User:Woozle/debate/2013-09-23

Mapping of some of the more complicated parts of this discussion:

to be entered
Bill McAdory +Woozle Hypertwin That is hilarious. So the person to gauge whether a hand out is, is the person receiving the confiscated thing? (money)?

Bill McAdory +Woozle Hypertwin Oh shock and dismay. You mean humanitarian liberals do not give enough and they need to rely on governement to "confiscate" the difference? Do you look at your pay stub and say to others Damn, I did not pay enough taxes again!?


 * 6.1 (Noel) It's interesting how so many people think tax avoidance is a bad thing. If some entity were trying to take your money, wouldn't you try to avoid that? If you wouldn't, why not simply voluntarily give your money to that entity?
 * 6.1.1 (Woozle) Becoming wealthy in a society gives society the right to reclaim some of that wealth as needed for its proper functioning.
 * 6.1.1.1 (Noel) Why? Do you claim that 95% of the world has the right to reclaim 'some' of your wealth as needed for their proper functioning?
 * 6.1.1.2 (Noel) Who defines 'some'?


 * 6.1.2 (Woozle) Those with the most money to spare are the most inclined and able to find ways of bending the rules to their advantage. This represents a significant loss to society, and very little loss to the individuals.
 * 6.1.2.1 (Noel) This is true only because people grant the state a monopoly on authority. Without the state, those with the most money will have to use their own resources for their own gain.
 * 6.1.2.2 (Noel) Without the state those with the most money to spare will be the ones most inclined to donate or loan the money. Money is just like any other commodity. The more excess (as defined by the owner) one has of it, the less value it will have to one.


 * 6.1.3 (Woozle) Most people do pay their taxes voluntarily, even if many of them complain about it.
 * 6.1.3.1 (Noel) You'll need to define 'voluntarily' here especially in light of examples like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irwin_Schiff.


 * 6.1.3 (Woozle) The tax-collection system could easily be made much less onerous; many of the ways in which it operates seem designed to frustrate and upset.?
 * 6.1.3.1 (Noel) The tax system grew out organically because two or more sides wanted representation of their views and there was lots of compromise. Having said that, each tax legislation is engineered to represent these opposing views. For example, what would you say about a NIT and elimination of all welfare, etc programs? I'm guessing you'll worry about some people not knowing how to handle their piece of the handout.?


 * 3.1.1.1 (Noel) I disagree. The more powerful the state, the more those most influential over it gain at the expense of those with less influence.
 * 3.1.1.1.1 (Woozle) There are numerous counterexamples to your assertion; see 7.1, 7.2.
 * 3.1.1.1.1.1 (Noel) Actually, 7.1 and 7.2 are examples supporting what I said. In Scandinavian countries, the group that's most influential is different from the most influential group in other countries. All people like you want is to be among the elite with the influence.


 * 3.1.1.1.1.1 (Woozle) Even in less-benevolent but very powerful governments such as China, special interests do not seem to have a dominant role.
 * 3.1.1.1.1.1 (Noel) Huh? The Communist party itself is the most influential. I recently saw an article showing just how rich Chinese politicians are.


 * 3.1.1.1.1.2 (Woozle) Are there even any good examples to illustrate your claim??
 * 3.1.1.1.1.2.1 (Noel) You provided them. Thanks.?

http://issuepedia.org/Principle_of_audience_benefit?
 * 7.3.2.1.3 (Noel) 'Working properly' is subjective. I'm sure those most influential over the state thinks things are working just fine.
 * 7.3.2.1.3.1 (Woozle) Those interests are generally hostile to our own. Of course they disagree with us. You are attempting to use the views of a hostile entity to support your position -- a violation of the principle of audience benefit:
 * 7.3.2.1.3.1.1 (Noel) And your interests are hostile to theirs. Are you suggesting that, for some objective reason, your interests ought to trump theirs??


 * 10.1.1.1.2 (Woozle) I'm still waiting for the capitalist paradise of universal living-wage employment to materialize. Funny, things seem to be going the other way, even...
 * 10.1.1.1.2.1 (Noel) see http://www.24hgold.com/english/contributor.aspx?article=4274825802G10020&contributor=Tim+Iacono - "Silver and the Minimum Wage". (Main point seems to be that if inflation weren't such a constant problem, minimum wage would currently be at a reasonable level. -W.) Also note that over the last 30 years, the dollar has devalued 40%, IIRC.
 * 10.1.1.1.2.1.1 (Woozle) Even a reasonable minimum wage would not solve the problem when automation is causing increasing permanent unemployment. (See #jobsolescence.)
 * 10.1.1.1.2.1.1.1 (Noel) First you bring up universal living-wage employment. Then, when I provide an answer you can't dispute, you change the topic.
 * 10.1.1.1.2.1.1.2 (Noel) Anyway, WRT #jobsolescence, yes, jobs disappear. That's part of efficiency. In fact, elimination of work is part of the point goal itself (eg we trade in order to gain from division of labor so that we may have more time to do the things we want to do).
 * 10.1.1.1.2.1.1.3 (Noel) Now, since jobs disappear due to efficiency gains, and one might not like the fact that jobs disappear, one might want to work towards greater inefficiency. One way to achieve such inefficiencies is to eliminate technological advances. Lots of jobs would be created, for example, if automobiles were eliminated (imagine all the horse manure that would need to be cleaned up, horseshoes that would have to be made, etc).


 * 10.1.1.1.2.1.2 (Noel) I'm starting to think the problem here is that people don't really understand what a dollar is. They think more of it is necessarily a good thing since they don't really grok that, due to the state's bias towards inflation, a dollar tomorrow isn't the same as a dollar today. All the while they think they're making more (because they're getting more dollars) but they're really making less (because the purchasing power of those dollars is much less). In other words, the powers-that-be are taking advantage of a psychological trick. The way not to fall for this is to use rationality and mathematics. (My interpretation: people think that printing more money will make them better off, when in fact it increases inflation which makes everyone less well-off. -W.)
 * 10.1.1.1.2.1.2.1 (Woozle) To what claim does this respond?
 * 10.1.1.1.2.1.2.1.1 (Noel) It's not a response to any claim per se. Rather, it's a response to the notion that 'more' is necessarily better when it comes to money -- the belief, usually internalized, that $1.05 next year is necessarily better than $1 today. This internalized belief is implied in discussions about minimum wage, money distribution, subsidies, etc. It's also implied when people don't even consider mentioning things like increased 'purchasing power' such that $1.05 last year may actually be worth less than $1 today.


 * 10.1.1.1.2.1.3.1 (Woozle) When you argue that the rich should not in any way be obliged to pay taxes, you seem to be arguing that more should be taken from the poor. The only explanation I can see is that this statement is faux sympathy -- a purely emotional soldier argument.?
 * 10.1.1.1.2.1.3.1.1 (Noel) First, 'pay taxes' is a misnomer -- rather, the money is taken from people. I want to point that out to demonstrate just how internalized the notion is to you.
 * 10.1.1.1.2.1.3.1.2 (Noel) I don't see how you draw the conclusion that if the 'rich' aren't obligated to 'pay taxes', more should be taken from the poor. Again, free markets are what made automobiles, computers, etc more widely available, accessible, and affordable to the masses. You seem not to see just how much the poor have gained from the rich.
 * 10.1.1.1.2.1.3.1.3 (Noel) I have no idea what you mean by 'faux sympathy'. I thought it's been clear that my arguments are based on the Non-Aggression Principle and that it ought to apply to everyone equally.
 * 10.1.1.1.2.1.3.1.4 (Noel) And if you're talking about emotional arguments, you need only look at your own.?


 * 7.3.2.1.2.1 (Noel) I would support, as a gigantic first step, a Negative Income Tax. This would also mean eliminating all welfare and social programs and trusting those receiving the benefits of NIT to use that money as they see fit.
 * 7.3.2.1.2.1.1 (Woozle) That sounds fine to me. Eliminate means testing and ensure that everyone has an adequate income. How is this any different from what I have been advocating??
 * 7.3.2.1.2.1.1.1 (Noel) Define 'adequate'.
 * 7.3.2.1.2.1.1.2 (Noel) I also think we differ in where to stop. I advocated the NIT as a first step. The goal is to drive down the tax rate to 0%.?


 * 7.3.3.1.2.1 (Woozle) Show me where a lack of government in a highly technological society has ever resulted in a situation where everyone had enough to live on.
 * 7.3.3.1.2.1.1 (Noel) I think this is such a BS question.
 * 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.1 (Woozle) It is nonetheless a question which I and others who hold my position consider to be of vital interest. If you wish to convince us of your position, you will need to either answer it or show how it is irrelevant.
 * 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.1.1 (Noel) I think I had demonstrated why it's BS. See 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.2.


 * 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.2 (Noel) We could go back to prior to the Civil War and ask for an example of a highly functioning society not using slave labor (the Northern States don't count since they still received benefits from the cheap goods made by slave labor).
 * 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.2.1 (Woozle) I don't think that can be used as an example of a highly technological society. The specific disqualifier is a high level of human labor required in order for society to function.
 * 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.2.1.1 (Noel) Ah, so if we went forward 100 years, you'd still use the same disqualifier since the definition of 'highly technological society' will have changed.
 * 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.2.1.2 (Noel) Suppose I requested, "Show me where a lack of religion in a highly technological society has ever resulted in a situation where there was no killing, stealing, etc." Why is that not a BS question?
 * 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.2.1.3 (Noel) Show me where the existence of a highly technological society has resulted in a situation where everyone had enough to live on. What are the opportunity costs in that society? Do they gain advantages from societies that create such things like Google, cell phones, the Internet, etc? If so, how are you so sure the wealth they gain from these things along with their government isn't responsible for everyone having enough to live on? IOW, if the rest of the world adopted their government, where would the wealth be generated which sustained everyone in their country having enough to live on?


 * 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.3 (Noel) The fact is that free markets generally drive prices down. This makes things much more affordable to wider populations. This is what made automobiles, computers, etc ubiquitous. But you think food is somehow different?
 * 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.3.1 (Woozle) You're conflating free-as-in-equal with free-as-in-unregulated here.
 * 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.3.1.1 I agree that free-as-in-equal markets drive prosperity.
 * 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.3.1.1 Regulation is necessary in order to maintain such a market.
 * 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.3.1.1.1 (Noel) This is an false assertion. Regulation wasn't what drove the price of automobiles, computers, etc down. Advances in efficiency is what drove down the prices.


 * 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.3.1.2 (Woozle) I disagree that free-as-in-unregulated markets drive prosperity except for the "top dogs".
 * 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.3.1.2.1 (Noel) Disagree all you want but it's not going to change the fact that you have a computer because prices were driven down unless you consider yourself to be a top dog.


 * 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.4 (Noel) OTOH, the state biases the economy towards inflation which transfers wealth from the poor to the rich. I think we've had this conversation before but I'm willing to repeat it for those who haven't heard it before.
 * 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.4.1 (Woozle) That is only how our state biases the economy.
 * 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.4.1.1 (Noel) Any state with a central bank will aim to control the economy. Can you name one state with a central bank that doesn't bias their economy towards inflation? What would be the purpose of a central bank if it doesn't aim to control the economy?


 * 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.4.1 (Woozle) Although I don't necessarily approve of this, an argument could be made that printing money to pay for universal welfare would be both a sustainable economic model and a non-coercive means of funding.?
 * 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.4.1.1 (Noel) One could argue it but such an argument is still flawed in that wealth is taken from those who hold money. If the new money is handed to the poor, those losing out would be the middle class (the rich would hold onto non-cash assets). I'm sure you know what happens when the middle class is eroded.
 * 7.3.3.1.2.1.1.4.2 (Noel) Further, inflation still creates incentives to spend rather than to save. My guess is that you would be against a consumerist society, but that's exactly what you'd be creating.?

Objections to What about Africa have been noted in What about Africa/debate.