Total Posts:49|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Social Justice

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 8:52:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 8:57:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
We live in a complex world with more issues than getting what you "earn". In reality, no one "owns" anything. If plain and simple Capitalism turns out to be the correct solution for our particular predicament, that's great. But it should be up for negotiation.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 9:02:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 8:52:15 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Let me offer you my definition of social justice: I keep what I earn and you keep what you earn. Do you disagree? Well then tell me how much of what I earn belongs to you - and why?

Humans are social creatures. Through cooperation we have become the dominant species.

Think of it like this, if you help me when I'm down, I'll help you when you're down. Therefore I think it is in our own interests for the rich to support the poor.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 9:06:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 8:57:16 PM, FREEDO wrote:
We live in a complex world with more issues than getting what you "earn". In reality, no one "owns" anything. If plain and simple Capitalism turns out to be the correct solution for our particular predicament, that's great. But it should be up for negotiation.

You have an opportunity to voice your opinion right meow, kitty kat. Is your argument that nothing can be owned; therefore, anyone can take anything they want, or at the very least take a little from everyone?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 9:09:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 9:02:15 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Humans are social creatures. Through cooperation we have become the dominant species. Think of it like this, if you help me when I'm down, I'll help you when you're down. Therefore I think it is in our own interests for the rich to support the poor.

What part of that requires theft? Cooperation works best voluntarily, not through coercion, threats, and force. If it's in someone's interest to help someone else (which is the case for 95% of people who are empathetic), it will occur. Helping strangers can be one of our greatest sources of happiness, but claiming that a stranger owes you something that you have no legitimate claim to is ridiculous.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 9:10:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 9:06:13 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/9/2013 8:57:16 PM, FREEDO wrote:
We live in a complex world with more issues than getting what you "earn". In reality, no one "owns" anything. If plain and simple Capitalism turns out to be the correct solution for our particular predicament, that's great. But it should be up for negotiation.

You have an opportunity to voice your opinion right meow, kitty kat.

I'm referring to some mechanism in the system that allows things to be run a different way to fit the situation. i.e, democracy or something of the sort.

Is your argument that nothing can be owned; therefore, anyone can take anything they want, or at the very least take a little from everyone?

No. My argument is that your proposal is overly simplistic and that there are different ways to do things for changing reasons.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 9:20:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 9:09:40 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/9/2013 9:02:15 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Humans are social creatures. Through cooperation we have become the dominant species. Think of it like this, if you help me when I'm down, I'll help you when you're down. Therefore I think it is in our own interests for the rich to support the poor.

What part of that requires theft? Cooperation works best voluntarily, not through coercion, threats, and force. If it's in someone's interest to help someone else (which is the case for 95% of people who are empathetic), it will occur. Helping strangers can be one of our greatest sources of happiness, but claiming that a stranger owes you something that you have no legitimate claim to is ridiculous.

Voluntarily through kings, queens, dictators, barons etc.? No, I think it works best when enforced. Hasn't Starbucks paid no corporation tax in the UK in the last three years? The rich want to get richer. Some rich might be philanthropic, but I still believe it should be enforced. I think it's a necessary evil to reduce/eliminate poverty. Obviously charity isn't enough or it would have worked by now.

If you dislike taxes, then maybe Morocco is up your street?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 9:27:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 9:10:23 PM, FREEDO wrote:
I'm referring to some mechanism in the system that allows things to be run a different way to fit the situation. i.e, democracy or something of the sort.

Is this under the assumption that there will only be services and goods provided through a price system and that mutual-aid societies, charities, non-profits, and grants don't exist? Also, what makes democracy a preferable system where minorities and majorities can get what they want without using violence?

No. My argument is that your proposal is overly simplistic and that there are different ways to do things for changing reasons.

What has to change that will morally permit theft? *Awaits imminent asteroid extermination hypothetical*
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 9:34:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 9:20:05 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Voluntarily through kings, queens, dictators, barons etc.?

That wouldn't be voluntary now would it.

No, I think it works best when enforced. Hasn't Starbucks paid no corporation tax in the UK in the last three years? The rich want to get richer.

This is a poor example, because you have an extortion network from the state already in place. The state then grants special privileges to corporations it can get kickbacks from. Then both parties profit at the expense of smaller businesses and consumers. Without any taxation, there are no loopholes for corporatism to exist. Businesses either have to serve customers or go out of business.

Some rich might be philanthropic, but I still believe it should be enforced.

Why should it be enforced? That means that you have the moral right to steal from someone else. Where on Earth did you get this right that normal humans do not possess?

I think it's a necessary evil to reduce/eliminate poverty. Obviously charity isn't enough or it would have worked by now.

Please show me a social program in the form of wealth redistribution (e.g. The War on Poverty) that has reduced poverty. Also, show me a society that is or was free market that has the levels of poverty seen in countries like Zimbabwe.

If you dislike taxes, then maybe Morocco is up your street?

Highest income tax in Morocco is 30% for over $40,000. http://www.pkf.com...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 9:41:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 9:34:21 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/9/2013 9:20:05 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Voluntarily through kings, queens, dictators, barons etc.?

That wouldn't be voluntary now would it.

What wouldn't? I was reminding you of the past.


No, I think it works best when enforced. Hasn't Starbucks paid no corporation tax in the UK in the last three years? The rich want to get richer.

This is a poor example, because you have an extortion network from the state already in place. The state then grants special privileges to corporations it can get kickbacks from. Then both parties profit at the expense of smaller businesses and consumers. Without any taxation, there are no loopholes for corporatism to exist. Businesses either have to serve customers or go out of business.

That's why our government is raising the issue with the G8, because hey;re getting kickbacks...


Some rich might be philanthropic, but I still believe it should be enforced.

Why should it be enforced? That means that you have the moral right to steal from someone else. Where on Earth did you get this right that normal humans do not possess?

The lesser of two evils, either extreme poverty, or stealing from the rich. Call me Robin Hood.


I think it's a necessary evil to reduce/eliminate poverty. Obviously charity isn't enough or it would have worked by now.

Please show me a social program in the form of wealth redistribution (e.g. The War on Poverty) that has reduced poverty. Also, show me a society that is or was free market that has the levels of poverty seen in countries like Zimbabwe.

Well I'm sorry I don't know of any "social programs", but I'll try find one that shows that poverty is decreased when the poor get money.

What does Zimbabwe have to do with anything? Do they have an amazing welfare system or something?


If you dislike taxes, then maybe Morocco is up your street?

Highest income tax in Morocco is 30% for over $40,000. http://www.pkf.com...

Those bastards!
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 9:46:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Aid in its simplest form is a basic income grant, a form of social security periodically providing citizens with money. In pilot projects in Namibia, where such a program pays just $13 a month, people were able to pay tuition fees, raising the proportion of children going to school by 92%, child malnutrition rates fell from 42% to 10% and economic activity grew 10%."

?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 9:56:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 9:41:34 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
What wouldn't? I was reminding you of the past.

...Those are all non-voluntary options. Kings plundered people just as states do today.

That's why our government is raising the issue with the G8, because hey;re getting kickbacks...

Monsanto. Geo Group. GE. Goldman Sachs. Lockheed Martin. Forget that GE payed nothing in taxes to get ahead of its competitors, Goldman Sachs was given billions of dollars in bailout money. The point is state and corporations fuse to gain profit at the expense of taxpayers. Take away the ability for the state to dole out money and get kickbacks, and big business becomes entirely dependent on the patronage of its customers.

The lesser of two evils, either extreme poverty, or stealing from the rich. Call me Robin Hood.

Someone doesn't know about Robin Hood... Robinhood didn't steal from the rich to give to the poor. The truth is, (as far as fairy-tales go), the legendary King Richard's Sheriff of Nottingham was extracting anything of value from the country's villagers unfairly. Sometimes abusing them, killing them or raping their women and young daughters while pillaging their villages at every opportunity. Stealing from the poor to fill his coffers with enough money and goods to overthrow King Richard. Robinhood stole BACK what rightfully belonged to the poor villagers.

In any case, your conclusion is fallacious and you've dodged both of my questions. Poverty increases or stagnates when states institute these programs due to their incredible inefficiency (e.g. War on Poverty http://www.cato.org...). The average efficiency of private charities is 70%, efficiency of government anti-poverty and welfare programs is 30%.

A relatively free market brought millions out of poverty in Hong Kong and Singapore in under 50 years, so that today their average income is greater than the US.

So not only is your position immoral (stealing from people and having the pompous attitude that you have the moral right to steal, but it's also factually inaccurate).
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 10:13:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
poetic justice... Poetic Justice.... If I told you that a blue fly were in a dark room would you trust it!?
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 10:17:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 9:56:57 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/9/2013 9:41:34 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
What wouldn't? I was reminding you of the past.

...Those are all non-voluntary options. Kings plundered people just as states do today.

Someone's always going to take your money, whether it's a king, the government, or a mafia. I'd take a government to be honest.


That's why our government is raising the issue with the G8, because hey;re getting kickbacks...

Monsanto. Geo Group. GE. Goldman Sachs. Lockheed Martin. Forget that GE payed nothing in taxes to get ahead of its competitors, Goldman Sachs was given billions of dollars in bailout money. The point is state and corporations fuse to gain profit at the expense of taxpayers. Take away the ability for the state to dole out money and get kickbacks, and big business becomes entirely dependent on the patronage of its customers.

Yes, sort out better regulations.


The lesser of two evils, either extreme poverty, or stealing from the rich. Call me Robin Hood.

Someone doesn't know about Robin Hood... Robinhood didn't steal from the rich to give to the poor. The truth is, (as far as fairy-tales go), the legendary King Richard's Sheriff of Nottingham was extracting anything of value from the country's villagers unfairly. Sometimes abusing them, killing them or raping their women and young daughters while pillaging their villages at every opportunity. Stealing from the poor to fill his coffers with enough money and goods to overthrow King Richard. Robinhood stole BACK what rightfully belonged to the poor villagers.

I just said call be Robin Hood. A lot of people say Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor, although I didn't assert that, it was just my reasoning behind saying that.


In any case, your conclusion is fallacious and you've dodged both of my questions. Poverty increases or stagnates when states institute these programs due to their incredible inefficiency (e.g. War on Poverty http://www.cato.org...). The average efficiency of private charities is 70%, efficiency of government anti-poverty and welfare programs is 30%.

I've guessing these are going to be modern American programs? Why do they fail?


A relatively free market brought millions out of poverty in Hong Kong and Singapore in under 50 years, so that today their average income is greater than the US.

Sources?


So not only is your position immoral (stealing from people and having the pompous attitude that you have the moral right to steal, but it's also factually inaccurate).

I'd allow people to "steal" from me, to fund government, and reduce poverty.

Oh and btw, I'm not personally stealing, if you didn't quite get that. I'm not saying I should be the sole tax collector.

I know a lot of Americans are anti-tax, feel free to abolish government. I'm perfectly happy with them.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 10:22:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Hong Kong's poorest 20 per cent take up just 6 per cent of society's income share while the rich take up 43 per cent, a poll has found as the city's notoriously wide income gap continues to worsen."

http://www.scmp.com...
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 10:35:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 10:17:19 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/9/2013 9:56:57 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/9/2013 9:41:34 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
What wouldn't? I was reminding you of the past.

...Those are all non-voluntary options. Kings plundered people just as states do today.

Someone's always going to take your money, whether it's a king, the government, or a mafia. I'd take a government to be honest.


That's why our government is raising the issue with the G8, because hey;re getting kickbacks...

Monsanto. Geo Group. GE. Goldman Sachs. Lockheed Martin. Forget that GE payed nothing in taxes to get ahead of its competitors, Goldman Sachs was given billions of dollars in bailout money. The point is state and corporations fuse to gain profit at the expense of taxpayers. Take away the ability for the state to dole out money and get kickbacks, and big business becomes entirely dependent on the patronage of its customers.

Yes, sort out better regulations.

Now, here come the killer questions: what incentives do government officials face to craft good legislation? That is, legislation which treats everyone fairly and gives everyone a fair shot? What incentives do they face to craft legislation which serves the interest of the already wealthy and powerful? What does cementing a small group in the upper echelons of society do to class mobility? What does restricted class mobility do to education and awareness amongst the masses? How much effort do uneducated, unaware people, too preoccupied with the daily grind which seems to eat up more and more of their time, put into researching government policy and its effects? Now ask yourself question one again, and if your previous answer was that the people will vote them out... well, I have bad news for you.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 10:38:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 10:22:37 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
"Hong Kong's poorest 20 per cent take up just 6 per cent of society's income share while the rich take up 43 per cent, a poll has found as the city's notoriously wide income gap continues to worsen."

http://www.scmp.com...

Everyone's income has increased since the economic reforms of Hong Kong. As the Margaret Thatcher once said, "socialists would rather have the poor remain poor so long as the rich don't remain richer".

What's important is not the income inequality, but the absolute income of the poor, which increases as the economy itself grows.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 10:38:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 10:35:05 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/9/2013 10:17:19 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/9/2013 9:56:57 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/9/2013 9:41:34 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
What wouldn't? I was reminding you of the past.

...Those are all non-voluntary options. Kings plundered people just as states do today.

Someone's always going to take your money, whether it's a king, the government, or a mafia. I'd take a government to be honest.


That's why our government is raising the issue with the G8, because hey;re getting kickbacks...

Monsanto. Geo Group. GE. Goldman Sachs. Lockheed Martin. Forget that GE payed nothing in taxes to get ahead of its competitors, Goldman Sachs was given billions of dollars in bailout money. The point is state and corporations fuse to gain profit at the expense of taxpayers. Take away the ability for the state to dole out money and get kickbacks, and big business becomes entirely dependent on the patronage of its customers.

Yes, sort out better regulations.

Now, here come the killer questions: what incentives do government officials face to craft good legislation? That is, legislation which treats everyone fairly and gives everyone a fair shot? What incentives do they face to craft legislation which serves the interest of the already wealthy and powerful? What does cementing a small group in the upper echelons of society do to class mobility? What does restricted class mobility do to education and awareness amongst the masses? How much effort do uneducated, unaware people, too preoccupied with the daily grind which seems to eat up more and more of their time, put into researching government policy and its effects? Now ask yourself question one again, and if your previous answer was that the people will vote them out... well, I have bad news for you.

That the world isn't made up of psychopaths and you? That they're under public scrutiny? That it isn't beneficial for society?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 10:41:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 10:17:19 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Someone's always going to take your money, whether it's a king, the government, or a mafia. I'd take a government to be honest.

How did you arrive at that conclusion, given that examples of anarcho-capitalism exist? http://www.ozarkia.net...

Monsanto. Geo Group. GE. Goldman Sachs. Lockheed Martin. Forget that GE payed nothing in taxes to get ahead of its competitors, Goldman Sachs was given billions of dollars in bailout money. The point is state and corporations fuse to gain profit at the expense of taxpayers. Take away the ability for the state to dole out money and get kickbacks, and big business becomes entirely dependent on the patronage of its customers.

Yes, sort out better regulations.

You're not getting it. The regulations *are* the problem; they essential establish a barrier to entry for firms in an industry, but enable select firms that are close with the government to collude in order to make profit at the expense of taxpayers. Remove the government's ability to dole out these special favors, and this pernicious relationship is destroyed.

I just said call be Robin Hood. A lot of people say Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor, although I didn't assert that, it was just my reasoning behind saying that.

Which is proven erroneous and fallacious.

In any case, your conclusion is fallacious and you've dodged both of my questions. Poverty increases or stagnates when states institute these programs due to their incredible inefficiency (e.g. War on Poverty http://www.cato.org...). The average efficiency of private charities is 70%, efficiency of government anti-poverty and welfare programs is 30%.

I've guessing these are going to be modern American programs? Why do they fail?

These programs are more about providing middle class jobs and gaining political power than helping the poor.

A relatively free market brought millions out of poverty in Hong Kong and Singapore in under 50 years, so that today their average income is greater than the US.

Sources?

Like this is a secret... Here's a good source: http://www.povertyeducation.org... I made this for you: www.bit.ly/XCaYxF just press 'play' on the bottom left.

I'd allow people to "steal" from me, to fund government, and reduce poverty.

What if I told you that you could voluntarily fund the services you like that government does and help reduce poverty more effectively without the use of coercion?

Oh and btw, I'm not personally stealing, if you didn't quite get that. I'm not saying I should be the sole tax collector.

People who advocate immoral practices are always keen to delegate the direct act of violence to someone else. https://www.youtube.com...

I know a lot of Americans are anti-tax, feel free to abolish government. I'm perfectly happy with them.

I'm free to abolish the government? A lot of Americans are anti-tax? This is news to me. What are your favorite things that government does?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 10:43:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 10:38:40 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 4/9/2013 10:22:37 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
"Hong Kong's poorest 20 per cent take up just 6 per cent of society's income share while the rich take up 43 per cent, a poll has found as the city's notoriously wide income gap continues to worsen."

http://www.scmp.com...

Everyone's income has increased since the economic reforms of Hong Kong. As the Margaret Thatcher once said, "socialists would rather have the poor remain poor so long as the rich don't remain richer".

What's important is not the income inequality, but the absolute income of the poor, which increases as the economy itself grows.

Should be noted that usually more then 20% of the population are not even part of the labor force, so it would be peculiar to even count them. Perhaps if count non-labor income as a form of income (from savings and capital investments) then the number would be higher, but there are still quite a few people that would have no income either because they're children or rely on someone else for a form of income (ex: the government or family).
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 10:46:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"Hongkongers aged between 12 and 64."

I wouldn't expect a high income from the 12 year olds. The 20% poorest is probably mainly from the 12-22 year old group.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 11:00:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 10:41:40 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/9/2013 10:17:19 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
Someone's always going to take your money, whether it's a king, the government, or a mafia. I'd take a government to be honest.

How did you arrive at that conclusion, given that examples of anarcho-capitalism exist? http://www.ozarkia.net...

You don't think people formed groups that took things by force in those societies?



Monsanto. Geo Group. GE. Goldman Sachs. Lockheed Martin. Forget that GE payed nothing in taxes to get ahead of its competitors, Goldman Sachs was given billions of dollars in bailout money. The point is state and corporations fuse to gain profit at the expense of taxpayers. Take away the ability for the state to dole out money and get kickbacks, and big business becomes entirely dependent on the patronage of its customers.

Yes, sort out better regulations.

You're not getting it. The regulations *are* the problem; they essential establish a barrier to entry for firms in an industry, but enable select firms that are close with the government to collude in order to make profit at the expense of taxpayers. Remove the government's ability to dole out these special favors, and this pernicious relationship is destroyed.

Make sure legislation is oriented towards fair and successful business.


I just said call be Robin Hood. A lot of people say Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor, although I didn't assert that, it was just my reasoning behind saying that.

Which is proven erroneous and fallacious.

Well done?


In any case, your conclusion is fallacious and you've dodged both of my questions. Poverty increases or stagnates when states institute these programs due to their incredible inefficiency (e.g. War on Poverty http://www.cato.org...). The average efficiency of private charities is 70%, efficiency of government anti-poverty and welfare programs is 30%.

I've guessing these are going to be modern American programs? Why do they fail?

These programs are more about providing middle class jobs and gaining political power than helping the poor.

Shame. That has the U.S written all over it.


A relatively free market brought millions out of poverty in Hong Kong and Singapore in under 50 years, so that today their average income is greater than the US.

Sources?

Like this is a secret... Here's a good source: http://www.povertyeducation.org... I made this for you: www.bit.ly/XCaYxF just press 'play' on the bottom left.

It doesn't talk much about how free the market is, or why that eliminates poverty.



I'd allow people to "steal" from me, to fund government, and reduce poverty.

What if I told you that you could voluntarily fund the services you like that government does and help reduce poverty more effectively without the use of coercion?

Then I wouldn't bother and I'd keep all my money. Luckily I have the government to prise some of it out of my tight grip.


Oh and btw, I'm not personally stealing, if you didn't quite get that. I'm not saying I should be the sole tax collector.

People who advocate immoral practices are always keen to delegate the direct act of violence to someone else. https://www.youtube.com...

Because if it was me, personally, I might just leg it with all the cash. I wanted to clarify that your money wouldn't just go straight into my hands. That's what it sounded like you were asserting. I hope I don't violently rob myself...


I know a lot of Americans are anti-tax, feel free to abolish government. I'm perfectly happy with them.

I'm free to abolish the government? A lot of Americans are anti-tax? This is news to me. What are your favorite things that government does?

I didn't you you were free to abolish government, I said feel free. Yeah, more so than Europe at least, it's all relative.

I like the Health and Safety laws, the roads, the police, the welfare, the minimum wage, the grants, the defence of state etc.

I think laws help to prevent others impinging on my freedoms and vice-versa.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 11:04:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 10:38:43 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/9/2013 10:35:05 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/9/2013 10:17:19 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/9/2013 9:56:57 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/9/2013 9:41:34 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
What wouldn't? I was reminding you of the past.

...Those are all non-voluntary options. Kings plundered people just as states do today.

Someone's always going to take your money, whether it's a king, the government, or a mafia. I'd take a government to be honest.


That's why our government is raising the issue with the G8, because hey;re getting kickbacks...

Monsanto. Geo Group. GE. Goldman Sachs. Lockheed Martin. Forget that GE payed nothing in taxes to get ahead of its competitors, Goldman Sachs was given billions of dollars in bailout money. The point is state and corporations fuse to gain profit at the expense of taxpayers. Take away the ability for the state to dole out money and get kickbacks, and big business becomes entirely dependent on the patronage of its customers.

Yes, sort out better regulations.

Now, here come the killer questions: what incentives do government officials face to craft good legislation? That is, legislation which treats everyone fairly and gives everyone a fair shot? What incentives do they face to craft legislation which serves the interest of the already wealthy and powerful? What does cementing a small group in the upper echelons of society do to class mobility? What does restricted class mobility do to education and awareness amongst the masses? How much effort do uneducated, unaware people, too preoccupied with the daily grind which seems to eat up more and more of their time, put into researching government policy and its effects? Now ask yourself question one again, and if your previous answer was that the people will vote them out... well, I have bad news for you.

That the world isn't made up of psychopaths and you?
Define 'psychopaths', as you're using it in a pretty unorthodox manner here. The world is made up of people. People do unjust and irrational things on a regular basis. For more information, see human history.

That they're under public scrutiny?
My last point addresses this.The more the little people are screwed over, the less time they have to spend on scrutinizing politics, as more and more of their time is consumed by the struggle for survival. It's a feedback loop.

That it isn't beneficial for society?
What makes you think that officials put the benefit of society over their own interests when it comes down to it? The housing debacle should have shredded that particular delusion, if you were paying close enough attention.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 11:14:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 11:04:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/9/2013 10:38:43 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

That the world isn't made up of psychopaths and you?
Define 'psychopaths', as you're using it in a pretty unorthodox manner here. The world is made up of people. People do unjust and irrational things on a regular basis. For more information, see human history.

At lease some people will act in the interests of others.


That they're under public scrutiny?
My last point addresses this.The more the little people are screwed over, the less time they have to spend on scrutinizing politics, as more and more of their time is consumed by the struggle for survival. It's a feedback loop.

The less they're screwed over, the less of their time is consumed, and the more they can scrutinise. It's a feedback loop.


That it isn't beneficial for society?
What makes you think that officials put the benefit of society over their own interests when it comes down to it? The housing debacle should have shredded that particular delusion, if you were paying close enough attention.

Because they are society. They have to live with the legislations they make as much as anyone else.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 11:28:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 11:14:57 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/9/2013 11:04:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/9/2013 10:38:43 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

That the world isn't made up of psychopaths and you?
Define 'psychopaths', as you're using it in a pretty unorthodox manner here. The world is made up of people. People do unjust and irrational things on a regular basis. For more information, see human history.

At lease some people will act in the interests of others.

Never purely, and those that do go into spiritual/charity work, not politics. In fact, the underhanded nature of politics is a deterrent to such people. A damn near universal trait amongst enlightened people is a strong aversion to politics.

That they're under public scrutiny?
My last point addresses this.The more the little people are screwed over, the less time they have to spend on scrutinizing politics, as more and more of their time is consumed by the struggle for survival. It's a feedback loop.

The less they're screwed over, the less of their time is consumed, and the more they can scrutinise. It's a feedback loop.

True. But once the people willing to screw over people are in power, and have cemented their alliances, for what reason would they reverse course?


That it isn't beneficial for society?
What makes you think that officials put the benefit of society over their own interests when it comes down to it? The housing debacle should have shredded that particular delusion, if you were paying close enough attention.

Because they are society. They have to live with the legislations they make as much as anyone else.

HAHAHAHA. I'm sorry, but when's the last time a politician had to rely on a safety net? You do realize that they have a different, better health and retirement plan than the ones which they subject the rest of society, right? That they get pay raises every year. They most certainly do NOT play by the rules that they pass. At least not in this country.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2013 11:36:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 11:28:11 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/9/2013 11:14:57 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/9/2013 11:04:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/9/2013 10:38:43 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

That the world isn't made up of psychopaths and you?
Define 'psychopaths', as you're using it in a pretty unorthodox manner here. The world is made up of people. People do unjust and irrational things on a regular basis. For more information, see human history.

At lease some people will act in the interests of others.

Never purely, and those that do go into spiritual/charity work, not politics. In fact, the underhanded nature of politics is a deterrent to such people. A damn near universal trait amongst enlightened people is a strong aversion to politics.

Never purely? Really? People who want to improve society don't go into politics? They do spiritual work? ...

Well that's a shame, because politics is one of our most powerful tools for good, far more powerful that "spirituality".


That they're under public scrutiny?
My last point addresses this.The more the little people are screwed over, the less time they have to spend on scrutinizing politics, as more and more of their time is consumed by the struggle for survival. It's a feedback loop.

The less they're screwed over, the less of their time is consumed, and the more they can scrutinise. It's a feedback loop.

True. But once the people willing to screw over people are in power, and have cemented their alliances, for what reason would they reverse course?

The fact that people rally against them. Their work mates will distance themselves from that person.



That it isn't beneficial for society?
What makes you think that officials put the benefit of society over their own interests when it comes down to it? The housing debacle should have shredded that particular delusion, if you were paying close enough attention.

Because they are society. They have to live with the legislations they make as much as anyone else.

HAHAHAHA. I'm sorry, but when's the last time a politician had to rely on a safety net? You do realize that they have a different, better health and retirement plan than the ones which they subject the rest of society, right? That they get pay raises every year. They most certainly do NOT play by the rules that they pass. At least not in this country.

They have to follow the laws. Which country? The U.S?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 12:08:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 11:36:02 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/9/2013 11:28:11 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/9/2013 11:14:57 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 4/9/2013 11:04:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/9/2013 10:38:43 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:

That the world isn't made up of psychopaths and you?
Define 'psychopaths', as you're using it in a pretty unorthodox manner here. The world is made up of people. People do unjust and irrational things on a regular basis. For more information, see human history.

At lease some people will act in the interests of others.

Never purely, and those that do go into spiritual/charity work, not politics. In fact, the underhanded nature of politics is a deterrent to such people. A damn near universal trait amongst enlightened people is a strong aversion to politics.

Never purely? Really? People who want to improve society don't go into politics? They do spiritual work? ...

A pure altruist would dedicate every second of their life to other people, only eating enough to keep themselves alive. When such people have existed, they have usually founded religions or sects within religions. They don't get a job at the Department of Agriculture. When truly good people have obtained political power, it has been through hereditary monarchy, when it was forced upon them. One of the benefits of such a system is that you can get good leaders by luck of the draw. The downside being, of course, that for every Marcus Aurelius there is a Nero.

Well that's a shame, because politics is one of our most powerful tools for good, far more powerful that "spirituality".

I would consider it a necessary evil. Power corrupts.

Machiavelli explained it well, and infamously, in The Prince: "From this arises the question whether it is better to be loved more than feared, or feared more than loved. The reply is, that one ought to be both feared and loved, but as it is difficult for the two to go together, it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one of the two has to be wanting. For it may be said of men in general that they are ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to avoid danger, and covetous of gain ; as long as you benefit them, they are entirely yours; they offer you their blood, their goods, their life, and their children, as I have before said, when the necessity is remote; but when it approaches, they revolt. And the prince who has relied solely on their words, without making other preparations, is ruined, for the friendship which is gained by purchase and not through grandeur and nobility of spirit is merited but is not secured, and at times is not to be had. And men have less scruple in offending one who makes himself loved than one who makes himself feared; for love is held by a chain of obligation which, men being selfish, is broken whenever it serves their purpose; but fear is maintained by a dread of punishment which never fails."


That they're under public scrutiny?
My last point addresses this.The more the little people are screwed over, the less time they have to spend on scrutinizing politics, as more and more of their time is consumed by the struggle for survival. It's a feedback loop.

The less they're screwed over, the less of their time is consumed, and the more they can scrutinise. It's a feedback loop.

True. But once the people willing to screw over people are in power, and have cemented their alliances, for what reason would they reverse course?

The fact that people rally against them. Their work mates will distance themselves from that person.

You're assuming that most people in politics are good. That's a mighty big assumption to be making. It could just as easily be said the the bad people will rally against the good and exclude them. Which is largely what happens when you look at whistle blowers. The case that caused Bradley Manning to leak so much classified information to Wikileaks involved our intelligence forces helping al-Maliki to hunt down dissidents in Iraq. When he found out that the people that he was tracking were innocent and simply critical of the Iraqi regime, he brought this to his superiors, who basically told him to shut up and work. After leaking the information he was held in solitary confinement and stripped naked each night. Whistle blowers don't report a lot of support from their peers. When you get down to it, the vast majority of people are out to protect the status quo because they benefit from it and have managed to somehow justify it to themselves.


That it isn't beneficial for society?
What makes you think that officials put the benefit of society over their own interests when it comes down to it? The housing debacle should have shredded that particular delusion, if you were paying close enough attention.

Because they are society. They have to live with the legislations they make as much as anyone else.

HAHAHAHA. I'm sorry, but when's the last time a politician had to rely on a safety net? You do realize that they have a different, better health and retirement plan than the ones which they subject the rest of society, right? That they get pay raises every year. They most certainly do NOT play by the rules that they pass. At least not in this country.

They have to follow the laws. Which country? The U.S?

Yep. It's actually a pretty huge, widely known thing here that pisses everyone off. Politicians live by a different set of rules.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 3:09:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/9/2013 9:27:23 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Is this under the assumption that there will only be services and goods provided through a price system and that mutual-aid societies, charities, non-profits, and grants don't exist?

Of course not. But I think you're missing out on the fact that the state IS a natural manifestation of society. It has issues that arise out of certain power arrangements, yeah. But it's also the primary representation of our collective desire to manage things in a social way.

Also, what makes democracy a preferable system where minorities and majorities can get what they want without using violence?

I don't think the state needs to employ violence. Unless one is overly literal about what the "state" is. What matters to me is the practical situation. For most of history the state has merely been a tool of warmongers and tyrants. But I don't think that hast to be the case. I think it's moving in a direction where it's power structures can be dissolved and it's methods can be reformed. Take Iceland for example. You can talk Libertarianism all day. But it seems to be a nice place to live. They have things figured out, for the most part.

What has to change that will morally permit theft? *Awaits imminent asteroid extermination hypothetical*

Theft is an arbitrary concept laid down for the purpose of a practical tool, extending from property. But we need to criticize what we think property is. For if it's being applied in anyway that proves to be anti-beneficial, then a defection from that property rule would in-fact be a good thing and not well stuck with such a negative label.

For instance. You speak of earnings. Isn't it funny the Socialist movement has always been a labor movement? That is, a movement of the people doing the most work. There's good reason. Whether you think they're wrong or not, Socialist movements are the direct result of hard working people feeling that the value of their labor has been leveraged out of them by a ruling class who sat back and lived off of their anguish. They weren't opposed to an earning-spirit. It was the whole point. But why would that be? How did property deviate from earning? According to them, there was a fundamental problem with our model of property. Particularly the part that allowed individual ownership of the means of production which allowed this loop-hole of classism to develop.

In fact, even welfare can be seen as a reaction to improve the earning principle. When I look around at Capitalism I don't see a system modeled on allocation of resources according to labor. What I see is mostly a big random mess. Things just land where they may. You get rich because you grew up in the right place and got the right opportunities. Social-safety nets are an attempt to level the playing field and give people equal opportunity from the get go.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,305
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2013 3:13:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you think hard working people are denied access to capital in the form of small business loans? You seem to imply that is the major complaint of the working class.