PDA

View Full Version : Need help in facebook debate




jack555
03-30-2010, 06:43 PM
So my extremely liberal friend says "Yes that is true but the heart of the French Revolution was due to an uneven distribution of wealth...the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. This is what our society is turning into today because businesses and large corporations are finding tax loopholes which allows them to acquire large sums of money. I don't remember what the economic ... See Moreprinciple is called but in econ there is a point where you have so much money it is useless, you just have it to have it. That is where the rich people are headed right now and no one seems to be doing anything to stop it. The mindset that everyone must acquire as much wealth and money as possible and "fuck the little guy" must end or we will all be in trouble.
It saddens me that your status says people should pay tuition for their own kids because I would not be in college if that was the case. I would not be able to have this educated dispute and I'm positive it's not only me in this boat. My parents started saving for college for me when I was born but the rising costs of education depleted their account in 2 years so here I am, on financial aid and loans up to my ears. Denying someone the right to education (and healthcare) is denying someone of their basic rights. In my opinion."

I'm debating about a million ppl at once and this girl is actually knowledgable enough that I want a grade A argument. I'm rusty on why the richer are getting richer and the poor getting poorer other than certain regulations like NAFTA causing this. Can someone help me with this.


I have a pretty decent defense on why education should be privatized (or at least the benefits too it) but I would like to hear your input.

She is responding to a quote from goldismoney.info that I put on facebook

"Paying for what one uses, when they use it, is the only moral way to get goods and services, period. tuition for your own kids, invoices from your doctor for your own services, socialism at the point of a gun is highly immoral any way you look at it."

Chieppa1
03-30-2010, 06:55 PM
"The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft"

awake
03-30-2010, 06:59 PM
"richer are getting richer"

You need to clearly define capitalistic wealth generation vs. the parasitism of government power to confiscate wealth on behalf of special interests. One is voluntary exchange and production serving the wants and needs of the masses, where both parties gain. The other, brute force to expropriate money from the taxpayers to turn over to state favored and protected industries - one gains at the expense of another. A great recent example is the AIG/ Goldman Sachs bail out, the taxpayers loose and Goldman Sachs made out with a record profit in the middle of severe recession.

In our day and age you have armies of industry lobbyist movements buying off the government officials to enact for themselves quasi taxation powers and the privilege of privatizing profits and dumping any loses on the taxpayer. It is a story of businesses merging with the government to become unofficial state departments with guaranteed allocations of tax funded support.

It as well is a story of currency debasement. The Federal Reserve system is producing massive wealth transfers from the prudent and frugal to the reckless and spendaholic in such a large scale that popping bubbles are the inevitable outcomes.

DapperDan
03-30-2010, 07:03 PM
This is on the fly, but have you pointed out Crony Capitalism? What is a right? Larger government becoming more and more inefficient? The idea we don't truly have a free market?

I know it's not much but I'm sure other members can elaborate or throw in better ideas.

You have a right to access things in pursuit of your own needs but not at the expense of others' resources and talent.

Kade
03-30-2010, 07:04 PM
So my extremely liberal friend says ...


What beliefs does she hold that you would consider "extreme" liberal ones?






She sounds hot.

jack555
03-30-2010, 07:46 PM
What beliefs does she hold that you would consider "extreme" liberal ones?






She sounds hot.


She is a politically active democrat who's 2 favorite president's are Woodrow Wilson and FDR. She believes strongly in wealth distribution, socialized healthcare, etc. I have never seen her argue against socialism, only for it many times. She does not claim to be a socialist however.

I consider those strong liberal views as I view most views on this forum to be strong conservative/libertarian views.

In her defense she is very bright when it comes to history she has learned from formal education.

Elle
03-30-2010, 07:53 PM
She is a politically active democrat who's 2 favorite president's are Woodrow Wilson and FDR. She believes strongly in wealth distribution, socialized healthcare, etc. I have never seen her argue against socialism, only for it many times. She does not claim to be a socialist however.

I consider those strong liberal views as I view most views on this forum to be strong conservative/libertarian views.

In her defense she is very bright when it comes to history she has learned from formal education.


Wealth distribution......ask her this

If you worked as a server and made good money doing so, how would you feel if at the start of your next shift your manager told you that policy had changed. Every night all servers would be sharing tips equally between all who worked the shift. How would she feel about that?

Most liberals I've posed that question to said something to the effect of "No way am I sharing my tips with the slackers that do nothing but drop plates off at the table. I make more in tips than they do."

angelatc
03-30-2010, 07:58 PM
I'm debating about a million ppl at once and this girl is actually knowledgable enough that I want a grade A argument. I'm rusty on why the richer are getting richer and the poor getting poorer other than certain regulations like NAFTA causing this. Can someone help me with this.


Part of the fallacy is that rich causes poor. Rich creates wealth, especially because there isn't a finite supply of money. Rich creates jobs and opportunities.

The biggest reason people are getting poorer is because the Federal Reserve devalues the dollar. The rich people get to use the money first, before it's devalued.

Sound familiar? :)

awake
03-30-2010, 08:03 PM
She believes in wealth distribution? ask her if she agrees in having her wages or income redistributed to people in a local homeless shelter - they are poor and she is rich in comparison. Everyone, including her, would all have the same equal share of her wages, no one richer or poorer than the other.

Or, does the wealth redistribution only make sense when it is some person with more money than her and she is the recipient of the redistribution.

Promontorium
03-30-2010, 08:07 PM
There's too much. The fact that this person thinks they have a "right" to be funded for college through taxpayer money is insane.

College is construct, it is an institution developed for educating people. How can a human be born with a "right" to something invented? It is not natural. It cannot be a right. Rights are abstract, they do not refer to specifics, but can be applied to specifics. I suppose the argument is there is a "right" to education. But by who? And for who? If we all went to college, it couldn't be funded by the government, and if only some people go to college, how can it be a right for them, but not for others?

It takes all workers, who this whining silver spoon bitch is ignoring, to fund the education she thinks is a "right". She should get a job and explain why money she needs to live is going to some college kids education.

Agh. Disgusting human being in my opinion. I'll sum her life's philosophy


"What I want from others is my right, but if a corporation does it, then it's evil."

awake
03-30-2010, 08:11 PM
If something can be deemed a right, then the government can roll out its own welcome mat to take it over.

mediahasyou
03-30-2010, 08:16 PM
(print) pg. 46: http://libertyactivism.info/uploads/6/65/The_Market_for_Liberty_-_Morris_and_Linda_Tannehill.pdf

or

audiobook of that pg.46 section about education: http://libertyactivism.info/uploads/7/79/The_Market_for_Liberty_-_Morris_and_Linda_Tannehill_(read_by_Ian_Bernard)_-_05%3DA_Free_and_Healthy_Economy.mp3

hotbrownsauce
03-30-2010, 10:24 PM
the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. This is what our society is turning into today because businesses and large corporations are finding tax loopholes which allows them to acquire large sums of money. I don't remember what the economic ... See Moreprinciple is called but in econ there is a point where you have so much money it is useless, you just have it to have it.

I agree there is a problem in our society, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. However, having a lot of money in and of its self isn't evil. After all savings does drive an economy. When someone takes the risk of creating a business and running it they should be entitled to profiting from it. Taking money from someone and giving it to someone else is wrong. Doing a wrong to fix a wrong starts a horrible trend and I think people should be more principled than to use the government to redistribute wealth.


That is where the rich people are headed right now and no one seems to be doing anything to stop it. The mindset that everyone must acquire as much wealth and money as possible and "fuck the little guy" must end or we will all be in trouble.

You're right it seems people just want to get rich and say "fuck the little guy". Saying we need to end that mindset would pose an impossible feat. Are we to be thought police and govern peoples thoughts because others disagree? I take a principled stand and say no one can force me how to think and I will not force anyone else how to think. Living in a totalitarianistic country I would say is WORSE than living in one in where I'm poor. Because in that type of country you'd have no rights and be poor.

There is something that happens in government that allows these rich people to "fuck the little guy" its called lobbying. A big corporation throws money at anyone running for office or in office that they think would vote for laws in their favor stifling competition. You might say we need more laws. I would say we need to FOLLOW the laws we already had. The legislature passes anything not even concerned if it's legal or not. Listen, just because the Supreme Court of the U.S. has upheld illegal laws doesn't mean the laws are legal. Passing laws that make it harder for competition (just one example) isn't supposed to be legal. It's called crony capitalism. The government doesn't follow it's own laws in the Constitution. And the Supreme Court has upheld different illegal laws for years. The Commerce Clause, The General Welfare Clause, just to name two that they abuse. In fact the father of the Constitution himself James Madison, along with Thomas Jefferson while approaching their deaths as the 1800's rolled on criticized the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall was leading the way of big government and bad interpretations of the Constitution for many years. Both Madison and Jefferson despised the Supreme Court and said it was full of miners and sappers undermining and destroying the supreme law of the land and even said it was to be feared. Things had happened as early as 1798 where both Madison and Jefferson wrote the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions condemning unconstitutional federal law, now known as the spirit of 98.
If the laws were upheld as they were supposed to be. And all these nonsensical laws that we followe weren't here there would be MUCH greater wealth distribution. America hit an industrial revolution. Think of how much progress has been made. Whole families use to have to work, father, mother, and children more than 40 hours each a week just to survive. Recently we were so rich as to have dad work one job 40 hours a week AND send John and Jane doe off to school.


It saddens me that your status says people should pay tuition for their own kids because I would not be in college if that was the case. I would not be able to have this educated dispute and I'm positive it's not only me in this boat. My parents started saving for college for me when I was born but the rising costs of education depleted their account in 2 years

My status doesn't sadden me. You know it's MUCH easier to see how you can be helped by a government program but its harder for some to see it is causing the problem. What about all the things you can do on your own now? What if government came in and messed that all up and then said they would help you out? Then your kids would grow up thinking "Thank gosh for the government!" because they don't know any better.
Contrary to your belief I believe you would have gone to college without anyone's help except your own and maybe your parents.


so here I am, on financial aid and loans up to my ears. Denying someone the right to education (and healthcare) is denying someone of their basic rights. In my opinion."

In a free market prices are controlled by how much a product costs and how much someone is willing to pay. It used to be you could work a job and pay to go to school at the same time graduating with no debts. And that was BEFORE computers! Why hasn't the cost of tuition gone down with the influx of students and the incorporation of computers? Without the government backing student loans kids couldn't get such huge loans. If you couldn't get a huge loan then the school couldn't charge a huge price. If the school couldn't charge a huge price they would have to lower tuition and increase efficiency making it cheaper for everyone. The fact is market forces are interfered with in the education system. So prices can skyrocket. How does just about everything drop in price this last year except areas of huge government subsidies like schooling?

Maybe people are greedy, and power hungry this is why we have laws. But the laws are only as good as the people we elect and the judges uphold them. And when you root and tout for keeping things the same that are causing the problems it makes me wonder how bad the country is going to get.

In summary, I respectfully disagree with your comment. And it may very well be we have to agree to disagree. Perhaps you would like some books to read?

hugolp
03-31-2010, 12:59 AM
So my extremely liberal friend says [B]"Yes that is true but the heart of the French Revolution was due to an uneven distribution of wealth...the rich got richer and the poor got poorer. This is what our society is turning into today because businesses and large corporations are finding tax loopholes which allows them to acquire large sums of money. I don't remember what the economic ...

Is this girl dumb? The French revolution happened between the mercantilist (interventionist) that were in power and the classic liberals (where libertarians come from) that were trying to change the system. So yes, the interventionist policies had made the rich richer and the poor poorer. Also, disastrous monetary policies (experiments with paper money) had devastated the economy. So the revolution was trying to bring liberty to the people, NOT more intervention. It is true that there were other movements and that Robespierre and his buddies were a disaster when he got to power, because they did not follow clasic liberal policies.

By the way, tell her to compare the mercantilist economic policies and the socialist economic policies, and see if she can come with some big differences.

Taco John
03-31-2010, 01:41 AM
This is what our society is turning into today because businesses and large corporations are finding tax loopholes which allows them to acquire large sums of money.

This is the weakness in her argument. The proverbial Jenga block by which her house of cards will fall.

Here is how I would respond (you're free to use with no accreditation as though it were your own):

It's interesting that you cite that the reason "wealth distribution" is uneven in America is because businesses and large corporations are finding tax loopholes which you claim is "allowing them" to acquire large sums of money (as though acquiring large sums of money is inherently a crime - or at least unethical). Are we to understand that the simple "finding" of loopholes generates money from thin air? And here I thought it was the providing of goods, services, and/or property to a willing purchaser from which revenue and wealth is generated. Who knew that government merely created it by leaving loop holes open and "allowing businesses to acquire large sums of money." It's a perplexing charge that you make in these economic times. What do you imagine is the purpose of business if not to make money? Surely you agree that businesses exist for the sole purpose of making money and generating income to support its own continued existence (and by thus, those with whom the business relies upon in order to function). And we can clearly see that through the means of business an economy springs up which provides people with jobs and benefits (to the extent that the individual is motivated to achieve these economic benefits). So the part that perplexes me is this: does a business not have a right - nay, an obligation to those who depend on it for their own subsistence - to do what it believes to be its own best interest? When government (through fault of oversight) leaves a loop hole open, why should business not seize on the opportunity that government has carelessly left available? Does this loophole (which apparently leads to a pot of gold) not serve as an incentive for businesses to act in what you would judge to be an inappropriate manner? And if so, how can it be that government is not seen by you as the source of the problem here? Surely you understand that its impossible to regulate self-interest away. What a dead-end world it will be for you if you spend your life following this political aim. Imagine it! Forbidding anyone at all from acting in their own best interest! That's no world that I want to live in - and I'd venture that in reality, neither would you. But your theories are interesting, to say the least! Thanks for the dialogue!

slothman
03-31-2010, 02:41 AM
In her defense she is very bright when it comes to history she has learned from formal education.

Do you mean "bright but[sic] when?"

Does that mean formal is bad or good?
I learned a lot from both public and private school, formal and personal education.