I think that if it harms our natural resources of clean air and water, it should be regulated and our environment protected.

Exactly. The question is do we EPA style "command and control" regulate it, or enforce effective property rights? The answer is rather obvious.

Anyways, this nonsense about pollution before command-and-control regulations is absurd and made up "facts."

http://www.epa.gov...

Ironic source, but proves my point ^

I'm not accepting a source that advocates the EPA from the EPA.

Next.

Earned Income Tax Credit

Under an ideal free market policy, taxes would be so low that these credits would not be needed.

Ok, but the negative income tax idea of this has been very effective.

Those are two different issues.

Career Academies

Why can't they work privatized?

They could be. Which would work.

Exactly.

K12 education though needs to be reformed, which school vouchers can't do (other topic in this forum)

I would argue otherwise.

and which corporate t-shirts and corporate Pepsi ads on the side of buses won't do

This has what to do with education?
.

If something can work privatized, then it is always better off privatized.

Always? National Health Care. Better with Single-Payer. Bread and health care are two very different things. Bread is simple, I want white bread that is cheap and tastes good. Done.

Why are you implementing bread into this?

Anyways, I really don't want to have a healthcare argument with you again. We know each other's arguments and I would like to eventually have a formal debate with you, but I am approaching finals so that will have to wait.

Health care is very complex. Does may plan cover Hemoglobin testing? Or the Ericks Test? Hopefully it covers insulin. Or a Polysomnography at the sleep lap, but I hope it covers the one that I want. Or maybe it covers CAT scans, but maybe only so many a year, or maybe hopefully it covers a CA 125 test or contraceptives. Maybe it covers a triple bypass, but doesn't cover extensive knee replacement. Hopefully the plan doesn't change before, and hopefully I don't get a heart attack or a serious sickness which could easily bankrupt me.

It is important to get a plan that is suited to you and your likely medical problems.

Anyways, this notion that people should not pay for the upkeep of their own health is absurd. People pay for their groceries. People pay for gas. People pay for houses. All of these are essential to a modern life. There is no reason for the government to step in and pay for health care.

Point is, health care is extremely complex, and can't be sold on the market effectively without regulation. Since health insurance firms list medical insurance costs as "losses" it is clear that profits > life.

First of all, companies have no incentive to kill customers.

Second, the concept of "profit over life" is not necessarily a negative one. For the majority of people who are in already good health, these policies are actually beneficial and they allow them further coverage because of the utility maximization of both the individuals and the firms.

Sure, there is market failure. I'll admit to that. However, to reject the notion that government cannot fail in the same areas are absolutely absurd. As popular economists such as Milton Friedman stated, market failure is apparent, but on balance, government failure is much more evident and concrete.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 10:24:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It discourages new firms from going big because they do not have the existing technology necessary to reduce emissions to acceptable levels.

I prefer neither.

That is why I think the government should facilitate the growth of clean, renewable green energy, so the economy can grow without continuing to rely on the addiction of oil.

Exactly. The question is do we EPA style "command and control" regulate it, or enforce effective property rights? The answer is rather obvious.

Regulate pollution and also facilitate a better future. A healthier future as well.

I'm not accepting a source that advocates the EPA from the EPA.

It shows the statistics.

Another: http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)#History

Those are two different issues.

I know that, but they are somewhat related.

This has what to do with education?

Ineffective education budgets has led in many areas the corporatization of Education.

http://www.google.com...

^ A private bank

http://www.google.com...

^ Micke D's!

http://www.google.com...

^ "Progress" so far

Bread is a simple commodity. Health Care isn't.

It is important to get a plan that is suited to you and your likely medical problems.

Health care isn't that predictable.

There is no reason for the government to step in and pay for health care.

You know why I think otherwise.

First of all, companies have no incentive to kill customers.

Just companies with Peasant Insurance, when they want their workers to die since they are worth more dead than alive.

And your Wall of Fail, with 000ike's quote, it is a fact that Democrats are generally closer to the center. The GOP has jumped off the crazy cliff a while ago, but Democrats have been slower.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2012 11:11:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 7:19:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/18/2012 6:51:52 PM, Contra wrote:
There's a Benefit from that

OMG

I KNOW!

Is it to fund unjustified government programs? Like totally....

What is your moral framework? "Unjustified" is only meaningful within a moral framework.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 6:08:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are two things to realize when it comes to taxes:

1. Government sucks
Look at all of the ineffectiveness of the government. Social Security isn't stable, Swine Flu disaster in distribution, awful mail service, bad infrastructure management (look at the difference between a typical turnpike and the public roads it connects!).

Private industry run by rich people is ALWAYS, ALWAYS better than government. The government should encourage private industry through tax breaks and incentives, not creating yet another inefficient waste of money.

I agree that some regulation is required, but regulations should be there for the best interests of the country and people. It should not oversee every small aspect of company operation. For example: Instead of requiring specific types of technoogy, simply put a quota on how many deaths can result in a particular plant before penalties are enacted.

To summarize: Taxes are the government's way of saying "We can do your job better than you." The record says otherwise. Just look at any communist nation as proof that government sucks.

2. Any tax is a tax on the consumer
Taxes are always passed down from rich to poor. The rich will always find a way to compensate for losses by taxes. They may move overseas, have prices raised, or simply not spend money. All three of these things are bad and will always affect us on anything we spend money on.

This is why taxes, while obviously necessary, are not a good thing to have in excess.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:08:07 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 11:11:34 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/18/2012 7:19:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/18/2012 6:51:52 PM, Contra wrote:
There's a Benefit from that

OMG

I KNOW!

Is it to fund unjustified government programs? Like totally....

What is your moral framework? "Unjustified" is only meaningful within a moral framework.

Why do you insist every subject has to have a moral framework?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:13:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 11:11:34 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/18/2012 7:19:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/18/2012 6:51:52 PM, Contra wrote:
There's a Benefit from that

OMG

I KNOW!

Is it to fund unjustified government programs? Like totally....

What is your moral framework? "Unjustified" is only meaningful within a moral framework.

It's more of an empirical methodology.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:16:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:08:07 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/18/2012 11:11:34 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/18/2012 7:19:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/18/2012 6:51:52 PM, Contra wrote:
There's a Benefit from that

OMG

I KNOW!

Is it to fund unjustified government programs? Like totally....

What is your moral framework? "Unjustified" is only meaningful within a moral framework.

Why do you insist every subject has to have a moral framework?

Unjustified means a lack of justification. If no logical reason, or justification has been given, than it is unjustified; if it does not meet the requirements in the constitution, than it's unjustified.
It does not matter what Lordknucle's personal beliefs are, what matters is if a justification was cited.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:16:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:08:07 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/18/2012 11:11:34 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/18/2012 7:19:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/18/2012 6:51:52 PM, Contra wrote:
There's a Benefit from that

OMG

I KNOW!

Is it to fund unjustified government programs? Like totally....

What is your moral framework? "Unjustified" is only meaningful within a moral framework.

Why do you insist every subject has to have a moral framework?
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:18:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:16:35 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:08:07 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/18/2012 11:11:34 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/18/2012 7:19:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/18/2012 6:51:52 PM, Contra wrote:
There's a Benefit from that

OMG

I KNOW!

Is it to fund unjustified government programs? Like totally....

What is your moral framework? "Unjustified" is only meaningful within a moral framework.

Why do you insist every subject has to have a moral framework?

Unjustified means a lack of justification. If no logical reason, or justification has been given, than it is unjustified; if it does not meet the requirements in the constitution, than it's unjustified.
It does not matter what Lordknucle's personal beliefs are, what matters is if a justification was cited.

point?
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:22:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/18/2012 10:24:26 PM, Contra wrote:
It discourages new firms from going big because they do not have the existing technology necessary to reduce emissions to acceptable levels.

I prefer neither.

That is why I think the government should facilitate the growth of clean, renewable green energy, so the economy can grow without continuing to rely on the addiction of oil.

The private sector is much more effective at facilitating new growth in new sectors. The Industrial Revolution and nearly all modern advancements (such as the car), have been a result of private entrepreneurs, not the government.

Anyways, we have seen that the government does not facilitate clean energy growth very well, i.e, Solyndra, Ener1, Beacon Power.

Exactly. The question is do we EPA style "command and control" regulate it, or enforce effective property rights? The answer is rather obvious.

Regulate pollution and also facilitate a better future. A healthier future as well.

No one's arguing with you. The question is command-and-control or enforcing strict property rights.

I'm not accepting a source that advocates the EPA from the EPA.

It shows the statistics.

Another: http://en.wikipedia.org...(United_States)#History

The Clean Air Act imposed harmful regulations on businesses, which forced their costs to go up and inevitably transfer them to the consumer.

Market is not perfect in this area; however, the notion that government failure is better than market failure is absolutely absurd.

Those are two different issues.

I know that, but they are somewhat related.

This has what to do with education?

Ineffective education budgets has led in many areas the corporatization of Education.

http://www.google.com...

^ A private bank

Your point? It's not a corporatization of education in the same way that putting advertisements on hospitals is not a corporatization of medicine.

http://www.google.com...

^ Micke D's!

Your point? It's not a corporatization of education in the same way that putting advertisements on hospitals is not a corporatization of medicine.

http://www.google.com...

^ "Progress" so far

Your point? It's not a corporatization of education in the same way that putting advertisements on hospitals is not a corporatization of medicine.

Anyways, what is inherently wrong with advertisements?

Bread is a simple commodity. Health Care isn't.

It is important to get a plan that is suited to you and your likely medical problems.

Health care isn't that predictable.

Many individuals get a plan tailored to their own specific needs. It's not that hard.

There is no reason for the government to step in and pay for health care.

You know why I think otherwise.

First of all, companies have no incentive to kill customers.

Just companies with Peasant Insurance, when they want their workers to die since they are worth more dead than alive.

"Corporate-owned life insurance (COLI), is life insurance on employees' lives that is owned by the employer, with benefits payable either to the employer or directly to the employee's families."

This insurance is either a) meant to give money to the employee's families after they pass away, and/or b) facilitate the costs for training new employees taken up by the company.

This insurance is meant as a safeguard against death, not what you are implying.

And your Wall of Fail, with 000ike's quote, it is a fact that Democrats are generally closer to the center. The GOP has jumped off the crazy cliff a while ago, but Democrats have been slower.

Democrats are arguing for class equality, class warfare, race warfare, socialized medicine, etc.....Center my as@.
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:24:39 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:18:39 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:16:35 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:08:07 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/18/2012 11:11:34 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/18/2012 7:19:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/18/2012 6:51:52 PM, Contra wrote:
There's a Benefit from that

OMG

I KNOW!

Is it to fund unjustified government programs? Like totally....

What is your moral framework? "Unjustified" is only meaningful within a moral framework.

Why do you insist every subject has to have a moral framework?

Unjustified means a lack of justification. If no logical reason, or justification has been given, than it is unjustified; if it does not meet the requirements in the constitution, than it's unjustified.
It does not matter what Lordknucle's personal beliefs are, what matters is if a justification was cited.

point?

"Lack of justification" only occurs within a moral framework. If the issue is epistemological is a different question, but if it concerns a moral ought - as this case does - saying "this is unjustified" without a moral framework is tantamount to saying "I don't like X" or "X doesn't fit my tastes." It leaves no further grounds.

Imagine me saying "justify the bill of rights" but you need to do it without appealing to a moral framework (one that involves moral ought statements.) I'd say you're unjustified in citing the Constitution as the end product of all justifications, it must tie back to a deeper principle. Political theory is a branch of moral philosophy.
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:37:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:24:39 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:18:39 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:16:35 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:08:07 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/18/2012 11:11:34 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/18/2012 7:19:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/18/2012 6:51:52 PM, Contra wrote:
There's a Benefit from that

OMG

I KNOW!

Is it to fund unjustified government programs? Like totally....

What is your moral framework? "Unjustified" is only meaningful within a moral framework.

Why do you insist every subject has to have a moral framework?

Unjustified means a lack of justification. If no logical reason, or justification has been given, than it is unjustified; if it does not meet the requirements in the constitution, than it's unjustified.
It does not matter what Lordknucle's personal beliefs are, what matters is if a justification was cited.

point?

"Lack of justification" only occurs within a moral framework. If the issue is epistemological is a different question, but if it concerns a moral ought - as this case does - saying "this is unjustified" without a moral framework is tantamount to saying "I don't like X" or "X doesn't fit my tastes." It leaves no further grounds.

Imagine me saying "justify the bill of rights" but you need to do it without appealing to a moral framework (one that involves moral ought statements.) I'd say you're unjustified in citing the Constitution as the end product of all justifications, it must tie back to a deeper principle. Political theory is a branch of moral philosophy.

It is rather obvious LK and Dan are basing some, if not all of their arguments off of the constitution. This is a rather silly objection in a political dispute, as you can now question all practices that are put into play by the government. Why is systematic killing unjustified? Why should we provide healthcare to the poor? Why shouldn't we nuke china? Also, reality tells us that what is practical is better than what is impractical, which 'unjustified' government programs are.

If you are trying to justify the constitution, read it. It calls for natural rights that are derived from a creator, which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (a better life for you and your family). If you don't believe in God, then go the philosophy thread and try and justify any moral framework without begging the question. If you can't, I'd avoid political disputes alltogether.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:52:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It is rather obvious LK and Dan are basing some, if not all of their arguments off of the constitution. This is a rather silly objection in a political dispute, as you can now question all practices that are put into play by the government. Why is systematic killing unjustified? Why should we provide healthcare to the poor? Why shouldn't we nuke china? Also, reality tells us that what is practical is better than what is impractical, which 'unjustified' government programs are.


All government practices can be questioned by moral considerations. That's basically the heart of political discourse. Things are practical or impractical only in reference to a certain goal which involve trade-offs.

If you are trying to justify the constitution, read it. It calls for natural rights that are derived from a creator, which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (a better life for you and your family). If you don't believe in God, then go the philosophy thread and try and justify any moral framework without begging the question. If you can't, I'd avoid political disputes alltogether.

There are aspects of the constitution which aren't based on natural rights - but yes, I could challenge those. I could challenge virtually any of the clauses, constitutional law is subordinate to moral law - some of the founding fathers held slaves themselves. The constitution can always be amended if it conflicts with moral law. There is no reason to view the constitution as the basis for all morality which essentially determines laws.
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 12:08:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:52:04 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
It is rather obvious LK and Dan are basing some, if not all of their arguments off of the constitution. This is a rather silly objection in a political dispute, as you can now question all practices that are put into play by the government. Why is systematic killing unjustified? Why should we provide healthcare to the poor? Why shouldn't we nuke china? Also, reality tells us that what is practical is better than what is impractical, which 'unjustified' government programs are.


All government practices can be questioned by moral considerations. That's basically the heart of political discourse. Things are practical or impractical only in reference to a certain goal which involve trade-offs.

I don't think I understand. Moral implications are second to reality; if a practice is impractical in regards to facilitating growth, then those practices will be overtaken by those that do. Regardless if you think facilitating growth is a good thing, it affects what people thing now and generations to come. We don't respect the opinions of those who think stars are just big fireballs floating a few miles above us, and therefore want to change how are Navy navigates.

If you are trying to justify the constitution, read it. It calls for natural rights that are derived from a creator, which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (a better life for you and your family). If you don't believe in God, then go the philosophy thread and try and justify any moral framework without begging the question. If you can't, I'd avoid political disputes alltogether.

There are aspects of the constitution which aren't based on natural rights - but yes, I could challenge those. I could challenge virtually any of the clauses, constitutional law is subordinate to moral law - some of the founding fathers held slaves themselves. The constitution can always be amended if it conflicts with moral law. There is no reason to view the constitution as the basis for all morality which essentially determines laws.

Except it is obvious that moral law can be ignored or redefined according to your whim, or it may just be subjective all together. There isn't really a way to distinguish which moral code is the most correct, if any are anyways. The constitution, the way I see it, is just a broad, secular frame where we can base our laws, regardless of the moral codes of those affected there of. An anarchist will be punished for harming someone elses property, even though he has no moral qualms with his actions.

Only the most radical and extreme of people would even assert that the constitution violates their a majority of their moral principles, but radicals and extremists have a tough enough time operating in society anyways, so it really is a mute point whether or not the constitution is subordinate to ones moral standards.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 12:26:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:24:39 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:18:39 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:16:35 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:08:07 AM, DanT wrote:
At 5/18/2012 11:11:34 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/18/2012 7:19:15 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 5/18/2012 6:51:52 PM, Contra wrote:
There's a Benefit from that

OMG

I KNOW!

Is it to fund unjustified government programs? Like totally....

What is your moral framework? "Unjustified" is only meaningful within a moral framework.

Why do you insist every subject has to have a moral framework?

Unjustified means a lack of justification. If no logical reason, or justification has been given, than it is unjustified; if it does not meet the requirements in the constitution, than it's unjustified.
It does not matter what Lordknucle's personal beliefs are, what matters is if a justification was cited.

point?

"Lack of justification" only occurs within a moral framework. If the issue is epistemological is a different question, but if it concerns a moral ought - as this case does - saying "this is unjustified" without a moral framework is tantamount to saying "I don't like X" or "X doesn't fit my tastes." It leaves no further grounds.

No justification only occurs within a moral framework. Lordknukle does not need to cite moral reasoning, he simply needs to cite the lack thereof.

Imagine me saying "justify the bill of rights" but you need to do it without appealing to a moral framework (one that involves moral ought statements.) I'd say you're unjustified in citing the Constitution as the end product of all justifications, it must tie back to a deeper principle.

You just committed the false analogy fallacy. A proper analogy would be if you said "the bill of rights is justified" and asked to prove that it was "unjustified", without citing a "moral argument".
The claim of justification requires a moral basis, the claim that no justification exists, does not require a moral basis.

Political theory is a branch of moral philosophy.

It depends on the subject. If one is questioning the constitutionality, it's not based on morals, it's based on laws.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 12:45:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 12:08:51 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:52:04 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
It is rather obvious LK and Dan are basing some, if not all of their arguments off of the constitution. This is a rather silly objection in a political dispute, as you can now question all practices that are put into play by the government. Why is systematic killing unjustified? Why should we provide healthcare to the poor? Why shouldn't we nuke china? Also, reality tells us that what is practical is better than what is impractical, which 'unjustified' government programs are.


All government practices can be questioned by moral considerations. That's basically the heart of political discourse. Things are practical or impractical only in reference to a certain goal which involve trade-offs.

I don't think I understand. Moral implications are second to reality; if a practice is impractical in regards to facilitating growth, then those practices will be overtaken by those that do. Regardless if you think facilitating growth is a good thing, it affects what people thing now and generations to come. We don't respect the opinions of those who think stars are just big fireballs floating a few miles above us, and therefore want to change how are Navy navigates.

Facilitating growth is a good thing, I think there's near universal agreement on that but it's really one of many issues. Morality doesn't concern the nature of stars, it only concerns how one's intentions and behavior.

If you are trying to justify the constitution, read it. It calls for natural rights that are derived from a creator, which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (a better life for you and your family). If you don't believe in God, then go the philosophy thread and try and justify any moral framework without begging the question. If you can't, I'd avoid political disputes alltogether.

There are aspects of the constitution which aren't based on natural rights - but yes, I could challenge those. I could challenge virtually any of the clauses, constitutional law is subordinate to moral law - some of the founding fathers held slaves themselves. The constitution can always be amended if it conflicts with moral law. There is no reason to view the constitution as the basis for all morality which essentially determines laws.

Except it is obvious that moral law can be ignored or redefined according to your whim, or it may just be subjective all together. There isn't really a way to distinguish which moral code is the most correct, if any are anyways. The constitution, the way I see it, is just a broad, secular frame where we can base our laws, regardless of the moral codes of those affected there of. An anarchist will be punished for harming someone elses property, even though he has no moral qualms with his actions.

Only the most radical and extreme of people would even assert that the constitution violates their a majority of their moral principles, but radicals and extremists have a tough enough time operating in society anyways, so it really is a mute point whether or not the constitution is subordinate to ones moral standards.

I don't disagree with the constitution for the most part, it's only minor qualms, really. As a Christian you can't believe that morality is subjective or meaningless - your God embodies it. You basically just said atheist morality is groundless so I don't know what stance you're advocating now. If you're a good christian you'll agree that God's law is above a law set forth by men around 300 years ago. You must pick a side on this argument, and subjectivism is non-starter.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 12:53:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No justification only occurs within a moral framework. Lordknukle does not need to cite moral reasoning, he simply needs to cite the lack thereof.

He does need to cite moral reasoning if he wants to declare X is unjustified. He must say that X is not in accordance with his own framework that is the right one. If there's no right standard then argumentation becomes moot. A moral nihilist cannot declare a moral position "immoral" or "unjustified" in a moral sense - only perhaps internally inconsistent.

Imagine me saying "justify the bill of rights" but you need to do it without appealing to a moral framework (one that involves moral ought statements.) I'd say you're unjustified in citing the Constitution as the end product of all justifications, it must tie back to a deeper principle.

You just committed the false analogy fallacy. A proper analogy would be if you said "the bill of rights is justified" and asked to prove that it was "unjustified", without citing a "moral argument".
The claim of justification requires a moral basis, the claim that no justification exists, does not require a moral basis.

I've explained earlier claiming "X is unjustified" without an objective framework is pretty lame. It would highly imply that it's dependent on your own personal like and dislikes. Unjustified in reference to what? It's a bizarre claim to make.
Political theory is a branch of moral philosophy.

It depends on the subject. If one is questioning the constitutionality, it's not based on morals, it's based on laws.

I still believe is fundamentally is. Both concern "the good" and how it is to be reached. Political theory must have moral groundings otherwise it is arbitrary, but yes, there is a historical purely fact-based component - but that would be the study of political theory.
LibertyCampbell
Posts: 288
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 1:05:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 12:45:36 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
At 5/19/2012 12:08:51 PM, LibertyCampbell wrote:
At 5/19/2012 10:52:04 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
It is rather obvious LK and Dan are basing some, if not all of their arguments off of the constitution. This is a rather silly objection in a political dispute, as you can now question all practices that are put into play by the government. Why is systematic killing unjustified? Why should we provide healthcare to the poor? Why shouldn't we nuke china? Also, reality tells us that what is practical is better than what is impractical, which 'unjustified' government programs are.


All government practices can be questioned by moral considerations. That's basically the heart of political discourse. Things are practical or impractical only in reference to a certain goal which involve trade-offs.

I don't think I understand. Moral implications are second to reality; if a practice is impractical in regards to facilitating growth, then those practices will be overtaken by those that do. Regardless if you think facilitating growth is a good thing, it affects what people thing now and generations to come. We don't respect the opinions of those who think stars are just big fireballs floating a few miles above us, and therefore want to change how are Navy navigates.

Facilitating growth is a good thing, I think there's near universal agreement on that but it's really one of many issues. Morality doesn't concern the nature of stars, it only concerns how one's intentions and behavior.

The analogy was concerning that if there are moral truths like there are scientific truths, then those who disagree with them aren't worth our time. I was trying to argue in a slope, demonstrating that your line of reasoning could also work on other aspects of government. You challenged someones moral outlook on a particular issue, and I said that it was too subjective a question to have any matter in regards to law.

If you are trying to justify the constitution, read it. It calls for natural rights that are derived from a creator, which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (a better life for you and your family). If you don't believe in God, then go the philosophy thread and try and justify any moral framework without begging the question. If you can't, I'd avoid political disputes alltogether.

There are aspects of the constitution which aren't based on natural rights - but yes, I could challenge those. I could challenge virtually any of the clauses, constitutional law is subordinate to moral law - some of the founding fathers held slaves themselves. The constitution can always be amended if it conflicts with moral law. There is no reason to view the constitution as the basis for all morality which essentially determines laws.

Except it is obvious that moral law can be ignored or redefined according to your whim, or it may just be subjective all together. There isn't really a way to distinguish which moral code is the most correct, if any are anyways. The constitution, the way I see it, is just a broad, secular frame where we can base our laws, regardless of the moral codes of those affected there of. An anarchist will be punished for harming someone elses property, even though he has no moral qualms with his actions.

Only the most radical and extreme of people would even assert that the constitution violates their a majority of their moral principles, but radicals and extremists have a tough enough time operating in society anyways, so it really is a mute point whether or not the constitution is subordinate to ones moral standards.

I don't disagree with the constitution for the most part, it's only minor qualms, really. As a Christian you can't believe that morality is subjective or meaningless - your God embodies it. You basically just said atheist morality is groundless so I don't know what stance you're advocating now. If you're a good christian you'll agree that God's law is above a law set forth by men around 300 years ago. You must pick a side on this argument, and subjectivism is non-starter.

I'm very wary of my faith, and I am not one to force my views upon another. (Just because the bible says homosexuality is wrong doesn't mean I want to ban it) However, certain things are at least evident to me, such as that people are more than matter and the killing of innocents is prima facie morally wrong. Honestly, I try to base my political views from a secular standpoint. If not, at least a deistic one.

To get back to the point, it is too difficult to talk about each persons moral views when considering law. Sure, someone might have different perceptions of the legitimacy of laws, but we need not worry ourselves about it. Murder should never be legal, even if we are just matter. We need to agree universally about something, and if someone doesn't like it they can hit the road. In this case, it's the constitution.
"[Society] has no vested interest in continuing to exist." -RP