How to Defeat a Liberal in a Debate

You have a very poor understanding of deontological ethics and consequentialism.

An argument based on deontological ethics is more than a subjective statement of what you believe in. You mentioned natural law. Natural law is derived from reason, and our natural rights come from our ability to use logic to deduce them based on human nature and our environment. There is nothing subjective about this.

Consequentialism on the other hand holds that the morality of an act is based on the outcome, or the consequence, of that act - ie ends justifies the mean. (Note that a consequentialist argument is still an argument based on morality.) The problem with consequentialism is that it is an incoherent and irrational ethical theory. Carried out to its extreme, it can lead to massive abuses of liberty on the scale of what was experienced in Nazi Germany.

From my experience, deontological arguments are invariably more effective against liberals.

 

You're ridiculous.

This is similar to the argument that taxation is theft/slavery (which actually is a more sound argument.)

 

Nope. It refers directly to the contract. A quick perusal of labour economics (both orthodox and heterodox) will confirm that the labour contract can only be understood with reference to both exchange and coercion.

 

Abundant regulation, massive spending, massive deficits, are considered "moving towards conservative economic policies?"

In what world?

 

Simple math. Our income after interest is 1.65 Trillion 900 Billion is way too much.

Obviously the increase from 350 Billion to 900 Billion from 2000 - 2008 did not have a lasting effect on revenue because our revenue decreased from 2.7 Trillion to 2.1 Trillion after 2008.

Our deficit is 1.3 Trillion and our total debt is now at 15 Trillion which is 100% of GDP.

 

There's no such beast. You haven't factored in, for example, the growth generated by the military sector. I've been part of the campaign against the arms trade for some time. However, the idea that we can simply gut the military sector and think its 'save save save' is naivety run amok.

 

Your claim is based on LTV, which has been discredited by economists of all (or most) schools of thought. To equate a labor contract (mutual consent) to a violation of property rights underscores a lack of fundamental knowledge of law, property rights, and ethics.

 

Nope and, given I referred to consistency in orthodox and heterodox economics, your post is nonsensical

 

Explain how mutual consent is a violation of property rights.

 

To have a market characterised purely by exchange we would have wages related to criteria such as the marginal revenue productivity of labour. We don't see that. Underpayment, underemployment and involuntary unemployment are the norm. All of those features describe coercion within the labour contract

 

Capitalist economics is not based on mutual consent. It's based on coercion which comes in the guises of a choice where the option is to surrender one's claim to one's own productive faculties or starve.

 

Underpayment and underemployment have nothing to do with coercion and violation of property rights. I'd also add that there are numerous layers of distortion to labor markets as a result of government intervention. In the absence of those distortions, the price of labor would be more reflective of the true value of labor - ie the market value.

 

Again, claiming that it is "based on coercion" is not enough. Why is it coercion?

The mutual consent is present because both parties agree on the terms of the contract. If one of the parties happens to violate those terms, the other party can take them to civil court in order to obtain compensation.

 

Which can apply in situations where property rights are not clearly defined, and parties instead negotiate. Of course, the theory falls flat when property rights already exist, or when the scope and number of people involved make such an externality impossible to negotiate. Or in the case of merit goods, as you mentioned. Going back to the list I mentioned, may of them would likely fall in this category

- clean air/water/etc - arguably a "private property" that we're all entitled to. If someone wants to profit from polluting these resources, the burden to pay for these costs should be on them, not on the people effected to pay the company to reduce the pollution. Asymmetric information, and transactional costs for dealing with those who are effected by the exernality can be difficult as well, depending on the situation.
- fish stock - We can already see the failures in this market with the depletion of the stocks of fish, likely due to the number of people involved. The fact that the stock of fish is renewable makes this a market worth protecting, unlike, say, oil, where the amount we have is finite regardless of who or how fast it's taken out. Oil drilling, on the other hand, makes a good candidate for the Coase Theorem (ignoring pollution and other alterations to the terrane).
- software, digital music - Difficulty in excluding and transaction costs involved, which can be more than the marginal cost of production itself.
- invention/technology/Public Information - The scope of this one is enormous, effecting virtually everyone. Negotiating the positive externalities would be virtually impossible.
- medical treatment, food, water, etc. - merit goods that social norms would dictate people are entitled to, regardless of ability to pay, and regardless of someone else's ability to pay more for your share (assuming a shortage).

Granted, externalities CAN be negotiated in many cases besides the ones listed, but that supposes a situation where there are no pre-existing entitlements, and that negotiating is practical.

Hey, hush up about this asymmetric information problem, my family makes a living selling used goods for prices that they should not pay

Depends on the industry of course.

 

I'd point out that the analogy fails when it can be pointed out that among humans that there is no "hive" and that society is an abstraction, the "common good" cannot be quantified, and even places as cities, states, and nations are just arbitrary lines on a map that regulate tax jurisdictions. Morality cannot inhere in an abstraction. The philosophy of the collective good ultimately breaks down to might is right.

Anyway, I enjoyed your article. The arguments for liberty must come from all sides.

 

And yet, you cannot claim that anyone is compelling you to starve by threats of violence to your person. You can always band with others and start your own firm, or collective or other organization to take greater advantage of your perceived productive capacity and reap the rewards of your own risks.

 

Strange thread. The bible says that taxes are part of the material life and that what is owed to God is of a spiritual nature, so pay your taxes because you have to and give to God from your heart because you want to. Jesus was a known associate of roman tax collectors. If a single bee dies the hive can still survive, if the hive dies all the individual bees die too.

Economics have complicated tradeoffs. In a well developed country the poor may still be able to survive, in poorly developed countries survival is a luxury. Most of us don't really want to be mobbed by beggars or to have to deal with dead bodies in the street. It isn't good for business. Social welfare programs keep these people out of our hair. We may not care whether they live or die but we would prefer they do it elsewhere. Homeless and starving people may provide cheap labor, which is great, but most of the time you get what you pay for.

 

The military sector is not generating a significant ROI. It is a money pit.

We can not just "gut" the military sector. ... agreed .. but there needs to be cuts.

The first thing we need to do is stop trying to police the world and start closing bases abroad.

The alternative is to maintain the status quo... the debt will continue to increase, interest rates will rise, and we will lose our reserve currency status.

When that happens we will not be able to borrow any more money and cuts will be forced simply because we have no money.

That math is very simple and pretty much every economic historian concurs.

For example: by 2017 the debt will hit 23 Trillion .. ave interest rates will double and hit 6%

6% x 23 Trillion = 1.4 Trillion in annual interest payments

Stagflation means that income rises very little, if at all. Income = 2.3 Trillion (note I increased it from 2.1 Trillion we take in today)

2.3 Trillion - 1.4 Trillion = 900 Billion .. assuming military spending does not increase and is maintained at its current level of 900 Billion .. our entire income will be spent.

Soon after 2017 we will not be able to borrow anymore and the main war we will have to worry about is the "blood in the streets" of the US.

 

How to beat a Conservative in a debate: Show the very basis of any premise they make is severaly flawed (xeno claiming that God views taxes as theft), back it up with verifiable facts (a direct quote from Jesus in Matthew) and then watch them Cut & Run from the possibility of having to provide a direct counterpoint... Well done sir!

 

This is just empty opinion that ignores the political economy required to understand the military sector. The interesting aspect is that most schools of thought agree that the military sector plays an integral role in nations such as US. You may not like that. However, to be more than just a 'boo hoo' moment, you'd have to refer to how the gains from the sector have long gone or are on the wane. That would require some content mind you!

 

If you want to forget charity and that capitalism doesn't mean that we will necessarily have people starving to death (at least not people who are able to work), then your statement may be true. But otherwise, you are just closing your eyes to reality and defending the use of violence against the people who do not want to cooperate with your ideas.

 

Then why not deal with the situation in the quickest and most cost-effective manner: putting a bullet in the head of of these "homeless and starving people?" If you don't care whether they live or die, why support spending hundreds of billions of tax dollars on worthless programs (that don't even work)?

Your stance is irrational.

 

To understand capitalism we must refer to both exchange and coercion. From that we can derive an understanding of why capitalism has been successful, but how ultimately why it is inefficient.

 

Do you think that taxpayers should have the freedom to choose which government organizations they give their own, individual taxes to?

 

That would make no sense. Government action is of course different to private transactions (as summarised by concepts such as free riding, merit goods and public goods). You'd merely accentuate market failure