Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: How to argue with the "Social Goods"?

  1. #1

    How to argue with the "Social Goods"?

    How do you argue with idealists who resort to measuring things in terms of "social benefits."

    I was arguing with a person about the inefficiency of government-run education and he kept going back to the idea that if government runs schools, more people will have access to education, therefore people will become smarter and the economy will improve with smarter people.

    Another one was the idea behind workers and employers. A worker and an employer have the right to a contract, but the employer has the upper hand because there are fewer employers than workers. A worker can not bargain well because no work may cost the worker dearly in terms of needing money to survive, whereas an employer is in no position to lose his job so that the terms are in favor of the employer.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by CroSpartacus View Post
    How do you argue with idealists who resort to measuring things in terms of "social benefits."

    I was arguing with a person about the inefficiency of government-run education and he kept going back to the idea that if government runs schools, more people will have access to education, therefore people will become smarter and the economy will improve with smarter people.
    Um. The government has made people smarter? A simple examination of literacy scores between 200 years ago and today would debunk that. More people will have access? Who knows that? And why would someone want "access" to a prison that doesn't stimulate learning?

    The idea that if you take government out of education, there wouldn't be education is like saying if you took government out of the mail industry, there wouldn't be mail.


    Another one was the idea behind workers and employers. A worker and an employer have the right to a contract, but the employer has the upper hand because there are fewer employers than workers. A worker can not bargain well because no work may cost the worker dearly in terms of needing money to survive, whereas an employer is in no position to lose his job so that the terms are in favor of the employer.
    The employer does not have the upper hand, since he needs the worker for his survival.

    Every employer is in a position to lose his job when he doesn't have the government bailing him out when he fails. If you take away the moral hazard, you force the employer to be accountable to what the labor market demands.


    Here is a little trick I always use in debates: NEVER, never, never accept the premise that government solves anything. It always creates the problem or makes the problem worse.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by CroSpartacus View Post
    How do you argue with idealists who resort to measuring things in terms of "social benefits."

    I was arguing with a person about the inefficiency of government-run education and he kept going back to the idea that if government runs schools, more people will have access to education, therefore people will become smarter and the economy will improve with smarter people.

    Another one was the idea behind workers and employers. A worker and an employer have the right to a contract, but the employer has the upper hand because there are fewer employers than workers. A worker can not bargain well because no work may cost the worker dearly in terms of needing money to survive, whereas an employer is in no position to lose his job so that the terms are in favor of the employer.
    Tell him to sit at home and wait for the government to drop off his food. Tell him not to move until they get there. If he's a true believer....problem solved. If not....problem solved.
    Dishonest money makes for dishonest people.

    Andrew Napolitano, John Stossel. FOX News Liberty Infiltrators.


    Quote Originally Posted by Inkblots View Post
    Dr. Paul is living rent-free in the minds of the neocons, and for a fiscal conservative, free rent is always a good thing
    NOBP ≠ ABO

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by CroSpartacus View Post
    How do you argue with idealists who resort to measuring things in terms of "social benefits."

    I was arguing with a person about the inefficiency of government-run education and he kept going back to the idea that if government runs schools, more people will have access to education, therefore people will become smarter and the economy will improve with smarter people.

    Another one was the idea behind workers and employers. A worker and an employer have the right to a contract, but the employer has the upper hand because there are fewer employers than workers. A worker can not bargain well because no work may cost the worker dearly in terms of needing money to survive, whereas an employer is in no position to lose his job so that the terms are in favor of the employer.
    Well he is wrong on all accounts His position is that people are too stupid to educate themselves and that these same stupid people must elect other people which they consider to be more capable then they are for making their own life decisions. Next comes an unaccountable buracracy that people are FORCED to participate in. A defacto monopoly created by way of the government gun.

    His logic is faulty and results in a corrupt system which is a monopoly enforced by threats of bodily harm. Is this really the depths of his intellect? For all the liberal talk about evil free market monopolies(which really have never existed, and if they did, they would because people freely chose them) why is their only solution to any problem is to get the biggest gun they can and create a virtually untouchable monopoly?

    It's pathetic, education is best when the people are free to reject it and embrace it. Giving people no choice in their education does not allow them to hold educators accountable, it does not allow them to define what is education, and what they consider to be the best form for having it taught. A liberal mind is so closed in this regards, the gun and force...and their monopoly...that is all they see.

  6. #5
    I strongly recommend you watch this:


  7. #6
    Shouldn't "the social good" be decided by, and carried out by, members of society?

    If your neighbor is starving, help them if you want. If they've wronged you and you don't feel like it, then someone else will help. If no one will help, then it's kind of up to the neighbor to help themselves, isn't it? Your friends on the other side of the debate will say no, and call you heartless. I've been in these debates too many times to count.

    Of course, the neighbor DOES need to help themselves even now, with Almighty Government (in the name of the Fed, and the Cops, and Executive Orders... amen). They don't come by in the equivalent of an ice cream truck, song blaring, making stops to let random poor people come up and apply for benefits. Your hypothetical neighbor must find a way to get to the local welfare office, sign up, etc.. They could just as easily used the same trip to go to a charity and ask for help. In fact, they could just call churches and charities beforehand (almost everyone has access to a phone, even if they are entirely poor; funny how that works!) to find out which are most willing to assist. It takes very little energy, too, to ask one's neighbor for a ride.

    The fact of the matter is that if your neighbor asked you for hundreds of dollars every month, with no intention of paying you back, you would stop giving them money pretty quickly. You'd tire of this pattern even if you used to like the person. What happens now is that the Government does it for you, giving and giving and giving and expecting neither repayment nor that the person get back on their feet.

    How is that good for society?
    Genuine, willful, aggressive ignorance is the one sure way to tick me off. I wish I could say you were trolling. I know better, and it's just sad.

  8. #7

    yup

    Quote Originally Posted by MelissaWV View Post
    Shouldn't "the social good" be decided by, and carried out by, members of society?
    Yup. One of the underlying fallacies in that position is that government is composed of people who somehow "know best" what is good for the rest of us, and that we are too incompetent to go about achieving those results for ourselves. But government is composed of the same people that it proposes to direct. Government is not composed of a higher class of being.

    Another unspoken assumption in this kind of argument is that the government will adopt the values of the person arguing for government intervention. Imposing social values by government force ALWAYS has the effect of suppressing somebody's social values, but oddly it is never the social values of the person making the argument. It is worth asking the person "would you support government directing the creation of social goods if it were to be goods you don't like? Or do you assume that YOUR view of social good is universal?"
    The proper concern of society is the preservation of individual freedom; the proper concern of the individual is the harmony of society.

    "Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow." - Byron

    "Who overcomes by force, hath overcome but half his foe." - Milton

  9. #8
    I split my arguments into two categories, moral and economic, each with three subcategories, life, liberty, and property. When dealing with liberals it's often more effective to use the moral argument rather than the economic one.

    In the case of education, OP, you tried an economic argument. People can have government run schools if they want, it's none of my concern, but it is immoral to force people who don't have kids to pay for those who do.

    In the case of employee's contracting, I would try to attack the result of government policy, which is, effectively, to make slaves of both the employer and employee. If you want to use an economic argument, if the right angle presents itself, you might point out that government policy prices unskilled workers out of the market and there would be more jobs, even if at a lower wage. A low wage job is better than none at all. Be sure to point out that wages will rise naturally as unemployment levels fall.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Education has existed long before government run schools. A lot of schools were started by companies that provided grants to open schools to create a more educated working base.

    In a free market, you would have genuine competition, companies, businesses, actually competing to teach your child. Some might offer a free ipad, some free lunches, some might offer free pick up and drop offs, some might just offer a stellar education, but you would get ultimate quality over time, as the schools that fail children will go out of business and the schools that produce smart and successful children will prosper. You'd also have more choices, you would have schools for bad kids or mentally ill, schools genius kids, small schools, large schools, technology schools, agricultural schools, schools focused on the arts, cheap online schools for home training, etc etc. In all honesty, the educational system would be much much much better.

    Of course, the first question is going to be "what about the poor?" The very fact that most people ask the question should tell you that most people are generous and caring, and will do what is possible to get education offered to lower income people. It doesn't take 1 million dollars to teach a child. It just takes a person that cares about teaching kids to make it happen. I often tell people about Marva Collins . She was a black teacher in inner city Chicago ,who taught at a public school that was failing the kids. She became disillusioned with government schools...she quit her job, turned her house into a school, and approached all the parents of the kids that the public schools have deemed "unteachable" and offered to teach them for a small fee. She worked with the poor parents who couldn't afford much, and did what she could. Those kids she taught wound up having better test scores than the government school children. Of course the government hated this, and tried to shut her down with stupid zoning laws and $#@! like that, but she eventually opened up her own large school that produced hundreds of educated kids that come from poor communities. She didn't have money to do this, but using simple free market economic philosophies, she was able to make it happen. Now imagine if this happened on a larger scale, without all the taxes, without all the government red tape and bureaucracy? Man, it would be unbelievable. Education would also be cheaper simply due to competition and less overhead to support a bloated bureaucracy of administrators, teachers unions, and stupid laws.

    Do some research on it bro, their arguments about social good are easily dismantled.
    Last edited by TheBlackPeterSchiff; 01-31-2011 at 05:19 PM.

  12. #10
    Better to ask him questions and make him come up with the correct answer on his own. I would start with "How do you measure social good?" In the final analysis, social good is measured by money (in an honest system, where money isn't printed). Those who provide the best goods or services for the lowest amount of money enrich everyone such that the point is reached where there are plenty of resources for everyone, and they will be given freely. Savings and capital have to be built up FIRST, though, because those things truly generate the greatest social good.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-05-2013, 02:27 AM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-31-2011, 03:31 PM
  3. Ashton Kutcher's "Hope and Change" is traded for canned goods and shotguns.
    By Anti Federalist in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-05-2011, 10:48 PM
  4. Vote in poll: "Is Paul damaged Goods in the GOP"
    By sailingaway in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-30-2010, 04:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •