pleased to meet you

[khasquakhas]

Hello, you can call me Khas. I recently discovered this forum and I thought you guys were all pretty interesting and well informed so I thought it would be fun.

I was captain of my debate team way back in high school and now I'm around a bunch of other liberals so, no one to argue with. A lot of people in this country have a problem with internet tribalism, the phenomenon of only associating themselves online with people who have the same perspective so that they can have their beliefs confirmed rather than challenged, but I want my beliefs challenged and I want to engage in meaningful discource. To sum up, I'm here to troll you in the most respectful and engaging way possible.

Thank you for letting me join.

[erowe1]

Welcome here.

What do you mean when you say "liberal"?

[fisharmor]

Welcome! I look forward to destroying your position.

Welcome here.

What do you mean when you say "liberal"?

Seconded. There are a lot of classical liberals here.

[khasquakhas]

Like, I voted for Obama twice and I would do it again, but I don't agree with him about everything.

[khasquakhas]

Welcome! I look forward to destroying your position.



Seconded. There are a lot of classical liberals here.

right, that's cool, just as long as there are conservatives too

[erowe1]

Like, I voted for Obama twice and I would do it again, but I don't agree with him about everything.

Is this the kind of answer you gave when you were the captain of the debate team in high school?

If you want to argue with us, you'll have to get more specific.

[helmuth_hubener]

khasquakhas

Oh, man! With a name like this and a generic non-capitalized thread title, I thought for sure there were going to be some links to buy Uggs in your signature!

Big let-down.

[khasquakhas]

Is this the kind of answer you gave when you were the captain of the debate team in high school?

If you want to argue with us, you'll have to get more specific.

Alright, here you go:

I think that the only kind of government that makes sense is a democracy which promotes capitalism,

that said, I think the government needs to be actively involved in promoting fairness and competition in most markets,

as well as promoting economic mobility through education and other programs,

in fact, I think that the government should make its primary objective education, R&D and infrastructure.

I think some form of limited world governance is necessary to ensure sustainability of our planet,

as such, whenever we have a unique ability to intervene in humanitarian situations deemed unacceptable in other countries, whether the result of natural or political disasters, we should act in the most appropriate manner

I also think Obamacare needs a lot of improvement, but not until some people learn to talk about it like adults

[erowe1]

Alright, here you go:

I think that the only kind of government that makes sense is a democracy which promotes capitalism,

that said, I think the government needs to be actively involved in promoting fairness and competition in most markets,

as well as promoting economic mobility through education and other programs,

in fact, I think that the government should make its primary objective education, R&D and infrastructure.

I think some form of limited world governance is necessary to ensure sustainability of our planet,

as such, whenever we have a unique ability to intervene in humanitarian situations deemed unacceptable in other countries, whether the result of natural or political disasters, we should act in the most appropriate manner

I also think Obamacare needs a lot of improvement, but not until some people learn to talk about it like adults

I doubt that any of the things you mention here really get down to the level of something very many people here would be interested in arguing about.

The point of contention is going to be how you go about running all of those things. If you rely on violence, then it's on that point where we'll want to argue with you.

Do you advocate violence?

[helmuth_hubener]

Alright, here you go:

I think that the only kind of government that makes sense is a democracy which promotes capitalism,

that said, I think the government needs to be actively involved in promoting fairness and competition in most markets,

as well as promoting economic mobility through education and other programs,

in fact, I think that the government should make its primary objective education, R&D and infrastructure.

I think some form of limited world governance is necessary to ensure sustainability of our planet,

as such, whenever we have a unique ability to intervene in humanitarian situations deemed unacceptable in other countries, whether the result of natural or political disasters, we should act in the most appropriate manner

I also think Obamacare needs a lot of improvement, but not until some people learn to talk about it like adults

I take it the underlying motive for your wanting all these things is that you want improved conditions and a better world. For instance, you want the government promoting education because you want children to be able to have good (and ever-improving) education. You want the government promoting medical care because you want to live in a world where your future family, and all families, live healthy, happy lives with vigorous and well-functioning bodies. Is this correct?

[khasquakhas]

In truth, isn't everything the government does kind of violent. Even spending money on roads has an element of coercion. If you don't give them your money, they will take it by force.

If you're asking about the international stuff, no, I don't think we use force against them except, maybe, if we feel like we can prevent a genocide or something with some military force.

sorry, this was in response to erowe1's last question

[khasquakhas]

I take it the underlying motive for your wanting all these things is that you want improved conditions and a better world. For instance, you want the government promoting education because you want children to be able to have good (and ever-improving) education. You want the government promoting medical care because you want to live in a world where your future family, and all families, live healthy, happy lives with vigorous and well-functioning bodies. Is this correct?

yes

[erowe1]

In truth, isn't everything the government does kind of violent.

Yes.

Do you consider that a good thing?

[helmuth_hubener]

yes

I share the same desires. I think we all want the same kind of things: a good, happy life for our children, improving technology, clean air, endless opportunities, vital health, plentiful food, etc.

These goals are the important thing, not any misguided rigid fanaticism to a particular ideology, right?

If so, would you be open to changing your policy prescriptions if it could be shown that a different approach would actually lead to far superior results as far as actually achieving the goals?

If your answer is again yes, I ask that some others of my RPF brethren come make some results-based cases for some different policy choices. I've got to get some work done today and have spent too long typing here, as is.

Welcome, Khas, by the way. I think we share your cause, Khas, we just may have a better vehicle to reach the destination.

[khasquakhas]

Yes.

Do you consider that a good thing?

No. I wish it wasn't necessary, but people are self interested. Given a choice, people will tend to their families and will not be able to collaborate to achieve great things like landing on the moon or develop modern medicine.

However, sometimes government enhances liberty by using force. We couldn't have property rights if government wasn't around to enforce contracts and prevent theft. We couldn't have a right to life without a system of healthcare. etc.

[khasquakhas]

I share the same desires. I think we all want the same kind of things: a good, happy life for our children, improving technology, clean air, endless opportunities, vital health, plentiful food, etc.

These goals are the important thing, not any misguided rigid fanaticism to a particular ideology, right?

If so, would you be open to changing your policy prescriptions if it could be shown that a different approach would actually lead to far superior results as far as actually achieving the goals?

absolutely, that's why I'm here

[erowe1]

No. I wish it wasn't necessary, but people are self interested. Given a choice, people will tend to their families and will not be able to collaborate to achieve great things like landing on the moon or develop modern medicine.

However, sometimes government enhances liberty by using force. We couldn't have property rights if government wasn't around to enforce contracts and prevent theft. We couldn't have a right to life without a system of healthcare. etc.

So, the system you advocate is one where, instead of letting people tend to their families, you think they should let you tend to them instead, and if they don't agree to participate in your method, then you get to force them to with violence?

[khasquakhas]

So, the system you advocate is one where, instead of letting people tend to their families, you think they should let you tend to them instead, and if they don't agree to participate in your method, then you get to force them to with violence?

What I'm saying is that we need a social contract in which members of our society give away part of their rights in order to preserve others and to improve their overall quality of life. Democracy is the method of creating and updating that social contract. If all of that is in place and legitimate, then force is an appropriate method of preserving and enforcing it.

[erowe1]

What I'm saying is that we need a social contract in which members of our society give away part of their rights in order to preserve others and to improve their overall quality of life. Democracy is the method of creating and updating that social contract. If all of that is in place and legitimate, then force is an appropriate method of preserving and enforcing it.

What should happen to those who don't agree to enter the contract?

[Cleaner44]

Alright, here you go:

I think that the only kind of government that makes sense is a democracy which promotes capitalism,

that said, I think the government needs to be actively involved in promoting fairness and competition in most markets,

as well as promoting economic mobility through education and other programs,

in fact, I think that the government should make its primary objective education, R&D and infrastructure.

I think some form of limited world governance is necessary to ensure sustainability of our planet,

as such, whenever we have a unique ability to intervene in humanitarian situations deemed unacceptable in other countries, whether the result of natural or political disasters, we should act in the most appropriate manner

I also think Obamacare needs a lot of improvement, but not until some people learn to talk about it like adults

Nice to meet you and exchange ideas.

Do you recognize that the United States is a Republic and not a Democracy?

Why doesn't a Republic as a form of government make sense to you?

Do you recognize that the United States government promotes monopolies, rather than fairness and competition?

Do you believe that wealth redistribution promotes fairness?

I thank you for your thoughtful answers.

[fisharmor]

No. I wish it wasn't necessary, but people are self interested. Given a choice, people will tend to their families and will not be able to collaborate to achieve great things like landing on the moon or develop modern medicine.

What societal benefit was achieved by landing on the moon?

Name one aspect of modern medicine which was developed by the state.

However, sometimes government enhances liberty by using force. We couldn't have property rights if government wasn't around to enforce contracts and prevent theft. We couldn't have a right to life without a system of healthcare. etc.

Name two societies which did not use the state to enforce contracts, and explain why their system was invalid.

[dannno]

Alright, here you go:

I think that the only kind of government that makes sense is a democracy which promotes capitalism,

The problem with Democracy is that the majority can vote away the rights of the minority. A Constitutional Republic is generally preferred as a form of government, where the government is elected democratically but limited to protecting the rights, life and property of the citizens. The citizens must be educated and vigilant in protecting the spirit of this process or else it fails.

'Promoting capitalism' pretty much always means crony capitalism - the people who are friends of the politicians get the money from the taxpayers. True competition is not being promoted when the government gives money to specific organizations when there may be a better organization that would out-compete them in the free market.. but now the government has subsidized the weaker company and they put the stronger company out of business. So the government can't really promote capitalism except for moving out of the way and letting it happen and helping ensure an equal playing field by treating individuals equally under the law.

[khasquakhas]

What should happen to those who don't agree to enter the contract?

at some point, we have to be able to say "We're picking up trash on Tuesday. I know some of you want it picked up on Monday. Too bad"

[khasquakhas]

The problem with Democracy is that the majority can vote away the rights of the minority. A Constitutional Republic is generally preferred as a form of government, where the government is elected democratically but limited to protecting the rights, life and property of the citizens. The citizens must be educated and vigilant in protecting the spirit of this process or else it fails.

'Promoting capitalism' pretty much always means crony capitalism - the people who are friends of the politicians get the money from the taxpayers. True competition is not being promoted when the government gives money to specific organizations when there may be a better organization that would out-compete them in the free market.. but now the government has subsidized the weaker company and they put the stronger company out of business. So the government can't really promote capitalism except for moving out of the way and letting it happen and helping ensure an equal playing field by treating individuals equally under the law.

To me, promoting capitalism means enforcing contracts, creating standards, and building infrastructure (free trade is much easier with roads).

I agree that a constitutional republic is the way to go. Minority rights needs to be in the social contract

[khasquakhas]

Nice to meet you and exchange ideas.

Do you recognize that the United States is a Republic and not a Democracy?

Why doesn't a Republic as a form of government make sense to you?

Do you recognize that the United States government promotes monopolies, rather than fairness and competition?

Do you believe that wealth redistribution promotes fairness?

I thank you for your thoughtful answers.

I meant republican democracy, as a subtype of democracy.

Yes, I know the government promotes monopolies and it upsets me.

and "redistribution" is a strong word. I think of it as collaboration, we all chip in to build things we can all use, which seems pretty fair to me.

[khasquakhas]

What societal benefit was achieved by landing on the moon?

Name one aspect of modern medicine which was developed by the state.



Name two societies which did not use the state to enforce contracts, and explain why their system was invalid.

The number of inventions that came from the process of landing on the moon are immeasurable, in medicine, materials, aerospace, computing, even mathematics.

Most medical breakthroughs come from state funded universities, not to mention the FDA, which makes it possible for people who don't read medical journals to know which treatments are safe and effective.

As for that state enforcement of contracts, I'll give you two example:

First, look at Ethiopia, a nation that is practically without any real government, and forget property rights there. Their main industry is piracy. Besides recent efforts by other countries to police the surrounding waters, it had been almost unthinkable to carry freight through there.

Also, look at Russia for a moment. Remember that Pussy Riot issue a while ago. It just so happened that on the day that ruling was handed down, several international contracts were canceled. A couple of girls being given 2 years for criticizing the executive made it seem like the judiciary didn't have very much autonomy relative to the Kremlin, so what if you're a foreign company in Russia and you have a dispute with Putin, do you have much confidence that the courts are going to back you up?

[fisharmor]

The number of inventions that came from the process of landing on the moon are immeasurable, in medicine, materials, aerospace, computing, even mathematics.

I didn't ask what inventions came from it. I want to know what tangible societal benefit we gained from putting men on the moon.
You admitted earlier that you want to see an overall increase in the welfare of humanity. I'm calling you to the carpet.
Connect the dots. Explain to us how wrapping up billions of dollars in a rocket and shooting it into space increased the welfare of our society.

Most medical breakthroughs come from state funded universities, not to mention the FDA, which makes it possible for people who don't read medical journals to know which treatments are safe and effective.

Like Johns Hopkins?
Or Harvard?
Which publicly funded universities are these that are doing most of the research?

I don't read medical journals. How does the FDA make it so I know which treatments are effective?
Do I not go to a physician when I need treatment? Am I not compelled by law to seek the opinion of no one other than a physician?
Does that physician not read medical journals?

As for that state enforcement of contracts, I'll give you two example:

First, look at Ethiopia, a nation that is practically without any real government, and forget property rights there. Their main industry is piracy. Besides recent efforts by other countries to police the surrounding waters, it had been almost unthinkable to carry freight through there.

Ethiopia? Um.... I'm pretty sure (based on the fact that it gets thrown in our faces ad nauseum) that you're talking about Somalia. Is that the case? Because we all have ready rebuttals to that one. But Ethiopia hasn't been on anyone's political radar since the 1980s.

Also, look at Russia for a moment. Remember that Pussy Riot issue a while ago. It just so happened that on the day that ruling was handed down, several international contracts were canceled. A couple of girls being given 2 years for criticizing the executive made it seem like the judiciary didn't have very much autonomy relative to the Kremlin, so what if you're a foreign company in Russia and you have a dispute with Putin, do you have much confidence that the courts are going to back you up?

So.... slight misunderstanding here. I was asking you to remark on two systems of governance whereby the state didn't enforce contracts because it did not claim that role. You gave me examples of the state refusing to enforce contracts even though it claimed monopoly on contract enforcement.
There is a stark difference - and I would hope you can realize that you're making my argument for me by showing the state's failures.

[erowe1]

at some point, we have to be able to say "We're picking up trash on Tuesday. I know some of you want it picked up on Monday. Too bad"

That doesn't sound too bad.

So you don't advocate using violence against them?

[Root]

What I'm saying is that we need a social contract in which members of our society give away part of their rights in order to preserve others and to improve their overall quality of life. Democracy is the method of creating and updating that social contract. If all of that is in place and legitimate, then force is an appropriate method of preserving and enforcing it.

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

[Cleaner44]

I meant republican democracy, as a subtype of democracy.

Yes, I know the government promotes monopolies and it upsets me.

and "redistribution" is a strong word. I think of it as collaboration, we all chip in to build things we can all use, which seems pretty fair to me.

Redistribution may be a strong word, but regardless of the word we use to describe the action, the reality is still the same.

You can choose to think in terms of collaboration, but is that an accurate word when people are forced to participate under the threat of violence?

I don't want to be forced to to chip in with you to purchase more missiles and drones to kill brown people and I don't think it is fair at all that I could go to jail if I refuse to. It saddens me that you do think this is fair. I would never ask a man with a gun force you to chip in with me to bail out a bank... doesn't that seem much more fair?

You recognize that the government promotes monopolies and it upsets you, yet you still want to force people to collaborate in a system that gives money to politicians so they can turn our money over to Wall Street or Monsanto. Why?