How to debate with my Liberal Family Members?!

[NYgs23]

I had a big debate with them this evening over economics; I don't feel like I had the upper hand, which is admittedly difficult when you're arguing with three or four people at once. Nonetheless, they are intelligent folks, well-spoken and educated; they are not pushovers, especially my father. I rarely bother to get into political discussions with them anyway; they are so entrenched in their views of "reasonable" social democracy, and they have little trust of the free market.

Oddly, it started with me jumping into a New York City taxi cab and painfully banging my knee on one of their new government-mandated back seat INTERACTIVE TV SCREENS!!!

Me: I #$%! nearly broke a kneecap on a @#$%! tax-payer funded taxi TV screen!

Them: It's not tax-payer funded. It's required by the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission (TLC) and paid for by the taxi companies.

Me: Oh, okay, my mistake. So then the government forces cab companies to jack up prices on the customers for a TV in a taxi!

Them: No, because the TLC sets prices for the taxi cabs and keeps them low.

Me: Well, then the "TLC" is fixing the taxi prices artificially low and creating an inbalance in the free market and--

Them: Well, of course! You have to have that! Otherwise you'd have ANARCHY! That's ANARCHISM! Garbage from Rush Limbaugh. Or worse Ron Paul! Public transit isn't like a grocery store! You'd have traffic stopped by a zillion cabs in NYC, boom & bust, price gouging by taxi cartels! The industry would fall apart and New Yorkers NEED taxis! And for that you NEED to regulate them!

And this went on for about forever and a day, and I think I was a bit over my head. I don't know much about NYC cabs specifically (I live in Yonkers) and public transit is supposed to be one of the toughest sticking points for the free market ("privatize the ROADS?!?!?!"). But I don't see how the principles of the free market shouldn't apply just as well to cabs as to anything else. But they all had such bag full of arguments under their sleeves you'd have thought they'd studied the issue in preperation for debating it: cab companies would cartel, consumers can't choose the cab on a run so it's not real competition, a zillion cabs would converge on NYC stopping traffic, there ARE incentives for the public transit comissioner because of elections, and obviously I'm totally ignorant about the economy and should stop displaying my ignorance, etc, etc, etc...

Am I wrong and this is a legitimate government regulation or are they just lost in the mists of statism? Now I'm thinking maybe cabs WOULD go out of business without government regulation which, according to free market ideas, would mean they were non-competitive in the first place and something better would take their place. But, of course, the family was in agreement that "The cabs are necessary! And efficient! So if the free market destroys them wouldn't that make the free market inefficient?" Well?

Then of course it shifted into another big debate about how the current financial crisis (and the Great Depression and 19th century boom/bust cycle) was caused by laissez-faire free markets and deregulation, and we need more regulation, and we need guarantees, and the banks liquidated will take the whole system down with it until SOCIETY itself is destroyed, and it won't even matter what happens later in the cycle if we're living in grass huts tomorrow. I won't get into that in depth. But the whole thing really made me doubt (at least briefly) the viability of the free market argument or at least my ability to make it in front of people.

Does anyone have answers to these queries? Are my relatives just brain-washed (albeit well-read on facts and figures from Krugman)? Do they have a point? Or am I just a poor debater?

[Chester Copperpot]

Man I feel for you dude.. I really do.. I could debate them in person, but some people are tuned out and dont want to hear that they may be wrong.. Family is hardest sometimes like that...

[hypnagogue]

We'd have to be knowledgeable about the cab system in NYC to tell you whether they have a point or not.

[heavenlyboy34]

How do these people you spoke with KNOW about laissez-faire capitalism? It's never been tried in America, though neocons give it plenty of lip service. I would tell them to actually study the subject before assuming that lassiez-faire doesn't work.

[Anti Federalist]

Rule number one: Never "debate" with family. It's like trying to teach a pig to whistle, you'll never do it and it just annoys the pig.

A zillion cabs? Not likely. The traffic slowdowns from that would render the cabs factually inefficient when traffic did slow to crawl. People would walk first. And, I'm assuming here that, based on what you wrote, the family are also "green". Well, what would be wrong with getting people to do that? From a fuel use, mile driven, "greenhouse gas" producing perspective, cabs are about the most inefficient from of transportation there is.

They can't choose the cab company they want? Why should people living in NYC not have the choice that millions of other people do? I can call 10 different cab and limo companies to shop the best price. At taxi stands in airports that I travel to I can choose which company I want to use, and have even had "bidding" wars for the best price for a longer distance ride. I would ask them if they are too stupid to figure that out.

As far as what's happening right now in the credit and finance sector, in many ways it was caused by government regulation, forcing Fannie and Freddie, and the banks who underwrite those loans, into giving mortgages to people who never should have had them in the first place. But there is so much more than just that, what we are witnessing is a wholesale meltdown of the house of cards that was built on a fractional reserve banking system. A system put into place by government. And that is only the tip of the iceberg, in that this is a larger manifestation of a global plan to consolidate wealth and buy up real assets with worthless paper. The New World Order to be precise.

I won't argue with them about what the bankers and the NWO are planning to do with us, grass huts (for the ones that survive or are allowed to live) will not be far from the reality.

And without direct government intervention, and the police state crackdown that will follow when "we the people" finally figure out that they've been robbed and raped and start to resist, without government "regulation", none of this would be possible.

[NYgs23]

How do these people you spoke with KNOW about laissez-faire capitalism? It's never been tried in America...

That's just what I said. Their response: "Are you kidding?! The 19th century was totally laissez faire!" Yeah, I remember that history lesson in public school too. So I said, "No, it wasn't! You had central banks, corporate welfare, deficit spending, high tariffs, fractional reserve banking..." Come to think of it, they didn't really have a response to that, hmmm...Also, one of them was sure that mercantilism and laissez-faire capitalism were the same thing!

You know, one big problem, I think, is that there has never been a full free market or sound money system. There was always a kink or catch that caused a mess that was blamed on the free market, the opposite of the real cause. It's tough to get around that psychologically; the causes can be so hidden and problems happen even in a free market. People have a hard time accepting the idea to "just leave the problem alone."

[Conza88]

How an Economy Grows...

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=149977

Print out the pdf or download it.. go to a printing store, get it made into a booklet. Print out one for each family member... put them on their beds, but don't tell them about it or mention it at all..

Maybe just one copy... and give it to one person at a time, trying to make sure the others don't know.?

Or go with the Kingdom of Moltz too... as a follow up, or get one of them to look at that first and accept it as true... then give them the how an economy grows (capitalism) :D

[sailor]

I rarely bother to get into political discussions with them anyway; they are so entrenched in their views of "reasonable" social democracy, and they have little trust of the free market.

When arguing with family members my suggestion is to go dirty.

If they are favor Social Democracy why are they "Liberal Family Members"?

Tell them they are really Democratic Socialists, a disgrace to Liberalism and a bunch of phonies!

Then tell them their naive ideas will stagnate the economy just like they stagnated Swedens` after it turned Demo-Socialist and that you are afraid they will get a hard time for it the Purgatory!

Then pick a Demo-Socialist politican (say Bono) and ask them how can they be right when they agree with *that* man?!

[Truth Warrior]

How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400054184/ref=ord_cart_shr?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

[sailor]

Tell them they are really Democratic Socialists, a disgrace to Liberalism and a bunch of phonies!

Then tell them they are phonies even as far as Socialists go! If they are so Socialist why aren`t they lining up the rich in front of a wall? Why are they happy with crumbs from cronies tables?


Of course if you are afraid you will get grounded then you must do something else. Since you are a poo poo debater (lets face it - you can`t even beat family) you must go into battle prepared. Read on on just one example of Socialist contradiction. How price controls lead to shortages is a classic. Then refuse to get drawn into debating anything else. Just stick to the `price controls lead to that - are you ready to live with it` angle.

[Truth Warrior]

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/Socialism_by_miniamericanflags.jpg

[Mini-Me]

I had a big debate with them this evening over economics; I don't feel like I had the upper hand, which is admittedly difficult when you're arguing with three or four people at once. Nonetheless, they are intelligent folks, well-spoken and educated; they are not pushovers, especially my father. I rarely bother to get into political discussions with them anyway; they are so entrenched in their views of "reasonable" social democracy, and they have little trust of the free market.

Oddly, it started with me jumping into a New York City taxi cab and painfully banging my knee on one of their new government-mandated back seat INTERACTIVE TV SCREENS!!!

Me: I #$%! nearly broke a kneecap on a @#$%! tax-payer funded taxi TV screen!

Them: It's not tax-payer funded. It's required by the New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission (TLC) and paid for by the taxi companies.

Me: Oh, okay, my mistake. So then the government forces cab companies to jack up prices on the customers for a TV in a taxi!

Them: No, because the TLC sets prices for the taxi cabs and keeps them low.

Me: Well, then the "TLC" is fixing the taxi prices artificially low and creating an inbalance in the free market and--

Them: Well, of course! You have to have that! Otherwise you'd have ANARCHY! That's ANARCHISM! Garbage from Rush Limbaugh. Or worse Ron Paul! Public transit isn't like a grocery store! You'd have traffic stopped by a zillion cabs in NYC, boom & bust, price gouging by taxi cartels! The industry would fall apart and New Yorkers NEED taxis! And for that you NEED to regulate them!

And this went on for about forever and a day, and I think I was a bit over my head. I don't know much about NYC cabs specifically (I live in Yonkers) and public transit is supposed to be one of the toughest sticking points for the free market ("privatize the ROADS?!?!?!"). But I don't see how the principles of the free market shouldn't apply just as well to cabs as to anything else. But they all had such bag full of arguments under their sleeves you'd have thought they'd studied the issue in preperation for debating it: cab companies would cartel, consumers can't choose the cab on a run so it's not real competition, a zillion cabs would converge on NYC stopping traffic, there ARE incentives for the public transit comissioner because of elections, and obviously I'm totally ignorant about the economy and should stop displaying my ignorance, etc, etc, etc...

Am I wrong and this is a legitimate government regulation or are they just lost in the mists of statism? Now I'm thinking maybe cabs WOULD go out of business without government regulation which, according to free market ideas, would mean they were non-competitive in the first place and something better would take their place. But, of course, the family was in agreement that "The cabs are necessary! And efficient! So if the free market destroys them wouldn't that make the free market inefficient?" Well?

Then of course it shifted into another big debate about how the current financial crisis (and the Great Depression and 19th century boom/bust cycle) was caused by laissez-faire free markets and deregulation, and we need more regulation, and we need guarantees, and the banks liquidated will take the whole system down with it until SOCIETY itself is destroyed, and it won't even matter what happens later in the cycle if we're living in grass huts tomorrow. I won't get into that in depth. But the whole thing really made me doubt (at least briefly) the viability of the free market argument or at least my ability to make it in front of people.

Does anyone have answers to these queries? Are my relatives just brain-washed (albeit well-read on facts and figures from Krugman)? Do they have a point? Or am I just a poor debater?

Look on the bright side: You could have grown up among neocons...;) Trust me, they're worse. It's one thing to have a screwed up idea about economics, but it's something entirely different to have zero problems with a police state and preemptive wars against countries who have never done anything to us. :rolleyes:

I can't answer all of your family's questions because I don't actually know all of their questions. However, you were absolutely correct about the taxi argument: Artificially low prices prevent taxi drivers from making the market wage...they result in a salary cap that's basically the reverse of minimum wage, except it's not even forced on corporate CEO's, but taxi drivers instead. (Of course, your family would probably then argue that it only caps the taxi companies' profits, blah blah). The point is, people in New York are not entitled to cheap taxi cabs. If they need them SO badly, then the taxi drivers deserve to be able to charge whatever they want, and New Yorkers should pay the market price. If that price is too high, New Yorkers need to find alternative transportation. The taxi drivers are not the designated whipping boys of New York who must be slighted for "everyone else's good." What's really going on here seems to be that the rest of New York may have just decided - in true democratic "two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner" fashion - that they are going to use the force of government to ensure transportation is paid cheaply, so people other market segments can keep more money to themselves.

That said, I think something else is going on here as well: Competition between different taxi companies should ordinarily keep prices reasonable and where they should be anyway. Customers can always refuse to pay the prices of any particular taxi driver and just wait for another. If they need their taxi right now, that's their problem and they need to be willing to pay a premium for the convenience of immediate service. Under a real free market, collusion between taxi companies would be nigh-impossible, since a taxi business is one of the cheapest to start in the entire world...but of course, collusion might indeed be possible in the current regulated market. After all, TLC is favoring established businesses by requiring taxi companies to fund luxuries like backseat TV's before they're even allowed to drive customers. Such regulations are intended to raise market entry barriers and make it harder for small competition to put up a fight. That's why regulation is a double-edged sword that is often favored by the dominant companies in a market segment (they want just enough regulation to prevent competition, but no more, because that'll cut into profits). For all we know, without that requirement, there'd be a lot more small competition that would drive taxi prices even lower than their artificially low fixed rates now.

In other words, the effects of the regulation are twofold:
The price-fixing seems to be "two wolves and a sheep" democracy in action (price-fixing for the benefit of others in the market in this case), whereas the backseat TV requirement is meant to benefit incumbent taxi companies and make it harder for smaller competition to put up a fight...which reduces competition and therefore increases prices. It's tough to tell whether the taxi-faring public is winning or losing from this deal (whether the intervention is forcing taxi rates higher or lower), but small competition is definitely receiving the short end of the stick. Regardless, it's an unfair use of government force to benefit special interests (ironically, two of these special interests have opposing stakes in the matter).

In terms of the Great Depression, your family is dead wrong, assuming the Austrian economists are right...and considering Mises predicted a crash right before the Great Depression hit everyone else by surprise, and also considering Ron Paul has been warning everyone about our current meltdown for thirty years, I'd say it's a safe bet. The Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve drastically expanding the money supply during the Roaring Twenties. The resulting credit contraction (much like we're having now after over thirty years of central bank inflation) started the Great Depression, and all the interventionist policies of Hoover and FDR just extended the misery. If you want the "really long story" on it, I'd check out Murray Rothbard's America's Great Depression (http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf). He knew what he was talking about much more than I do. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

"We shall get nowhere until we start by recognizing that political behavior is largely non-rational, that the world is suffering from some kind of mental disease which must be diagnosed before it can be cured. " -- George Orwell

[Truth Warrior]

Politics Is a Sociopathic Cult (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer96.html)

[sailor]

However, you were completely correct about the taxi argument:

I don`t know what a Taxi TV screen is (I`m from a little mountain top village), but it sounds awful lot like an artifical rule lobbied for by the bigger taxi companies to act as an entry obstacle for new taxi companies. So that they get to keep all the gravy.

It is highly unlikely price limits would be required in market conditions in the first place (unless there is immense scarcity there will be sufficient supply for everything in demand). That they are tells us there is probably some regulation in place that makes it harder to start a taxi buisiness in New York than it should be.

[Mini-Me]

I don`t know what a Taxi TV screen is (I`m from a little mountain top village), but it sounds awful lot like an artifical rule lobbied for by the bigger taxi companies to act as an entry obstacle for new taxi companies. So that they get to keep all the gravy.

It is highly unlikely price limits would be required in market conditions in the first place (unless there is immense scarcity there will be sufficient supply for everything in demand). That they are tells us there is probably some regulation in place that makes it harder to start a taxi buisiness in New York than it should be.

Exxxxxxxactly. :)

Anyway, NYgs23, don't feel bad about losing a verbal debate. When you have to think quickly on your feet and you don't have the time to really sit back and analyze every statement, it's very easy to miss your opponent's logical fallacies, and it's also easy to let your frustration cloud your judgment. It happens to me a lot, too (it's frustrating dealing with neocons, let me tell you...). Always remember that just because your opponent(s) might apparently win a debate, it doesn't necessarily mean that they're correct. Sometimes they might be, but in this case I am very confident that they were not. It didn't help that you were overwhelmed by several people at once, and since they're older, they've probably also thought out their beliefs slightly further than you (but not far enough to realize they're wrong) and come up with more supporting arguments (whether or not they pulled them out of their asses ;)). Plus, even if you have a fully consistent fundamental basis for your beliefs and principles, it's always difficult arguing economic consequences, because you then have to move past the fundamentals and analyze each case scenario more deeply. When you do this, small logical mistakes can change the entire outcome. Still, I think with more practice, you'll become more adept at analyzing situations and recognizing common elements. It might also help to read up on common economic arguments, counterarguments, rebuttals, etc. that both interventionists and free market capitalists make...that would hopefully help you become more familiar with the general kind of arguments your family might make and how to appropriately respond to them.

[cswake]

Government is the primary crux of socialism - it is the means by which the end is attained. Most of us in these forums recognize that Government is a necessary evil, but also recognize, as did most of our Founding Fathers, that too much power in the hands of Government corrupts it.

The primary way to argue against socialists is to have them acknowledge that any of their well-intended actions give power to the Government and confirm that more often than not Government is corrupt.

In your case, the city of New York is much closer to the residents, so it is much more feasible to change the (corrupt) laws than say, the Federal Government. However, you should ask yourself questions: what lobbying groups benefit by the tax lobbied on taxis? besides taxpayers, who pays for the levied tax? if there were no taxes, would some cabs charge substantially less, allowing for poorer people to use them when they need to?

[mediahasyou]

Them: Well, of course! You have to have that! Otherwise you'd have ANARCHY! That's ANARCHISM!

lol. OMFG, Anarchy!?! You want people to actually make their OWN decisions?!? WTF. The state needs to make your decisions through the divinely inspired state. The state knows best for you. Just look at all the smart people who run it: GWB...
http://www.funfacts.com.au/images/george-w-bush.jpg

[TastyWheat]

You can't win arguments with ideology alone. You really have to know the subject matter. Still, I think you were making a good case that it creates an imbalance. Low fixed prices guarantee only the biggest companies will survive. You may always get the same rate but if all the cabs are from the same company they can skimp on the service. Also, the cab companies are probably negotiating for the highest possible rate they can. If there wasn't a price control mechanism you might get some upstart company with much lower rates than the big guys or the big guys lowering their rates to stave off competition.

Real monopolies don't occur in a free market. Ideally, the barriers to entry are so minimal that it's impossible for one company to control an entire industry/market [for too long].

[nickcoons]

You know, one big problem, I think, is that there has never been a full free market or sound money system.

Do a little checking into the Icelandic Free State. It worked out beautifully for about 300 years (900AD-1200AD) until the King of Norway invaded them. This wasn't a free-market failure.. he just wanted their land.

Someone that debate with someone regularly thinks that "corporate welfare" and "free-market" go hand-in-hand. He gets his "free-market" terminology from Joe Biden, so it is a bit frustrating.

NYC's taxi situation is horribly regulated, and there's a reason that it's price-capped. To operate a taxi in NYC, you must purchase a license that today costs about $200,000.. this is per cab. Naturally with such restrictions the supply of taxis will be severely limited, causing cab companies to raise prices; which is the reason for the price caps.

This causes all sorts of problems, not the least of which is that taxi drivers tend to focus their attention on the more affluent parts of town in hopes of acquiring more money in order to make up the licensing fees, ultimately neglecting the lower-income neighborhoods. How's that for providing taxi service to people that need it?

Ideally, you'd remove both the licensing requirements and the price caps. You would certainly have more taxis, primarily servicing areas that are currently under-served now. As the number of taxis increased, the increased supply would cause the prices to fall steadily as more drivers began competing for the same customers. At some point, the prices would fall so low that the incentive for yet more drivers would dissipate, and the number of taxis would stabilize at that level (which is a lot less than the number needed to jam up the streets).

If you're looking for ways to argue libertarian ideas in general with liberals, look no further than Dr. Mary Ruwart (she was the LP presidential candidate that was barely beat out by Bob Barr in May at the LNC, and she was an active Ron Paul supporter). She has a soft approach style and portrays liberty as the compassionate choice, an approach that goes over well with liberals.