Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

What Does it Mean to Be a Liberal?Follow

#1 Jul 31 2012 at 6:52 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,531 posts
There will a be a radio discussion program asking this question today at 12:15 on mpbn.net. HERE

One Economist's view.

What does it mean to you to be liberal or to be a liberal?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#2 Jul 31 2012 at 7:13 AM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,558 posts
To be revealed as one through cluster analysis, having falling within range of a set of ever changing values. So largely meaningless.

The list looks like it's attempting to retroactively invent fundamental propositions based on current liberal stances.

Edited, Jul 31st 2012 8:15am by Allegory
#3 Jul 31 2012 at 7:38 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,531 posts
Allegory wrote:


The list looks like it's attempting to retroactively invent fundamental propositions based on current liberal stances.

Well the list is from 2006.

I've thought about this question a bit this morning. I've only come up with some stuff it's not. I'm not sure that I'm a 'liberal' by any defined standard, though I surely come down on the liberal side of politics in most issues.

It's NOT simply the opposite of conservatism.
It's NOT socialism.

Here is Dictionary.com's definition:
Quote:
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
2. ( often initial capital letter ) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.
3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.
I think we throw a lot of democratic traits into the term liberalism.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#4 Jul 31 2012 at 7:39 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,669 posts
It's living outside of reality.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#5 Jul 31 2012 at 7:43 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,531 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
It's living outside of reality.

Reality bites.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#6 Jul 31 2012 at 7:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,833 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
It's living outside of reality.

gbaji's a raging liberal? Who knew?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#7 Jul 31 2012 at 10:10 AM Rating: Good
is Happy on Friday!
*****
12,443 posts
It kind of depends on how you go about the question itself.

There's "liberal" in the sense of the term itself, outside of political meanings, which one can either use the social meaning of, essentially someone who favors change, or the more literal, which takes from the root of the word, Liberation, someone who favors freedom. Both answers I've given are incredibly simplistic and shortened versions, mind you.

Alternatively, you can take it in the sense of it's political meanings, of which there are essentially three camps; Liberal Beliefs (leftist beliefs that oppose conservative beliefs, both being intentionally left vague due to how the beliefs change over time), Social Liberal Beliefs (Currently, things like (but not limited to) pro-rights stances like being for gay marriage, being pro-choice instead of anti-abortion, favoring social programs like welfare and medicaid (though not necessarily those two for every single individual, they're just examples)), and Economic Liberal Beliefs (Currently, favoring tax increases, as well as other sh*t, but aside from taxes, I've stopped caring about either side's economic beliefs; they're both equally situational, sometimes one is sh*tty and the other works, other times they switch, and a lot of the time they're both terrible).

but hey, I'm a socialist, what do I know.
____________________________
Theytak, Siren Server
LOLGAXE IS MY ETERNAL RIVAL!

Reiterpallasch wrote:
Glitterhands wrote:
Am I the only one who clicked on this thread expecting actual baby photos [of Jinte]? o.O

Except if it were baby photos, it would be like looking at before and afters of Michael Jackson. Only instead of turning into a white guy, he changes into a chick!
#8 Jul 31 2012 at 10:59 AM Rating: Decent
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
Classically, to be liberal is to be for the most part, conservative; that is, one who espouses a free market view that includes liberties from all but the most essential constraints. However, over time the term liberal was co-opted by the Left and came to stand for the diametric opposite of that definition. In its' place it now commonly means freedom to behave in a narrow fashion that is accepted by those outside the norm or mainstream of society. In more recent history, to be a liberal is to be a throwback to early 18th century ideals where property and wealth are viewed as corrupting and bourgeious in the Marxist/Leninist worldview. The Occupy Wall Street movement and the Left's embracing of it is a prime example of this philosophy.

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#9 Jul 31 2012 at 12:23 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,531 posts
Totem wrote:
Classically, to be liberal is to be for the most part, conservative; that is, one who espouses a free market view that includes liberties from all but the most essential constraints. However, over time the term liberal was co-opted by the Left and came to stand for the diametric opposite of that definition. In its' place it now commonly means freedom to behave in a narrow fashion that is accepted by those outside the norm or mainstream of society. In more recent history, to be a liberal is to be a throwback to early 18th century ideals where property and wealth are viewed as corrupting and bourgeious in the Marxist/Leninist worldview. The Occupy Wall Street movement and the Left's embracing of it is a prime example of this philosophy.

Totem

I think you confuse the liberals view of property and wealth. I consider property and wealth to be gained by hard work quite positively. On the other hand, I expect the government to insure that each of use has the ability to proper while also insuring that no one is prospering at the expense of others.

Regulation is viewed by many as a liberal thing that government does with a goal to subdue capitalism. In fact its purpose is quite contrary to that. It's to insure that all of us have an equal chance at capitalism. If OSHA didn't regulate businesses how many more workers would become disabled and be unable to contribute to society and capitalize on their own human asset? If EPA didn't regulate emissions how many factories would a community allow before the air was sooty and public health was compromised? Remember freedom is for all. You're allowed to freely build and construct and manufacture and mine as long as I'm free to continue to drink clean water and breath clean air. Should my freedom to breath clean air be trumped by your freedom to manufacture? Of course not. We can both enjoy our freedoms if you'll agree to capture and clean your emissions, I'll agree to live long, prosper and purchase your product.

I've little comment on Occupy Wall Street - it was a grass roots movement of the moment. It had no clear message beyond the one we all debate about daily - our system of governing seems to be out of whack. OWS placed the blame for that on the shoulders of big business. Tea Party really has the same message but they firmly place the blame on big government, regulation and the taxes required operate the big government.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#10 Jul 31 2012 at 12:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,436 posts
Quote:
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.


Something like this.

A liberal being more likely to support trying a promising novel, untested, or more radical solution to a problem. Whereas a conservative would be more likely to support either a hands-off approach, or a less radical solution where the pros and cons are better understood.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#11 Jul 31 2012 at 12:59 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,087 posts
For me, a liberal is someone who is always looking toward the future for inspiration. Where can we go? How can we make our world better? Liberals also tend to be someone optimistic about the human condition and humanity in general, and make less distinctions between "us" and "them" because they recognize that there is only one human race, like it or not, and we're all stuck on this planet together so we might as well get used to each other and learn to get along.

A conservative is someone always looking to the past for inspiration. How great we once were! How can we return to that lost greatness? How can we hold onto our traditions and our values? Conservatives are pessimists - humanity is at its core rotten, and we must band together with "our" tribe (the good guys) to keep out the scary Other Men who will take away our culture and our freedom. "I want my country back!" is the oft repeated lament of many Tea Partiers.

____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and the League of Extraordinary Crafters
#12 Jul 31 2012 at 2:40 PM Rating: Decent
is Happy on Friday!
*****
12,443 posts
I was watching Intelligence Squared last night, and one of the ones I watched was a debate (read: an actual structured debate, not a bunch of pundits bickering) over whether the two party system has made America ungovernable and I really liked the way P.J. O'Rourke (on the opposing side, so in favor of the two party system) summed up the dems and the reps.

"The Democrats are the ones who say 'Government will make you richer, it'll make you taller, thinner, and it'll even get the crabgrass off your lawn.' The Republicans are the ones who say 'Government is useless!" and then when they get elected, they prove it. Basically, we have the silly party, and the stupid party. I belong to the stupid party, and I vote republican because they have less 'ideas'." Note: He makes it clear in the video that he's referencing the dems as the "silly" party and the reps as the "stupid" party, and that he is a republican.

It was a pretty interesting debate, over all, though I can't say I was necessarily shocked by the outcome.
____________________________
Theytak, Siren Server
LOLGAXE IS MY ETERNAL RIVAL!

Reiterpallasch wrote:
Glitterhands wrote:
Am I the only one who clicked on this thread expecting actual baby photos [of Jinte]? o.O

Except if it were baby photos, it would be like looking at before and afters of Michael Jackson. Only instead of turning into a white guy, he changes into a chick!
#13 Jul 31 2012 at 2:58 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Just after reading the first half of that article it appears that the author has confused "liberal" (modern political term associated with a specific ideological approach to rights, liberties, etc) with "liberalism" (a very broad ideology that introduces the concepts and weight of rights and liberties in the first place). It's somewhat absurd because within the modern US political landscape both conservatives and liberals fall within the umbrella of "liberalism". To be useful, he should perhaps define the differences between conservative and liberal political labels, rather than just argue that liberal==liberalism and presumably allow the reader to assume that conservatives are against all those things.

But that's just my first brushstroke look at the article. Suppose I should finish it. Maybe it gets smarter later on.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Jul 31 2012 at 4:01 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,531 posts
gbaji wrote:
Just after reading the first half of that article it appears that the author has confused "liberal" (modern political term associated with a specific ideological approach to rights, liberties, etc) with "liberalism" (a very broad ideology that introduces the concepts and weight of rights and liberties in the first place). It's somewhat absurd because within the modern US political landscape both conservatives and liberals fall within the umbrella of "liberalism". To be useful, he should perhaps define the differences between conservative and liberal political labels, rather than just argue that liberal==liberalism and presumably allow the reader to assume that conservatives are against all those things.

But that's just my first brushstroke look at the article. Suppose I should finish it. Maybe it gets smarter later on.
I've not done more than skimmed the article. I just posted it as candy for the question to be answered. My master plan was to get some answers, then listen to the program...but it all fell apart.

So anyways, how about that corn on the cob?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#15 Jul 31 2012 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
******
43,175 posts
If the Asylum is to be believed, it's just a word pleebs toss out as often as possible trying to prove just how "in the know" they are as far as politics are concerned.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#16 Jul 31 2012 at 7:04 PM Rating: Good
is Happy on Friday!
*****
12,443 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
If the Asylum is to be believed, it's just a word pleebs toss out as often as possible trying to prove just how "in the know" they are as far as politics are concerned.

I love the word "pleebs." Soooooo much fun to say. Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Theytak, Siren Server
LOLGAXE IS MY ETERNAL RIVAL!

Reiterpallasch wrote:
Glitterhands wrote:
Am I the only one who clicked on this thread expecting actual baby photos [of Jinte]? o.O

Except if it were baby photos, it would be like looking at before and afters of Michael Jackson. Only instead of turning into a white guy, he changes into a chick!
#17 Jul 31 2012 at 7:27 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
To be a liberal is to trust that government will generally do the right thing.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#18 Jul 31 2012 at 7:47 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
To be a liberal is to trust that government will generally do the right thing.

Well, not conservative governments, natch.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Jul 31 2012 at 9:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,134 posts
Demea wrote:
To be a liberal is to trust that government will generally do the right thing.


Not in my book. I think we all have a responsibility to watch the government and to speak out when we see it going off the rails. I've watched with growing alarm as the executive branch's power has grown, for example, and as our privacy and certain Constitutional rights (search and seizure, free speech) have been infringed.

On the other hand, and this touches on your tossed-off definition, I do think we have to depend on governmental authority for some things: protecting the rights of workers and enforcing the responsibility of businesses to be good stewards of the environment, for example. The reason we need government involvement is simple: history bears out the rather pessimistic view that without it, businesses and individuals will not take those responsibilities upon themselves.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#20 Aug 01 2012 at 2:10 AM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
My husband was talking about an article he read recently that basically defined liberals as those whose primary focus was the "world" at large, future generations, etc. and a conservative as those whose primary focus was the here and now, and mostly on themselves.

It may have been a scientific study, actually, using these definitions... I can't remember exactly. I just remember the definitions.


Edited, Aug 1st 2012 3:11am by Belkira
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#21 Aug 01 2012 at 9:28 AM Rating: Good
Sacrificial Lamb
*****
16,110 posts
"...a promising novel, untested, or more radical solution..." --someproteinguy

Herein lies the rub to quote that old saw. As a conservative this is where I instinctively want to dig in my heels, balk, and resist. While the promising part sounds intriguiging and merits further investigation, the untested and more radical part is what makes my skin crawl. And apparently it made our Founding Fathers' skin crawl too. This nation's three pilars of government were purposefully designed to slow the pace of change down and create an inherent tension between those branches. It is what we all know of as the checks and balances between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches. Rapid change was anathema to the framers of our Constitution, which was why they made it difficult to manipulate the document and for some, frustratingly vague in specific areas or concerns.

Contrary to what some on this board may think, conservatism isn't about maintaining the Old Ways, but rather to incorporate those time tested and proven methods into a thoughtful, measured, and responsible rate of change. Obviously some change is always necessary to respond to a world that is not static. But change for the sake of change is more likely than not, useless, and frequently dangerous-- particularly when it is untested and radical.

I often compare conservatism and liberalism to the battle between teenagers and their parents. Parents, having gone through the very problems that their children are experiencing understand that there is value in specific time honored behaviors and rules. Teenagers, by their nature are impatient, want movement-- any kind of movement --and view their elders as stodgity, old fashioned, and not responsive to the "new" problems of today. Neither one can see the advantages the other has to offer and like our government today, frequently neither one is willing to listen either.

Totem
____________________________
Born-on date: 2076

Zombo.com

Obama

Winner of Last(tm) VIII!

Winner of the 2008 Allakhazam March Madness tourny

"Totem is the personification of whiskey soaked evil" --Annabelle

"You're special, pumpkin, but not speshuler than the 'Bama Black Snake" --AtomicFlea
#22 Aug 01 2012 at 1:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Elinda wrote:
I think you confuse the liberals view of property and wealth. I consider property and wealth to be gained by hard work quite positively. On the other hand, I expect the government to insure that each of use has the ability to proper while also insuring that no one is prospering at the expense of others.


The problem is in defining the difference between those two. How does one decide if that millionaire gained his wealth by "hard work". More importantly who gets to decide this? Hell. What is "hard work"?

I suppose this also touches on an interesting difference between liberal and conservative economic views. Conservatives tend to believe that the free market (with some minimal regulation of course) is the best way to ensure that if someone has wealth it was gained via positive actions rather than negative. It's not "hard work" that is rewarded, but providing others with goods and services which are valued collectively by those others higher than the cost to produce. If I spend 5 million dollars on equipment, raw materials, labor costs, etc, and the result of putting those things together is some volume of products that people are willing to freely choose to buy for a total of 6 million, than the 1 million profit I just made is my reward for being the guy who took the risk guessing that what I would do would be worth something to others and did it right. If what I build isn't of sufficient value to others, then my business will fail and I'll lose my investment. It's self correcting.

I think that Liberals try to over fix something that isn't really broken, and in the process actually make things broken. Is there need for regulation to prevent abuses in a free market? Absolutely. But there's a difference between saying "you can't dump raw sewage into a river" and "you must pay higher taxes so we can provide free health care to people who aren't even working for you". I think that many liberals justify what they (or their party really) do with arguments that big business makes too much money, or makes it unfairly, or pollutes too much, or whatever. But IMO those really are just excuses. And pretty thin ones at that. Take the current push by Obama and the Dems to raise taxes on income over $250k/year. That affects all people or businesses which make that much. Clearly, that flies in the face of the claim that it's just about making sure only people who've earned the wealth and property they have get to keep it. Regulations on business practices are sufficient to accomplish that. Raising taxes on everyone who makes over X dollars is absolutely just about punishing success.


I just think that if we have a choice between allowing people's free choices to decide how much money people make and having the government do so, I'll take the people any time. We just don't need a government deciding that some people "make too much money" and no amount of flawed justifications make it a good idea.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#23 Aug 01 2012 at 1:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Demea wrote:
To be a liberal is to trust that government will generally do the right thing.
gbaji wrote:
I just think that if we have a choice between allowing people's free choices to decide how much money people make and having the government do so, I'll take the people any time.

I think there's some truth to Twiz's statement simply in that liberals seem to treat the government as a body of people who act as, well, people whereas conservatives like Gbaji constantly resort to presenting it as some boogeyman construction run by, I don't know, goblin-monsters or something. But they constantly try to draw a line between "people" and "government" and do everything they can to dehumanize it. Which is why ideas like "The government will be in your healthcare!" or "The government will decide what kind of gas you can buy!" don't scare me nearly as much as they do conservatives. People make those decisions anyway, be they insurance companies or oil companies or whoever and given a choice, I'd rather take the person who doesn't have a profit motive weighing against my best interests. But when you're convinced that the government is "Us" versus some malevolent and shadowy "Them", it's harder to have that perspective.

Edit: To amend Twiz, I generally have faith in my government, with its checks and balances, means of removing people from power, etc. Obviously people have the capacity to be corrupt but that's because they are corrupt people, not some magical dehumanizing function of government.

Edited, Aug 1st 2012 2:38pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#24 Aug 01 2012 at 4:56 PM Rating: Good
is Happy on Friday!
*****
12,443 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Demea wrote:
To be a liberal is to trust that government will generally do the right thing.
gbaji wrote:
I just think that if we have a choice between allowing people's free choices to decide how much money people make and having the government do so, I'll take the people any time.

I think there's some truth to Twiz's statement simply in that liberals seem to treat the government as a body of people who act as, well, people whereas conservatives like Gbaji constantly resort to presenting it as some boogeyman construction run by, I don't know, goblin-monsters or something. But they constantly try to draw a line between "people" and "government" and do everything they can to dehumanize it. Which is why ideas like "The government will be in your healthcare!" or "The government will decide what kind of gas you can buy!" don't scare me nearly as much as they do conservatives. People make those decisions anyway, be they insurance companies or oil companies or whoever and given a choice, I'd rather take the person who doesn't have a profit motive weighing against my best interests. But when you're convinced that the government is "Us" versus some malevolent and shadowy "Them", it's harder to have that perspective.

Edit: To amend Twiz, I generally have faith in my government, with its checks and balances, means of removing people from power, etc. Obviously people have the capacity to be corrupt but that's because they are corrupt people, not some magical dehumanizing function of government.

Edited, Aug 1st 2012 2:38pm by Jophiel

to be fair, I think many people, regardless of their politics, would consider the boogeyman and/or goblin-monsters to be more reliable and consistent than people.
____________________________
Theytak, Siren Server
LOLGAXE IS MY ETERNAL RIVAL!

Reiterpallasch wrote:
Glitterhands wrote:
Am I the only one who clicked on this thread expecting actual baby photos [of Jinte]? o.O

Except if it were baby photos, it would be like looking at before and afters of Michael Jackson. Only instead of turning into a white guy, he changes into a chick!
#25 Aug 01 2012 at 5:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sure, they're reliably scary so being scared of them is easy and doesn't take any thought! Smiley: grin
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Aug 01 2012 at 5:14 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,021 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I think there's some truth to Twiz's statement simply in that liberals seem to treat the government as a body of people who act as, well, people whereas conservatives like Gbaji constantly resort to presenting it as some boogeyman construction run by, I don't know, goblin-monsters or something. But they constantly try to draw a line between "people" and "government" and do everything they can to dehumanize it. Which is why ideas like "The government will be in your healthcare!" or "The government will decide what kind of gas you can buy!" don't scare me nearly as much as they do conservatives. People make those decisions anyway, be they insurance companies or oil companies or whoever and given a choice, I'd rather take the person who doesn't have a profit motive weighing against my best interests. But when you're convinced that the government is "Us" versus some malevolent and shadowy "Them", it's harder to have that perspective.

My general feeling is that conservatives distrust government (more than liberals, at least) because of the combination of three things: elected officials have incentives rooted in political self-interest (i.e. getting re-elected) that don't always align with the best interests of the electorate; the federal government has vastly more power, influence and money than they should compared to the power held by the individual states, and; in a philosophical sense, governments only exist to restrict individual freedoms.

Or that's my take, at least. Which is kind of the antithesis to the original question asked (about "liberals").

Edit: also, please don't confuse conservatives generally with "conservatives like Gbaji." It's really like comparing apples to pedantic, delusional blowhards.

Edited, Aug 1st 2012 6:16pm by Demea
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#27 Aug 01 2012 at 5:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,134 posts
I don't necessarily trust the government. I just think it's a necessary compromise.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#28 Aug 01 2012 at 7:52 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Demea wrote:
To be a liberal is to trust that government will generally do the right thing.
gbaji wrote:
I just think that if we have a choice between allowing people's free choices to decide how much money people make and having the government do so, I'll take the people any time.

I think there's some truth to Twiz's statement simply in that liberals seem to treat the government as a body of people who act as, well, people whereas conservatives like Gbaji constantly resort to presenting it as some boogeyman construction run by, I don't know, goblin-monsters or something.


That's an interesting exaggeration of what I actually said. I said that given a choice between allowing outcomes to be determined by the actual people, each individually making their own choices about what to buy, where to live, who to reward, who to punish, etc, and having them determined by a group of elected government employees, I'll take the former every time.


Quote:
But they constantly try to draw a line between "people" and "government" and do everything they can to dehumanize it.


When the choices that result are different, then there is quite obviously a difference. Another way to look at it is that if "the people" would choose to do something in the absence of government telling/forcing them to, then we wouldn't need government to get involved. It's quite arguable that the only reason to have government at all is to do things that "the people" would not do (collectively or otherwise).


So yeah. I think it's pretty important to be aware of that distinction. The government is *not* the people. It can't be. If it was, it wouldn't be needed.


Quote:
Which is why ideas like "The government will be in your healthcare!" or "The government will decide what kind of gas you can buy!" don't scare me nearly as much as they do conservatives. People make those decisions anyway, be they insurance companies or oil companies or whoever and given a choice, I'd rather take the person who doesn't have a profit motive weighing against my best interests.


Again though, if they'd make those same choices anyway, then why do we need government to make them buy health insurance? Why tax them to pay for their social security? Why tax them to pay for medicare? There's a huge gaping flaw in your argument there Joph.


While there may be any of a number of valid arguments for any given act of government, "it's acting on the will of the people" is not one of them.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Aug 01 2012 at 8:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
That's an interesting exaggeration of what I actually said.

I'm basing it off many, many interactions with you. I've mentioned it before for that matter and notice it all the time when reading conservative media or listening to the radio. The dehumanization of government into a shadowy boogeyman is part & parcel of conservative media. And, whether you feel it's true or justified or not, it's not a view I've seen shared by liberal or Democratic mindsets.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 Aug 01 2012 at 9:04 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,558 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's self correcting.

But it's not, and you even shyly admit it to needing "some minimal regulation of course." Free markets aren't entirely "self correcting," otherwise they wouldn't require any regulation to achieve desirable results. We have laws against lead based paints because we need them. It seems easy to simplify the argument down to a mantra that any company that did so would eventually be shunned by consumers and fail to profit, but yet I doubt you'd be willing to give up such regulation in entirety. Once you say we need some regulation, you're asserting free markets don't always achieve entirely desirable results on their own. From then on it's just a negotiation of where and how we need to intervene, not whether.

In a free market, it's possible to profit at the expense of consumers and it's possible to do so sustainably. Regulations attempt to prevent that. In a free market, sometimes there is a gain to be had but only if everyone goes in on it as there is no benefit to a lone adopter. Regulations attempt to achieve that.

The rhetoric I hear from many conservatives isn't about how there are bad regulations and we should fix them, but how there are too many and we should curtail them.
#31 Aug 01 2012 at 9:50 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,166 posts

That's an interesting exaggeration of what I actually said. I said that given a choice between allowing outcomes to be determined by the actual people, each individually making their own choices about what to buy, where to live, who to reward, who to punish, etc, and having them determined by a group of elected government employees, I'll take the former every time.


What's really interesting is that if the "actual people" decided those things you'd be at best an indentured servant, and more likely penniless.

Anyway, as a political or economic term of art, "liberal" simply means novelty seeking as opposed to novelty avoiding. It's really not very complicated. Downstream interpretations are subject to well...interpretation. In the US political context, where a tiny group of elite decision makers all agree that people as individuals are easily manipulated idiots, it's the set of those decision makers who think they can best consolidate their own power by attempting to protect the easily manipulated idiots from exploitation. With the other side, obviously, seeking to consolidate their own power by arguing the easily manipulated idiots are wise and responsible.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#32 Aug 07 2012 at 7:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
It's self correcting.

But it's not, and you even shyly admit it to needing "some minimal regulation of course." Free markets aren't entirely "self correcting," otherwise they wouldn't require any regulation to achieve desirable results.


The reference to free markets being self correcting was in response to the question of how wealth is generated. It's self correcting in the sense that those who fail to bring a product to market that can be sold for more money than it cost them to create will go out of business. The regulation I mentioned is not intended to ensure that, and it's not required to "achieve desirable results" (as you put it). Regulation is needed to prevent undesirable results unrelated to merely generating profit.

Don't forget that the context of my post was in response to a statement that the government could (or should) somehow decide if someone earned money via "hard work" or not. My point is that it's not hard work, but the fact of whether someone creates something of greater value than the cost to produce that determines if they make money, and that as long as this is the case, then they "earned" that money. Within that context, the free market absolutely *is* self correcting.

Quote:
We have laws against lead based paints because we need them. It seems easy to simplify the argument down to a mantra that any company that did so would eventually be shunned by consumers and fail to profit, but yet I doubt you'd be willing to give up such regulation in entirety.


Sure. But that's a far cry from saying that if paint company A makes money while paint company B goes bankrupt, both existing under the exact same paint production regulations, that we can or should step in to decide that paint company A didn't earn their money. They absolutely did. Remember, I was responding to a suggestion that the government can or should determine if someone earned the money they made. I have no issues with regulation that aims in a non-discriminatory way to protect people from harmful side effects of industry. It's when someone argues essentially that the mere act of making money is harmful and should be regulated that I take exception

Quote:
Once you say we need some regulation, you're asserting free markets don't always achieve entirely desirable results on their own. From then on it's just a negotiation of where and how we need to intervene, not whether.


Sure. But I made it pretty clear where that dividing line should be in my earlier post:

gbaji wrote:
Is there need for regulation to prevent abuses in a free market? Absolutely. But there's a difference between saying "you can't dump raw sewage into a river" and "you must pay higher taxes so we can provide free health care to people who aren't even working for you".


I suspect that the problem is that you don't make a distinction between regulation to achieve desired results and regulation to prevent undesired results. This is similar to the classic "positive versus negative rights" issue (which is itself a core difference between modern US liberal and conservative ideology). Liberals look at the fact that we regulate businesses in order to prevent negative outcomes and argue that this is no different than regulating business to cause them to create positive ones (or just aren't aware of the difference I suppose). Conservatives argue that these are completely different things. One is reasonable. The other is not.

Quote:
In a free market, it's possible to profit at the expense of consumers and it's possible to do so sustainably. Regulations attempt to prevent that. In a free market, sometimes there is a gain to be had but only if everyone goes in on it as there is no benefit to a lone adopter. Regulations attempt to achieve that.


Again though, you're mixing up regulation to prevent harmful outcomes with regulation to mandate helpful ones. You're engaging in a bait and switch, and I'm not sure you're even aware you're doing it. As I stated earlier, the fact that companies can take actions while earning money which causes harm to others, and that we need government regulation to prevent that does *not* mean that we need regulation to force companies to create positive effects. Companies create positive effects by creating newer/better/cheaper products for consumers. That's the good they do. And when they do it in a free market environment, they also generate jobs, economic growth, and a host of other good things that are very relevant to our current economic situation. There is no need to use government regulation to force companies to do things that are helpful. We only need it to prevent them from doing things that are harmful. Once you have that covered, you can let the free market do its thing.


But, as I stated at the beginning, liberals don't trust that process. They honestly seem to believe that the free market can't bring benefits and improvements to their lives absent government forcing them to do so despite massive evidence that this happens all the time. The entire idea of government deciding which businesses are "good" and which are "bad" is absurd. If a business brings a product to market profitably, then by definition what they sell is of greater value to the consumers than it cost to produce. That's all the "good" that is required. Government only need to involve itself in ensuring that there is no direct harm being caused along the way.

Quote:
The rhetoric I hear from many conservatives isn't about how there are bad regulations and we should fix them, but how there are too many and we should curtail them.


Because in this context, "bad" means "unnecessary". You don't "fix" that. You eliminate it. When we talk about there being too much regulation, we're specifically talking about regulation that is unnecessary in the first place. The way you phrased that makes it seem like the problem isn't that government is trying to force positive outcomes with regulation in the first place, but merely that it's doing it poorly. The very goal is considered "bad" by conservatives. Again, you don't fix something like the health care mandate. You eliminate it. You don't fix taxes on success. You eliminate them.

Edited, Aug 7th 2012 6:59pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#33 Aug 07 2012 at 8:21 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,558 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sure. But I made it pretty clear where that dividing line should be in my earlier post:
gbaji wrote:
Is there need for regulation to prevent abuses in a free market? Absolutely. But there's a difference between saying "you can't dump raw sewage into a river" and "you must pay higher taxes so we can provide free health care to people who aren't even working for you".

You didn't make it clear though. You said those two situations were different, but you're somewhat lacking on a reason. The thing is, I don't see a difference. Raw sewage in the river creates health problems for residents around the river; lack of health care access creates health problems for citizens. Failure to prevent sewage from entering the river creates greater clean up costs for the city than the cost of filtration for the company. Emergency room visits create greater treatment costs than the cost of providing degrees of preventative care.

But much more than this specific situation, this ties into something far greater.
gbaji wrote:
I suspect that the problem is that you don't make a distinction between regulation to achieve desired results and regulation to prevent undesired results. This is similar to the classic "positive versus negative rights" issue (which is itself a core difference between modern US liberal and conservative ideology).

And that's it. I'll admit to not having polled friends on the topic, but I suspect the idea of positive and negative rights is not so much a core of conservative ideology as it is your--and probably a smaller sect of conservatives'--own.

You have this entirely strange and arbitrary distinction between positives and negatives. That somehow giving a freedom and not taking it away (and the converse) are two very, very different things and not at all the same. That somehow preventing additional costs and increasing gains (and the converse) are two very, very different things. That somehow adding a positive and subtracting a negative (and the converse) are fundamentally different processes that don't achieve the same result.

It seems as if your whole concept of how polarity works is flawed.

Edited, Aug 7th 2012 9:22pm by Allegory
#34 Aug 07 2012 at 8:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Allegory wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Sure. But I made it pretty clear where that dividing line should be in my earlier post:
gbaji wrote:
Is there need for regulation to prevent abuses in a free market? Absolutely. But there's a difference between saying "you can't dump raw sewage into a river" and "you must pay higher taxes so we can provide free health care to people who aren't even working for you".

You didn't make it clear though. You said those two situations were different, but you're somewhat lacking on a reason.


Huh? I stated the reason several times:

gbaji wrote:
Regulation is needed to prevent undesirable results unrelated to merely generating profit.

...

I have no issues with regulation that aims in a non-discriminatory way to protect people from harmful side effects of industry.

...

I suspect that the problem is that you don't make a distinction between regulation to achieve desired results and regulation to prevent undesired results. This is similar to the classic "positive versus negative rights" issue (which is itself a core difference between modern US liberal and conservative ideology). Liberals look at the fact that we regulate businesses in order to prevent negative outcomes and argue that this is no different than regulating business to cause them to create positive ones (or just aren't aware of the difference I suppose). Conservatives argue that these are completely different things. One is reasonable. The other is not.

...

Again though, you're mixing up regulation to prevent harmful outcomes with regulation to mandate helpful ones

...

As I stated earlier, the fact that companies can take actions while earning money which causes harm to others, and that we need government regulation to prevent that does *not* mean that we need regulation to force companies to create positive effects.

...

There is no need to use government regulation to force companies to do things that are helpful. We only need it to prevent them from doing things that are harmful.


Say you disagree, but don't say that I haven't provided adequate reason for saying that there's a difference between the two. One is designed to prevent a negative effect, while the other is attempting to create a positive. Conservatives view those as very different, while liberals tend to not see the difference.

Quote:
The thing is, I don't see a difference.


Yes. Welcome to the exact point I was making. Conservatives see a *huge* difference between those two things, while Liberals don't. That would seem to be relevant in a thread asking "what does it mean to be a liberal". My answer is that liberals don't see a difference between using government to prevent negative outcomes and using it to create positive ones.

Isn't that a fair (and clearly accurate) answer?


Quote:
Raw sewage in the river creates health problems for residents around the river; lack of health care access creates health problems for citizens.


Not having someone else pay for your health insurance doesn't make you sick. They are completely different things. And let's be honest here. We're not talking about "access to health care". We're talking about requiring one person to pay for someone else's health care.

Quote:
Failure to prevent sewage from entering the river creates greater clean up costs for the city than the cost of filtration for the company. Emergency room visits create greater treatment costs than the cost of providing degrees of preventative care.


Arguable, but also irrelevant. A company using its profits to provide food to soup kitchens rather than cutting the cost of the goods it sells or raising the salaries of its workers means that it's "costing" those people something. The fact that many companies (and wealthy individuals) do give money to charity, and yet their employees, customers, and stockholders don't revolt doesn't constitute a justification for the government to pass a law requiring them to give money to charity. One is a set of free choices made by individuals. The other is a government mandate. Surely, you can see the difference?


Quote:
But much more than this specific situation, this ties into something far greater.
gbaji wrote:
I suspect that the problem is that you don't make a distinction between regulation to achieve desired results and regulation to prevent undesired results. This is similar to the classic "positive versus negative rights" issue (which is itself a core difference between modern US liberal and conservative ideology).

And that's it. I'll admit to not having polled friends on the topic, but I suspect the idea of positive and negative rights is not so much a core of conservative ideology as it is your--and probably a smaller sect of conservatives'--own.


Huh? It's one of the core differences between modern liberal and conservative ideologies and has for like 80 years. Your lack of historical understanding of this is your own problem, not mine.

Quote:
You have this entirely strange and arbitrary distinction between positives and negatives.


Um... it's not strange or arbitrary.

Quote:
That somehow giving a freedom and not taking it away (and the converse) are two very, very different things and not at all the same.


They are different things. If for no other reason that you can't "give a freedom". You can only take freedom away. When the government requires someone to pay for your health care, they are not giving you any freedom at all. They are taking freedom away from the person they're making pay for it though.

Quote:
That somehow preventing additional costs and increasing gains (and the converse) are two very, very different things. That somehow adding a positive and subtracting a negative (and the converse) are fundamentally different processes that don't achieve the same result.


Um... At the risk of repeating myself. They are different things. Me not stealing $100 from you is not the same as me giving you $100. But in both cases, you are $100 richer if I choose to not steal (versus stealing), or give you money (versus not giving you money). Only a complete idiot would argue, however, that if I fail to give you $100 that this is the same as me stealing $100 from you. Right?



Quote:
It seems as if your whole concept of how polarity works is flawed.


It's not flawed at all. Flawed is not seeing the difference between draining a pool of water and never putting water in it in the first place. Only if one ignores how you get to a result can you conclude that they are the same. But it's the "how you get there" that defines concepts like rights and liberty and property. It's why it's legal for me to earn money, but not steal it. Our entire cultural rule set is based on making a distinction between the "how" of any given outcome. And frankly, as much as I acknowledge that this is something that liberals seem unable (or unwilling) to see, it's always surprised me that this is the case. Something that to me just seems amazingly apparent and necessary for society to work properly at all is just plain invisible to a whole set of people within that same society. To me, that's just shocking. It was shocking the first time I ran into someone arguing what you are arguing, and I suppose it's less shocking but still somewhat distressing when I run into people saying it now.


I honestly can't understand how someone can make the arguments you are making, and yet, many people make it anyway. Again though, I'd argue that this is a huge difference between liberal and conservative thought. At least, it's the one that jumps out at me the most.

Edited, Aug 7th 2012 7:54pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Aug 07 2012 at 9:52 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Me not stealing $100 from you is not the same as me giving you $100. But in both cases, you are $100 richer if I choose to not steal (versus stealing), or give you money (versus not giving you money).

Stop eating paste before you post.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#36 Aug 07 2012 at 10:00 PM Rating: Good
******
43,175 posts
gbaji wrote:
Me not stealing $100 from you is not the same as me giving you $100. But in both cases, you are $100 richer if I choose to not steal (versus stealing), or give you money (versus not giving you money).
Is this conservative math, or just your not being good at it? Because if you don't steal $100 that doesn't mean I'm $100 richer, it just means I'm at the same level of money I had.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#37 Aug 07 2012 at 10:10 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Hey now, that's the huge difference between conservative and liberal thought!

By not stealing $100 from the middle class, they're actually making everyone $100 richer. If they don't steal a million dollars, all of the middle class will be millionaires!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Aug 08 2012 at 12:58 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Me not stealing $100 from you is not the same as me giving you $100. But in both cases, you are $100 richer if I choose to not steal (versus stealing), or give you money (versus not giving you money).

Stop eating paste before you post.


[:snicker:]


This is gonna get even better when he tries to explain his way out of it.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#39 Aug 08 2012 at 6:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Me not stealing $100 from you is not the same as me giving you $100. But in both cases, you are $100 richer if I choose to not steal (versus stealing), or give you money (versus not giving you money).
Is this conservative math, or just your not being good at it?


It's liberal math. I'm just pointing it out is all.

Quote:
Because if you don't steal $100 that doesn't mean I'm $100 richer, it just means I'm at the same level of money I had.


Really? So you agree that liberals are flat out wrong when they say that by failing to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest 2% we are making the rich richer? Let me repeat that slower for you: Liberals argue that by failing to take more money from a group of people in the form of taxes, they are making that group of people richer. This is the same thing that you just said is ridiculous, a position I happen to agree with, but most liberals lap it up without question.


You do get that I'm not saying this is good logic. I'm saying that it's bad logic that the left uses to justify their policies. And it's not limited just to tax policies either.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Aug 08 2012 at 6:15 PM Rating: Good
******
43,175 posts
Oh, I wasn't really following the thread. I forgot you've a penchant to distort data and make wildly, horribly inaccurate analogies. My mistake.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#41 Aug 08 2012 at 6:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Oh, I wasn't really following the thread. I forgot you've a penchant to distort data and make wildly, horribly inaccurate analogies. My mistake.


Er? I said (quite clearly) "Liberals do X. X is wrong because if X is true, than Y is true". You jumped in and said "But Y is false!!!".

Yup. That's the point. When a liberal argues that failing to raise taxes on a group is the same as giving those people money, they are making the same argument that failing to steal from someone is the same as giving them money. In both cases, you will have more money if your taxes don't go up *and* you'll have more money if I don't steal some from you. But only a complete idiot would argue that this is an act that benefits you. It's an action that doesn't hurt you.


Which brings us right back to my starting point: That liberals don't see a distinction between actions that prevent harm (stopping a thief from stealing), and actions that create help (giving someone money). They only see that in both cases, the person they acted on behalf of is better off than they'd be if they hadn't acted. If you stop a thief from taking $100 from me, I'm $100 better off than I'd have been if you didn't act. Similarly, if you give me $100, I'm $100 better off than I'd have been if you didn't act. But where the liberal goes wrong is when they argue that since we have laws that make stealing illegal, we should also have laws that force people to give money to other people. Worse is when they equate failing to pass a law forcing someone to give money to someone else with stealing from that person.


The left does this all the time though, don't they?

Edited, Aug 8th 2012 5:27pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#42 Aug 08 2012 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
******
43,175 posts
gbaji wrote:
Which brings us right back to my starting point:
For what it's worth, you've proven my original point marvelously.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#43 Aug 08 2012 at 6:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So you agree that liberals are flat out wrong when they say that by failing to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest 2% we are making the rich richer? Let me repeat that slower for you: Liberals argue that by failing to take more money from a group of people in the form of taxes, they are making that group of people richer.

Who?

Is this one of those times where I ask you for a cite, you dance around for a while and then start crying that I'm playing semantics or not looking at the big picture or it was just your opinion or whatever stock excuse you have to avoid giving an actual, verifiable quote?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#44 Aug 08 2012 at 7:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Which brings us right back to my starting point:
For what it's worth, you've proven my original point marvelously.



lolgaxe wrote:
If the Asylum is to be believed, it's just a word pleebs toss out as often as possible trying to prove just how "in the know" they are as far as politics are concerned.



Ok! Smiley: grin
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Aug 08 2012 at 8:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So you agree that liberals are flat out wrong when they say that by failing to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire on the wealthiest 2% we are making the rich richer? Let me repeat that slower for you: Liberals argue that by failing to take more money from a group of people in the form of taxes, they are making that group of people richer.

Who?


Um... Obama just this week (although to be fair, he was talking about an assumption of tax cuts for the rich and tax increases for the middle class. False assumption, but you could give him a pass on the technicality). The point is that you can easily find tons of quote from him suggesting that he views letting people keep their own money as a "cost". Which is kinda backwards, don't you agree?

Quote:
Is this one of those times where I ask you for a cite, you dance around for a while and then start crying that I'm playing semantics or not looking at the big picture or it was just your opinion or whatever stock excuse you have to avoid giving an actual, verifiable quote?


You're kidding, right? I mean, in addition to all the folks I've argued with on this forum who have made that exact argument, how about:

the title says it all

And another one from the WP

help the "rich get richer" appears in the first paragraph

this one's mainly about rich getting richer in general, but lists the Bush tax cuts as a contributor to that

more on the same theme. Lots of tax issues mentioned as well


I can go on (and on, and on, and on...). The concept of tax cuts making people richer (relative to everyone else) is so often repeated that it's kinda shocking that you'd deny that this is said at all. I know you love to play this citation game. And I'm sure your response will be to cherry pick one or two links and show that they were not just talking about tax rates, so the whole thing must be wrong. More of you missing the forest for the trees though.


I guess when you've got nothing, you go big though. So whatever. Lamenting income inequality and the need for tax policy to address it is a central theme of the Left and of the Democratic party Joph. You damn well know this. And the "rich get richer if we don't take raise their taxes to stop it" is repeated all the time. You're really going to go down this line?

Edited, Aug 8th 2012 7:25pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#46 Aug 08 2012 at 9:08 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You're kidding, right? I mean, in addition to all the folks I've argued with on this forum who have made that exact argument, how about:
the title says it all

That article states that lowering the tax rate on the wealthy has helped them accumulate more wealth.

That article states that lowering the tax rate on the wealthy, they accumulated more wealth.

That article states that both Democratic and GOP tax proposals give cuts to the wealthy. It doesn't say what you claimed.

Look, I don't think you even know what your argument was. Not a single one of those said "By failing to take more money from a group of people in the form of taxes, they are making that group of people richer." They all said that by lowering the tax rate from the previous status quo, the wealthy have accumulated more wealth. This is true.

If I'm walking down the street with $1000 in my pocket and you pass by and decide not to rob me, I'm not $1000 richer; I'm at the same status quo I was at before. On the other hand, if my $1000 mortgage gets lowered to $500, I am $500 richer at the end of each month. There's a difference there that apparently eludes you. I'm not really worried about trying to explain it to you because, well, there's no value in it for me to listen to you spin and paint yourself into a corner.

Thanks for showing us the difference between liberals and conservatives though Smiley: laugh

Edited, Aug 8th 2012 10:08pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Aug 08 2012 at 9:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Oh, and...
I previously wrote:
Is this one of those times where I ask you for a cite, you dance around for a while and then start crying that I'm [...] not looking at the big picture...
To which you immediately wrote:
More of you missing the forest for the trees though.

Hahahaha... thanks for that. I could set a clock by how predictable you are.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#48 Aug 09 2012 at 7:11 AM Rating: Good
******
43,175 posts
gbaji wrote:
I can go on (and on, and on, and on...).
You don't say.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#49 Aug 09 2012 at 2:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That article states that lowering the tax rate on the wealthy has helped them accumulate more wealth.


Yes. That's the point.

Quote:
That article states that lowering the tax rate on the wealthy, they accumulated more wealth.


Yup. Same point.

Quote:
Look, I don't think you even know what your argument was. Not a single one of those said "By failing to take more money from a group of people in the form of taxes, they are making that group of people richer." They all said that by lowering the tax rate from the previous status quo, the wealthy have accumulated more wealth. This is true.


That's a hell of a small distinction to make though Joph. When you make the first point in the context of an argument to raise taxes, you *are* saying that because you didn't have that higher tax rate all along, the rich got richer. There is no difference.

You're failing to get that the issue isn't with how they word it, but what they are actually saying. What's wrong is the idea that it's the tax rates that make someone rich or not. The correct way to look at it is that the person's economic activities make them richer. Taxes take money away from that person that he otherwise earned. Period. Lowering tax rates doesn't make the rich richer. It reduces the amount of money you are taking from them. It's the very idea of inversely equating the amount the government takes from someone (a negative effect) with the person earning more money (a positive effect). There is no positive effect. No amount of taxes (whether higher or lower) "makes someone wealthier". Taxes make people poorer. All lowering or raising the tax rate does is affect the degree to which those taxes make people poorer.

That's the part you're not getting. You're so caught up in the words you don't understand the meaning. It's the concept of lower tax rates (reducing a negative effect) generating a positive result (increasing wealth) that I'm pointing out as something the left assumes, but which is absolutely incorrect. It does not matter how you word it.

Quote:
If I'm walking down the street with $1000 in my pocket and you pass by and decide not to rob me, I'm not $1000 richer; I'm at the same status quo I was at before.


Correct. But the articles I linked earlier were saying essentially that if every day you passed me by I took $50 from you, then one day I decided to only take $40 from you, that the fact that you had $10 more each day was making you richer. They then go on to effectively argue that a year later, you were $3650 richer because of this. The reality is that you are $14,600 poorer because of this. You are not richer. You aren't as much poorer than you'd have been if I took $50/day instead, but that's a reduction of a negative, not the creation of a positive.

Which is exactly what I've been saying that liberals have a hard time distinguishing between. You're kinda proving my point.

Quote:
On the other hand, if my $1000 mortgage gets lowered to $500, I am $500 richer at the end of each month.


You have $500 more dollars in hand in that case. But you'd have $1000 more dollars in hand in your first example. If you're just counting dollars, there isn't any difference (other than the exact numbers of course).

Quote:
There's a difference there that apparently eludes you.


The difference is that when you pay a mortgage, you are buying something of value. So that $500 payment results in some similar function of value in property you gain. When someone takes money from you and gives you nothing back, that's theft.

Um... One of those examples is a lot more like taxes. And it's not the mortgage example.


Again though. It's not about the quantity of dollars. That's what you liberals get caught up on. It's the concept that by not taking as much from someone, you are actually helping them is the fallacy that the left believes and the right sees (rightly) as false. It's a dangerous concept because it effectively tosses the idea of limited government out the window. If I can measure any tax relative to what it could have been otherwise, I can make any argument about taxing any group I want. I can always find some past time when tax rates were higher and then claim that by not having rates that high, I've made people richer. If I can measure government spending relative to what it could have been otherwise, I can do the same in the other direction. I can point to how much money we don't spend on some social program and calculate how much this has "cost" some group of people. It's what allows for argument's that by failing to pay for health care, we're hurting people, or that by failing to have higher tax rates, we're causing a deficit, or any of a number of other really absurd arguments that the left makes.

It's absurd and frankly useless because you can always make those arguments at any time and for any quantity.

Edited, Aug 9th 2012 1:34pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#50 Aug 09 2012 at 2:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
The difference is that when you pay a mortgage, you are buying something of value. So that $500 payment results in some similar function of value in property you gain. When someone takes money from you and gives you nothing back, that's theft.

Um... One of those examples is a lot more like taxes. And it's not the mortgage example.

Granted, I don't require the government to seize my bank accounts before I pay my taxes so your perspective here on taxes = theft is probably a lot different than that of the typical tax-payer. But tax money goes towards things that the elected government has decided is of value to the nation. You may not agree with their assessment, which is why we hold elections and all, but comparing it to theft is idiotic on multiple levels.

I guess there's another difference between liberals and conservatives, huh?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#51 Aug 09 2012 at 3:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,372 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
The difference is that when you pay a mortgage, you are buying something of value. So that $500 payment results in some similar function of value in property you gain. When someone takes money from you and gives you nothing back, that's theft.

Um... One of those examples is a lot more like taxes. And it's not the mortgage example.

Granted, I don't require the government to seize my bank accounts before I pay my taxes so your perspective here on taxes = theft is probably a lot different than that of the typical tax-payer. But tax money goes towards things that the elected government has decided is of value to the nation. You may not agree with their assessment, which is why we hold elections and all, but comparing it to theft is idiotic on multiple levels.


That's a valid point, but I think there's plenty of argument that taxes are somewhere between a thief just taking money and you paying for your own mortgage though. In any case, amusing as it may be, that's not really the point I'm making.

It's not about what we call it. It's not about whether it's "theft", or "taxes", or "donations". It's about the fact that liberals don't see a distinction between reducing a negative effect and creating a positive one. Or failing to create a positive effect and creating a negative one. Whether one says that the lack of higher taxes helped people get wealthier, or the presence of lower taxes did, doesn't matter. In both cases, there's an equivalence made between taking away less (decreasing a negative) with making those people wealthier (creating a positive effect).

While we can presumably agree in the abstract that if I normally beat you 10 times each morning, but then decide to only beat you 5 times today, that you are better off with the reduced beating, it's still wrong to view that as me actually helping you. I'm hurting you less. That's not the same thing, yet it's a point that liberals seem to fail to acknowledge pretty consistently. And not just not acknowledge, but seem to actually have a blindness about. Even when it's pointed out directly to them, they have a hard time seeing it or recognizing why it's significant.


it's significant because if you don't make a distinction between actions that reduce negative effects and those that create positive ones, you cannot create any sort of logical boundary to government power. It becomes (as I've often heard liberals state it) "whatever the people want it to be/do". Rights become, not something based in a logical rule, but whatever the majority decide they are. Limits on what government can or can't do are replaced with the desires of the voters at the moment. And that's explicitly *not* how our system of government was envisioned. It's a real problem, but it's hard to even talk about it when half of the debaters can't even see it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 59 All times are in CDT
Poldaran, unknownhost, Anonymous Guests (57)