How does one answer an argument such as this?

I once argued with someone on the nature of taxation. It went something like this:

My opponent: Millionaires should pay more in taxes. I'd rather have a new park than they have more stuff. The money belongs to the government, anyway.

Me: Why does it belong to the government?

My opponent: The government lends out money on the condition that it is returned; therefore, people should return the money when taxed.

Well, I was left incredulous. I didn't say anything back; I didn't know how to respond other than saying "that isn't true" which would have been rather unconvincing.

Currently, I'm trying to articulate a convincing rebuttal to this argument (and other arguments like it), but I'm unable to do so.

So, I'm interested in hearing some thoughts on the matter...

(This argument just recently resurfaced in my mind, but I believe I captured it well enough in the recap.)

Post 1

Thursday, May 30, 2013 - 8:17pm

So HE is the reason birth control was invented!

Post 2

Friday, May 31, 2013 - 4:37am

Questions begged:

1. What is money?
2. Why does the government have a monopoly on money?
3. Is it moral for the government to possess such a monopoly?

Those are just a start, but I lack time for more at the moment.

Post 3

Friday, May 31, 2013 - 7:03am

The government loans out money to everyone? How much did he borrow? Where do I go to get my loan - all these years I must have been repaying other people's loans?

Post 4

Friday, May 31, 2013 - 10:57am

My opponent: The government lends out money on the condition that it is returned; therefore, people should return the money when taxed.

Your opponent sounds like a complete idiot. The government borrows multiples of what it lends, and its debt gets bigger and bigger.

Post 5

Friday, May 31, 2013 - 11:37am

KJB: "I didn't know how to respond other than saying "that isn't true" which would have been rather unconvincing.

Currently, I'm trying to articulate a convincing rebuttal to this argument (and other arguments like it), but I'm unable to do so.

MJ: "Your opponent sounds like a complete idiot."

Really.

Kyle, why on Earth do you think that refuting such assertions is a productive use of your time? I participate in discussions, also, for instance on LinkedIn. I say what I have to say and let it go. Anyone as insightful as you are will appreciate what you have to offer. The other people just clutter up the world.

Post 6

Saturday, June 1, 2013 - 3:12am

Jules,
--------------------------------------------------
So HE is the reason birth control was invented!
--------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, an offspring's statements and actions can't be known before hand (before the offspring exists). If such statements and actions could be known, birth control would be all the more effective at preventing said statements and actions. There's a market just waiting to emerge! Hmm, what to call it...

Oh, I know! "Clairvoyant Contraception"!

Yes, Yes? No?

I want your folk's opinion, do I try too hard?

Luke,
--------------------------------------------------
Questions begged:

1. What is money?
2. Why does the government have a monopoly on money?
3. Is it moral for the government to possess such a monopoly?

Those are just a start, but I lack time for more at the moment.
--------------------------------------------------

Some more questions raised:

4. Who gave the government such authority?
5. Why is this authority legitimate?
6. How the hell do you know that?

Steve,
--------------------------------------------------
The government loans out money to everyone? How much did he borrow? Where do I go to get my loan - all these years I must have been repaying other people's loans?
--------------------------------------------------

I should have given the above quote as a response.

It may have confused him since he used "lend" to mean "inject into the economy for use among the participants".

Merlin,
--------------------------------------------------
Your opponent sounds like a complete idiot. The government borrows multiples of what it lends, and its debt gets bigger and bigger.
--------------------------------------------------

See response to Steve.

I wouldn't call him a complete idiot, well, not without further evidence. It could just be a serious blind-spot in an otherwise flawless mind. Do I hope for too much? Yes, yes I do.

Michael,
--------------------------------------------------
Really.

Kyle, why on Earth do you think that refuting such assertions is a productive use of your time? I participate in discussions, also, for instance on LinkedIn. I say what I have to say and let it go. Anyone as insightful as you are will appreciate what you have to offer. The other people just clutter up the world.
--------------------------------------------------

Sometimes it's just so hard to leave an assertion unchallenged. Also, I had this argument a little over a year ago (and on Youtube, no less). I've learned since.

Also, I love argument. I love challenging others and being challenged. There is a quote by Rand to the effect "There are no losers in an argument. If my opponent 'loses', he will benefit by amending his worldview. If I win, I benefit by my opponent's improved worldview."

Did she say something to that effect? I think I she said it somewhere at sometime (in book format).

I'm fairly certain I didn't imagine the quote and attribute it to her.

Additionally, was that a compliment? Have I ever offered anything on this forum (or any other forum) that would lead someone to believe that I am insightful?

Also, the clutter has the vote.

If my post seems a bit...unorganized, it's because I'm typing this at 5:00 in the morning. Which raises the question, "Why am I typing this at 5:00 in the morning?"

Good night (or good morning to the early birds).

Post 7

Saturday, June 1, 2013 - 8:51pm

Kyle,

I'm like you: inquisitive and interested in arguments -- because arguments reveal thoughts, and thoughts are important.

The notion about the government having rights to all of the money in the world was already dealt with by others here, but something could be fleshed out a little more regarding the notion of paying one's "fair share."

This person makes a moral claim that millionaires should pay more, but it is based on noncognitive subjectivism or emotivism (i.e., subjective whim-worship). The reason given for the moral claim -- that millionaires should pay more -- is because this person feels like that. By elevating their own personal feelings up onto a throne of moral authority over others, it is erroneously believed that the use of initiated (redistributive) force on others is "good" (i.e, moral or ethical). But that conclusion only follows from an argument where one's own feelings are supreme in the first place.

A caller on a recent Limbaugh show quipped that we live in a time where strong emotions are accepted as a legitimate substitute for critical thinking. It's an unintended consequence of the mass adoption of existentialism as the guiding principle of one's life, similar to that observed in the Weimer republic of pre-Hitler Germany. Here's a good quote:

1930
============
Under the species of syndicalism and fascism there appears for the first time in Europe a type of man who does not want to give reasons or to be right, but simply shows himself resolved to impose his opinions.--Jose` Ortega y Gasset
============

C&P'ed from:
http://rebirthofreason.com/Spirit/Blogs/19.shtml

While your interlocutor gave "reasons" they were not sound reasons (i.e., good reasons), but were instead either cloak or confession.

Ed

Post 8

Sunday, June 2, 2013 - 10:44am

Kyle, we all like debate, or we would not be here. And we like the challenge. So, you will get no argument from me on those points.

Myself, also, I am not fast on my feet with zingers. Also, as Rand underscored, I look to learn from engagement and debate. So, the premise that the government lends money with an expectation that it be repaid would carry weight with me -- assuming the premise that the money originates there. It can come from anywhere to get to the government, but once the government gets it, the expectation of repayment would be valid. But after sleeping on that, it would occur to me (I hope) that deeper questions need to be raised.

I do rely on first principles. Most of my casual thinking when discussing life, the universe, and everything, with people around me tends to draw from basic truths. So, to me, when I read the point raised, the first thing I noted was that taxation (of "the rich" however defined, or of anyone else) has nothing to do with "loans" from the government. They are two different things.

We have had this discussion here. I accept the validity of a progressive income tax as one fair way to finance a (limited) government. Everyone else disagrees with me. And I don't argue. I made my case and there it rests.

Taxation is "giving back a loan" only if you are a govenment employee.

Old guys have stories. Here is one of mine. I was in a college physics class. It was a typical morning. The instructor was going over the homework. Students raised their hands and asked, "How do you do Number 5?" and "What equation do you use for Number 4?" and so on and finally, he stopped. I mean he'd been doing this his whole professional life and suddenly a light went on. He said, "You would go out in the back yard and shoot hoops for 45 minutes and not make one shot and still say you had a good time. How long did you spend on Number 5?"

So, how long did you spend on this one? Now that you have had time and have seen our replies, what comes to your own mind?

Post 9

Sunday, June 2, 2013 - 11:25am

Kyle:

The dog ate my homework. I responded to this yesterday morning, but was having issues with the site, it was a little slow and balky(don't know why, seems fine now)and my post was lost.

I'll try again. I need a break from the joys of code wonkage...

You've run into an existentially terrified child, who wants what they want, and will say anything in support of that want, including gibberish such as the view that the government is the fountain of all current accounts, who lends it out on the condition that it be returned to its rightful owner, and so on. Of course, as you point out, they just mean to limit that to 'the issuer of currency' -- but it bespeaks a monumental lack of understanding of value for value-proxy for value transactions, which are the only pump handle pulling engines of our economies. Focusing on the value-proxies is both fun and profitable -- they are not value, they are not the effort to create that value, but because of their nature as value-proxies in our economies, they are 100% fungible for actual value.

What the government does is focus on the value-proxy half of the value for value-proxy economies; the half that involves no human effort/value at all.

Government is the issuer of value-proxies. not value.

But even the lefty you are debating with might even know that at some level, or maybe not, but it wouldn't matter.

When confronted with an existentially terrified adult/child, the question isn't so much how to rationally respond, but why? Not only why to respond, but why they are existentially terrified. Understand that, and you have at least a shot at the rest. But without that, it is exactly like reasoning with an existentially terrified child, screaming in terror at a universe perceived as a horror show.

Hitler is the classic example of an existentially terrified human being. Read Mein Kampf; his childhood hunger drove him. Insane, apparently. He spent the rest of his miserable existence striking back at a universe of pain.

The modern variants live in relative comfort...which is part of what terrifies them. They nether understand nor comprehend the connection between the universe, as it is, and their present condition inside of it. The more complex modernity gets, the more abstract that connection becomes. We all find ourselves increasingly dependent on the inscrutable math of others far over the horizon, and that realization terrifies some of us, driving those some to claw over others, whatever is necessary, to keep from drowning in this existence. If that means enslaving others in our service as we cling to some fine print self-issue 'Social Contract" then so be it, whatever it takes, the reality boat is swamped and we're terrified. The time it takes for that Social Contract waving in the wind to transform into a whip is measured in milliseconds when wielded by an existentially terrified child. Whatever it takes. Just like a Hitler.

(There is a "B" movie that illustrates this, "Cube," with a giveaway in the trailer: "You have to save yourselves from yourselves.")

Idiots used to be culled by an uncaring universe. Modernity has evolved to permit not only survival, but success, by complete idiots. This terrifies alot of the idiots-- the realization that they are miles above the ground without the first f'n clue.

And so they flail.

When there is a mob of them flailing, and you are one, the rational thing to do is to get the Hell out of the way.

We cannot really change that world, we can only change ourselves. The universe, in the end, will still cull stupidity, be it individual or group based.

In this case, don't let 'change' mean, "join the flailers."

regards,
Fred

Post 10

Monday, June 3, 2013 - 4:53pm

I'm late to the party!

Kyle,

Next time you hear that, ask the individual making the assertion if life is merely a government controlled treadmill, because that's what he's just theoretically created. If government owns all money, then government owns all trade. If government owns all trade, then it owns all ability. You get the idea.

What if the rich guy said "screw this government money treadmill! I'll only trade in gold and silver from now on!"

Post 11

Monday, June 3, 2013 - 9:05pm

If producers defended themselves and retaliated from theft, whether from individuals or a mob... then the USD wouldn't be fiat money, it would still be gold. Except today it would probably defined by a count of moles instead of troy ounces.

Keeping USD and bonds allows the Federal Reserve to steal from you via inflation. Monetary base is 3.17 Trillion (10^12) USD and rising, diluting the value of your wallet, bank account, & bonds. Gold, silver, and bitcoin are more limited in supply and are better suited to keep market purchasing power.

Edit: woops, I didn't answer the thread question. The root of the argument is whether individuals should have control (ownership) over private property and be able to do mutually consensual trade without theft/tax (capitalism)... or if the majority/elite should dictate control over individuals. To win an argument, you have to win by deduction or weakly by induction. But this argument contains "should", so you need to fall back to primary goals and then deduce from there. Leeches on the most productive have different survival strategies than producer/traders (different "shoulds"). Or said another way, they have a different set of humans whom they consider their friends & enemies. Objectivist: all innocent (capitalism) humans are friends. Socialist: humans who help me confiscate to increase my wealth are my friends.
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores on 6/03, 9:21pm)

Post 12

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 - 5:23pm

Dean,

Good comeback. It is normally not good to criticize -- even to constructively criticize -- someone on your side just when they are acting to defend own your values, but I want to discuss one disagreement that I have with what you said ...

To win an argument, you have to win by deduction or weakly by induction.

I think by induction you mean enumeration (counting instances of outcomes). And if that's true, this statement would read more clearly as:

To win an argument, you have to win by deduction or weakly by [enumeration].

When you say that a strong way to make an argument is by deduction and that a weak way to make an argument is by induction, then you are saying that induction cannot lead to a strong argument (like deduction can) -- but that is only the case with the counterfeit ("enumerative") sense of the term (the "popular" sense). Real or genuine induction is not counterfeit. Real or genuine induction involves more than counting up outcomes. But your original wording did not capture that fact. You may disagree, so I will provide a short example. Take swans.

If you count swans, then perhaps the first million you see will be white, and you will make an enumerative (weak) argument that all swans are white. However, if you capture the understanding that an interplay of genetic material and environmental cues are the only 2 factors which give rise to feather color, then you will proceed differently to arrive at a generalization of whiteness for swan feathers. Your inductive generalization will not be as precise as the enumerative one, but it will be more accurate.

Indeed, properly formed, it will always be accurate.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/05, 5:28pm)

Post 13

Thursday, June 6, 2013 - 5:21am

An entity takes cash from you by force; you have no choice in the matter. They unilaterally set the price for the remote value they claim to be providing on your behalf, some of which is absolutely true. We must pay for common necessary government.

But, it turns out, the way that entity actually provides value is to turn around and hand that cash-- value-proxies that were just taken from you a minute ago-- back to you and demand actual value. It turns out, you are providing the actual value-- whether in the form of materials, services, or your untimely death on a battlefield far away in pursuit of what are claimed to be national interests.

So...the government takes cash from all of us, more or less,...then turns around and hands it back to just some of us, demanding value in exchange.

My question is...how can such a process ever be considered 'stimulative?' It appears to simply be a drain on the economies.

The government shows up...and demands value, holding either paper with wet ink or paper that it just took from you a minute ago. Stimulus? How? Humans must run uphill to pony up the value demanded. Printing money and/or simply taking money from someone is not a running uphill human activity. It creates no new value in the universe. The only value in this exchange is that demanded in exchange for the value-proxies.

There is no net stimulus in public debt/tax fueled spending.

None. There is only local and selective stimulus. State cronyism. DC and the burbs, today.

We are witnessing a failed social experiment. Full speed ahead.

Post 14

Friday, June 7, 2013 - 10:57pm

Ed, agreed, I should have said weaker. Inductive arguments can be so strong that they are worth accepting into your worldview... and be useful to you.

Fred: I think that some of the talking heads are liars who knowingly profit from insider trading or are directly/indirectly benefiting from being part of the first spenders of the newly created dollars. Then other talking heads just repeat what others say and don't ever think for themselves. Finally, the media is financed by the Fed and its primary customers are advertisement watching professional welfare collecting couch potatoes... so the Austrian perspective doesn't get much air time. Peter Schiff is still given some time here and there... although the talking heads will frequently laugh at him or try to focus the conversation on inconsequentials.

Post 15

Saturday, June 8, 2013 - 7:58am

Dean,

How about this inductive argument?:

1) Because of the empirical observation of particular animals, it can be generalized that they are made up of matter organized into tissue.
2) Because of the empirical observation of particular elephants, it can be generalized that elephants have regular organs like hearts and lungs and that they also have bodies and their bodies have appendages like legs and trunks.
3) Because of the empirical observation of particular organs and bodies and appendages, it can be generalized that when we see such things, that they are composed of cells.
4) Because of the empirical observation of particular cells, it can be generalized that they are not empty, but instead are made up of material in a cytoplasm surrounded by a membrane.
5) Because of the empirical observation of the particular mass of such things, it can be generalized that all individual elephants (past, present, future) have a mass exceeding 1 microgram.

One feature of this inductive generalization is that its contradiction -- and it only takes 1 counter-example to contradict a universal proposition -- is that its contradiction is impossible. For instance, the number of cells required to create organs and appendages has a lower limit, and the mass of cells has a lower limit, and the product of these 2 numbers has a lower limit -- and 1 microgram is below this lower limit. Just as you cannot get blood from a stone, or draw a round square, so too, this inductive generalization cannot be false.

What do you say about that, Dean? For instance, do you want to try to argue that perhaps there could be some organs which do not contain any cells? Do you want to try to argue that perhaps there can be some elephants without any organs? Do you want to try to argue that cellular material does not necessarily have to have mass?

Wouldn't you have to break context (i.e., commit a fallacy) in order to mount a rebuttal to this argument?

Ed

Post 16

Saturday, June 8, 2013 - 9:45am

Ed, I think you are defining what an elephant is, so then you have deduction not induction.

Most Elephant organs are necessary for longer term (longer than a few months). Otherwise at some point in the future after an organ is removed or broken, something critical to the remainder of the animal's cell's lives will be missing and cause cell death. For example, skin removal, kidney removal, heart removal... each would result in cell death by different cause in different time frames. If an elephant was intact except its heart was skillfully sergically removed, then the heart incinerated... is the remainder of the elephant still an elephant?

Mushrooms appear to have organs, but really they are single celled organisms. At the micro level, cells have organelles. Asexual single celled organisms live on their own (their organelles perform all actions necessary for life) and can later successfully reproduce by themselves. Vs multicellular organisms are clusters of cells (and maybe inorganic matter) where subsets of the cells are more specialized and formed into large organs.

Is a fertalized elephant egg (had enough time to complete genetic/cytoplasmic fusion with sperm, but not enough time to split into two cells) still an elephant?

If a female elephant had a genetic mutation and grew up to be a dwarf, would it still be an elephant? What if the female had many dwarf children, and the dwarf children became very successful living on their own in a different ecological niche than regular sized elephants? What if another genetic mutation resulted in no tusks, which became the only extant kind of dwarf elephant? 2 peices of cartilage lining end of snout to help stiffness of trunk? Snout end cartilage made into bone instead? Snout bones ending as two half circles near eachother on the sides of the trunk end? Flat overlapping ends? Convex and concave fitting surfaces? Eventually so convex & concave they are formed interlocked and inseperable before birth, now called bones for jaws? Is this still an elephant? What if this dwarf elephant with a snout jaw can still successfully reproduce with elephants who kept their old ecological niche and hadn't changed much? What if reproduction resulted in infertile offspring? Or no offspring?

What extent of genetic and resulting structural/functional differences do you permit before you decide two organisms are both elephants, or that one is an elephant and the other is not?

You could call them decendant of elephant... true... so long as their genetics are similar enough that you can determine they have a common ancestor... or if you have the genetic or fossil record.

What if some of the genetic parents were not elephants or elephant genetic mutations due to radiation/oxidation etc? Such as horizontal gene transfer via virus?

Sorry for spelling/grammer mistakes... cell phone gotta go laters!

Post 17

Saturday, June 8, 2013 - 1:14pm