"The poor need government so they don't starve.""Government should not be thrown out, because it will make things worse.""Minimum wage helps the poor."
"Trickle down economics does not work. We have to tax the rich to help the poor."
Schools are labour camps.
The responses:
1. The poor are starving because of government policies designed to make them dependent upon the government.
2. Worse than what?
3. It keeps them poor by limiting their employment avenues.
4. You cannot bring everyone up by tearing down the successful.
Knight_of_BAAWA:2. Worse than what?
Our current situation?
Yeah, I'm thinking only a Godzilla attack or actual bank bailout could make things worse.
eliotn: "The poor need government so they don't starve."
"The poor need government so they don't starve."
You can point out that government is the reason the poor have starved for centuries.
Think about it. Poor people in ancient times managed to get by until the armies of the Pharaoh showed up (or the emperor, or the Caesar, or the king...) and stole their land, enslaved them, and conscripted their children. Just ask one of the African farmers whose harvests had just been looted, or one of the Jews captured and enslaved after Jerusalem was burned to the ground, or ask a mother of one of the conscripts who was killed in war in medieval Europe. Ask if they "need government so they don't starve" and they will laugh in your face. These poor people would have been fully capable of feeding their families if only left to their own devices.
eliotn: We have to tax the rich to help the poor.
We have to tax the rich to help the poor.
Like I said, the poor could have fed their families if only left to their own devices. The poor don't need to steal from the rich to survive; the rich (the political and corporate elite) need to steal from the poor to survive!
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
Don't argue with your parents. That is not respectful.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
I think it's really cool that you have the guts to question your parents in this way, it can be very hard to do so because then we might realise that we got less in common with them then we'd like to think.
I was confronted with this problem just a couple of days ago when a girl in my economics class that I have become quite good friends with over the last weeks said the most insulting thing concerning peoples rights. There was a discussion in class, the teacher asked: Why do we tax smokers so much? Do people really have a right to clean air? What about the owner, isn't it up to them to decide if smoking should be aloud or not?
My so called "friend" raised her hand and went on a long rant about societies "duty" to help the simple minded smokers from them selves and why the cost of smoking related illness makes this into a political question and not a personal one. She concluded by pointing out that the right to live in a smoke free enviroment is more important then property rights and with a big smirk she adviced any smoker to "find help".
I'm not a smoker myself, but after this revelation I'm not so sure I ever want to speak to this facist again.
ama gi: You can point out that government is the reason the poor have starved for centuries. Think about it. Poor people in ancient times managed to get by until the armies of the Pharaoh showed up (or the emperor, or the Caesar, or the king...) and stole their land, enslaved them, and conscripted their children. Just ask one of the African farmers whose harvests had just been looted, or one of the Jews captured and enslaved after Jerusalem was burned to the ground, or ask a mother of one of the conscripts who was killed in war in medieval Europe. Ask if they "need government so they don't starve" and they will laugh in your face. These poor people would have been fully capable of feeding their families if only left to their own devices.
Awesome way of thinking about it. I can remember the Jews just desperately asking for a king (besides God, or rules set by the community, however you want to think about it) because they wanted defense (in the old testament). It turned into a nightmare.
But whenever I say that the rich steal from the poor, my dad says, "Tax what? the poor have nothing to be taxed."
Great discussion. Check for edits, as I am posting more things.
Magnus: I was confronted with this problem just a couple of days ago when a girl in my economics class that I have become quite good friends with over the last weeks said the most insulting thing concerning peoples rights. There was a discussion in class, the teacher asked: Why do we tax smokers so much? Do people really have a right to clean air? What about the owner, isn't it up to them to decide if smoking should be aloud or not? My so called "friend" raised her hand and went on a long rant about societies "duty" to help the simple minded smokers from them selves and why the cost of smoking related illness makes this into a political question and not a personal one. She concluded by pointing out that the right to live in a smoke free enviroment is more important then property rights and with a big smirk she adviced any smoker to "find help".
Heh, I challenge your "friend" to live in a world where property rights aren't enforceable. Watch her head turn as you say that anything that is hers can be stolen, or she could be murdered or raped.
Yeah, I'm that way too. I try avoid friendships with people who are too far lost. I have nothing in common with them. And I generally avoid arguments with my parents over these things, although they're more reasonable than most people.
Elliotn, considered putting yourself up for adoption?
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Sometimes people are wrong. That doesn't make them bad people. Only if they act out their wrong ideas, for example by becoming politicians, do they become bad people.
Indeed, but I'm not a patient person.
Stranger: Sometimes people are wrong. That doesn't make them bad people. Only if they act out their wrong ideas, for example by becoming politicians, do they become bad people.
I used to have a lot of patients with people who held the kind of beliefs that my "friend" has, but like Jon, I just don't have the patients for it anymore. Based on my own experience I know with almost complete certienty that given enough time they will show themselves to be narcicistic, violent and narrowminded.
Magnus:I used to have a lot of patients with people who held the kind of beliefs that my "friend" has, but like Jon, I just don't have the patients for it anymore. Based on my own experience I know with almost complete certienty that given enough time they will show themselves to be narcicistic, violent and narrowminded.
That certainly seems to be your attitude towards the English language.
I hardly ever post on this forum for that very reason, I know my english is far from perfect. I read a lot of the threads and posts on this forum (I have done that for the last 2 years) though and this isn't the first time I see you writing nonsense.
I have respect for the english language it's just that it isn't my native language so mistakes are made. I hardly think that what I wrote is so badly written that it's impossible to understand so in my eyes you are just trying to insult me, probably because you don't agree with me but you are to lazy or stupid to actually argue for your own principles.
"Don't argue with your parents. That is not respectful"
Is that the type of nonsense your parents have raised you to believe in? To never question people just because they are labeled "parents"? Ha! No wonder you are a bully!
Magnus: Is that the type of nonsense your parents have raised you to believe in? To never question people just because they are labeled "parents"? Ha! No wonder you are a bully!
Questioning people is a personal act of self-reflection. Arguing with them will be considered an aggression.
eliotn: ama gi: You can point out that government is the reason the poor have starved for centuries. Think about it. Poor people in ancient times managed to get by until the armies of the Pharaoh showed up (or the emperor, or the Caesar, or the king...) and stole their land, enslaved them, and conscripted their children. Just ask one of the African farmers whose harvests had just been looted, or one of the Jews captured and enslaved after Jerusalem was burned to the ground, or ask a mother of one of the conscripts who was killed in war in medieval Europe. Ask if they "need government so they don't starve" and they will laugh in your face. These poor people would have been fully capable of feeding their families if only left to their own devices. Awesome way of thinking about it. I can remember the Jews just desperately asking for a king (besides God, or rules set by the community, however you want to think about it) because they wanted defense (in the old testament). It turned into a nightmare. But whenever I say that the rich steal from the poor, my dad says, "Tax what? the poor have nothing to be taxed." Great discussion. Check for edits, as I am posting more things.
Aesop had that covered as well: ever heard of the stick-king? The frogs living in a pool thought, just like the Israelites, that they needed a powerful king to lead them to greatness. So they prayed to Zeus. The Father of the Gods laughed at first but then decided to have a bit of fun at their expenses and threw a stick in the aforementioned pool saying from the Olympus "I granted your wish: here's your king". It landed with a big splash and the frogs were suitably impressed and thanked Zeus. After a while they noticed that their new king did nothing but float on the surface of the pool: it didn't give orders, it didn't ask for money or honours, it didn't form the frogs in a powerful State. After a while the frogs realized that good old Zeus had pulled a fast one on them and so they asked for another king: "a mighty and terrible king, one we should fear and respect". Zeus shook his head at their foolishness but decided to grant their wish. A mighty and voracious heron landed in the pool and started to eat the frogs and make their lives a misery. "I granted your wish, here's your new king: fear him!".
Gotta love the Greeks!
Stranger:Arguing with them will be considered an aggression.
Hmm, there goes argumentation ethics.
Magnus:I hardly ever post on this forum for that very reason, I know my english is far from perfect. I read a lot of the threads and posts on this forum (I have done that for the last 2 years) though and this isn't the first time I see you writing nonsense.
Don't let that deter you from posting. People that are anal (or not understanding that this is the internet where millions are required to post out of language) about grammar and spelling don't have anything better to offer than editorial criticism.
I'd prefer it if more people who understood Austrian economics posted, rather than people with a good command of the English language but little to no understanding of it. So by all means, do post more frequently.
eliotn: But whenever I say that the rich steal from the poor, my dad says, "Tax what? the poor have nothing to be taxed."
This couldn't be further from the truth. Just because someone is not being directly taxed from a paycheck or through a sales tax (which poor people often are both, depending on their locality [even if they are taxed on income and get a tax return, the time-value of that money is lost]) does not mean that indirect taxes do not exist. There's another thread going on about poverty in ghettos where a few secondary and tertiary taxes and injustices occur, but the largest perpetrator comes down to dilution of purchasing power through fiat currency and fractional reserve banking. Some argue that, yes, "2.5%" inflation, or whatever some rubber-stamper declares to be the rate of inflation, is reasonable year after year. This is horrific as it is not obvious to the most individuals and is not taught in any public or private school that I know of. This hidden tax destroys the lower and middle classes while the wealthy remain relatively unscathed; consider not only the few dollars that a poor or middle class person has to use to choose their lifestyle and compound a 2.5% (ha) deduction annually. Now, add in the price inflation that occurs as producers and businesses add to keep up with said inflation and compound it by their industries relying on other industries whose prices are increasing. The margin grows dramatically. I hope this helps your argument.
I discovered the truth of Austran Econ when I started questioning the world around me; why does minimum wage have to constantly be adjusted after over 50 years of having it "helping the poor"? Why was a soda from a vending machine $0.25 when I was a kid and now its $1.50 in some places? Why are some people still poor in our country despite millions of dollars going directly to their aid? Moreover, why are even many of the poorest here better off than 98% of humanity that has ever lived? Perhaps just getting someone to question such ideas will help. What I am getting at is this; there may be hope for your parents to shake off the force-fed generalities of a mediocre press and years of petty two party participation, but I would not count on it. The wonder and idealism of youth combined with intellect and reason will usually find the right path. I'm in my early twenties and have discussed these issues to a logical conclusion with many of my elders, whom I love dearly, but demolish their beliefs in propagandic lies and they do not change their actions (rhetoric, maybe, but that would be too much like the current political system). They cannot refute the truth but choose to ignore it and resort to Marxian tactics of ad hominem, even something as simple as "you're just an idealist." The best way to instill knowledge is through persuasive discussion, especially in younger individuals. Even if you plant but a seed of wonder in their mind, perhaps one day they will want to know more.
As one of the great Romantics wrote, "all the forces in the world are not as powerful as an idea whose time has come."
I am glad to know there are others like me out there and welcome all to the greatest study of peace and prosperity. Continue your quest for truth. As always, I would appreciate more elaboration and improvement on my comments from others. Plus, I apologize for ranting, but it has been festering.
eliotn: "The poor need government so they don't starve.""Government should not be thrown out, because it will make things worse.""Minimum wage helps the poor." "Trickle down economics does not work. We have to tax the rich to help the poor."
more nonsense:
"Anarchy does not work. If there is ever anarchy, then lots of violence will occur, like in somalia."
"There is less regulation right now, then there was 10 years ago. Because of this, the financial crisis was caused by deregulation."
"We need to reform the healthcare system to government healthcare. That will solve the problems."
"Liberterians think that coercing one rich guy is worse than the starving multitude because the rich guy hoarded his money."
please post and comment
eliotn:more nonsense: "Anarchy does not work. If there is ever anarchy, then lots of violence will occur, like in somalia."
There's a lot of violence in Washington DC, NYC, LA, etc, and we don't have anarchy.
eliotn:"There is less regulation right now, then there was 10 years ago.
Actually, there's more, especially in light of Sarbannes-Oxley, which makes stock companies have their earnings statements certified and all that nonsense.
eliotn:"We need to reform the healthcare system to government healthcare. That will solve the problems."
Of "overpopulation", as it were, yes. There's a reason why there's a saying "close enough for government work".
eliotn:"Liberterians think that coercing one rich guy is worse than the starving multitude because the rich guy hoarded his money."
Isn't it his money to begin with? Why should the rules change just because a person is rich?
Let your father know that the alternative is for that rule to be applied to him, so he must be coerced to pay for every starving person possible.
Knight_of_BAAWA: eliotn:more nonsense: "Anarchy does not work. If there is ever anarchy, then lots of violence will occur, like in somalia." There's a lot of violence in Washington DC, NYC, LA, etc, and we don't have anarchy.
But, the violence will be worse in anarchy. It will lead to a civil war.
oops double post
Civil war implies sides fighting for control of a government, as was oftimes the case in midieval Europe. Where there were clearly governments.
And there of course is no reason to believe the violence would be worse in anarchy. Explain to your father that anarchy does not mean chaos.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Civil war implies sides fighting for control of a government, as was oftimes the case in midieval Europe. Where there were clearly governments. And there of course is no reason to believe the violence would be worse in anarchy. Explain to your father that anarchy does not mean chaos.
if you opt-out of government, you are totally helpless, as you cannot use the services that government provides.
So long as the government does not outlaw private provision of them, there is no problem. If it does, there is a problem: namely, that it has set up for itself a monopoly. Either way, it has no argument.
More nonsense ideas:
"You can't refuse government because it provides public goods!"
"Obama will be a good leader because he has heart; he cares about the poor!"
"Since you oppose welfare and these government benefits to the poor, you are a heartless monster, and your opinion is invalid."
"Since you are opposed to government, you are against community!"
eliotn: More nonsense ideas: "You can't refuse government because it provides public goods!" "Obama will be a good leader because he has heart; he cares about the poor!" "Since you oppose welfare and these government benefits to the poor, you are a heartless monster, and your opinion is invalid." "Since you are opposed to government, you are against community!"
1. It also then provides "public bads", too.
2. Caring means nothing without the deeds, and his deeds will harm everyone.
3-4: ad hominem fallacies/non sequitur
Knight_of_BAAWA: 1. It also then provides "public bads", too. 2. Caring means nothing without the deeds, and his deeds will harm everyone.
1. No, these things are good for everyone. Without them, the mises.org website would be non-existant, you could not have utilities, there would be no roads, etc. etc.
2. Obama will not harm everyone. His policies will help the poor. Sure, they may harm the rich, but the rich just hoard their money.
</ my parent's nonsense>
More Nonsense:
"We need to do the big bailout! Otherwise, everyone will suffer!"
1. Assertion/non sequitur. They're supplanting their own values for those of others and have provided no solid argument.
2. Assertion based on utter ignorance of economics.
I reiterate my earlier suggestion.
eliotn: "You can't refuse government because it provides public goods!"
This is a very loaded proposition. (What's a public good anyway?) Even if the state does provide public goods why can they not be provided by other (non-violent) means? Why should they be provided at all (is it the end of the world as we know it if they aren't)? Most importantly, how does it imply that one cannot refuse government? Externalities? Pffft!
eliotn: "Obama will be a good leader because he has heart; he cares about the poor!" "Since you oppose welfare and these government benefits to the poor, you are a heartless monster, and your opinion is invalid."
In the early stages of my conversion to libertarianism, while I realized, or was slightly cognizant of the fact, that the state's taking the property of another without consent is ethically wrong (and hence welfare is illegitimate), it was very unintuitive to me. Now, unfortunately, while it's perfectly clear to me, I have no memory of how I acquired intuition for it, so I'm somewhat at a loss for how to explain it so socialists get it.
Statists in general always try to justify some state action by saying it is necessary (whatever that means), from which they implicitly conclude that plundering some people is permissible. Of course, if one assumes that plunder is not permissible (as any civilized person does), by contraposition of the statists' own principle it follows that the state's action is not necessary at all.
eliotn: "Since you are opposed to government, you are against community!"
This notion is absurd on its face; can one really contend that the only reason people are civil toward each other or are even capable of congregation is because they have the state watching over them? Introspection alone should be enough to refute this idea.
Here's a quote from Bastiat: "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."
Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!
Eliotn, you aren't going to convert your parents with a battle of slogans.
I'd recommend dropping the subject, but if you do continue try to address the nature of government.
eg. Governments are not defined by a monopoly to enforce the law, but by the monopoly privilege to break the law.
Peace
*whispers* kill your parents, kill your parents
Brainpolice: *whispers* kill your parents, kill your parents
You sound like Molyneux.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
How about this:
"You think that the government employees loosing their jobs is good. Think about all of the suffering!""You know, we should have you fast for 3 weeks. It would be very educational for you."
When is my father actually going to post good arguments in his case for government intervention?
GilesStratton: Brainpolice: *whispers* kill your parents, kill your parents You sound like Molyneux.
Wrong, Molyneux would tell you to ask them about their relations with their mothers.
eliotn: How about this: "You think that the government employees loosing their jobs is good. Think about all of the suffering!""You know, we should have you fast for 3 weeks. It would be very educational for you." When is my father actually going to post good arguments in his case for government intervention?
He's a very emotive man, not a bad thing mind you, just a weakness that is exploited. Individuals who are "rational" become subject to their own demons. Ask him about the suffering of the taxed poor, the small businessmen, the people forced to live in ghetto's due to zoning laws. Whatever you do, DON'T try and call his arguements non sequir or anything like that, try and work "through" their notions, not presenting your own. I did and it made the arguement a lot less frictionless.
Mlee: eliotn: How about this: "You think that the government employees loosing their jobs is good. Think about all of the suffering!""You know, we should have you fast for 3 weeks. It would be very educational for you." When is my father actually going to post good arguments in his case for government intervention? He's a very emotive man, not a bad thing mind you, just a weakness that is exploited. Individuals who are "rational" become subject to their own demons. Ask him about the suffering of the taxed poor, the small businessmen, the people forced to live in ghetto's due to zoning laws. Whatever you do, DON'T try and call his arguements non sequir or anything like that, try and work "through" their notions, not presenting your own. I did and it made the arguement a lot less frictionless.
sry, last part didn't make any sense. I was saying that I had called an arguement that was emotional made by someone else, the "if you don't like it here you can leave" and I challenged it as irrelevent, this increased the heat of the arguement and made it far less productive.