How to Defeat a Liberal in a Debate

Discussion in 'Budget & Taxes' started by Xerographica, Mar 26, 2012.

  1. Xerographica

    Xerographica Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    There are two ways that you can try to defeat a liberal in a debate. The ineffective method (deontological / moral) and the effective method (consequentialist / economic).

    1. Make an argument based on morality. For example...you can argue that taxes are theft. The bible says that theft is wrong therefore taxes are wrong. Or...if you don't believe in the bible...then you can say that there is a "natural law" that proves that taxes are wrong. In both cases you might as well take out a piece of paper and write on it..."taxes are wrong" and then hand it to your opponent.

    Obviously this argument will only work on people that share your same moral views. And even more obviously...liberals do not share your same moral views. They believe that it is morally wrong not to contribute to the common good.

    Therefore, your moral argument is to protect the rights of the bee and their moral argument is to protect the rights of the hive. However, if you make the argument that protecting the rights of the bee automatically protects the rights of the hive...then you are no longer making a moral argument. Instead, you're now making a consequentialist argument. You're arguing that the consequences of protecting the bee are good for the hive. But if you're going to end up making a consequentialist argument...then why bother starting with a moral argument?

    2. Make an argument based on consequences (economics). For example...you can argue that only individuals can determine the "best" use of their limited resources. Our country as a whole would greatly benefit if individuals had the freedom to choose how they use their limited time/money.

    Here are a few examples of this argument in action...

    1. Noam Chomsky on Socialism
    2. Perspectives Matter - Backstory
    As you can see...it's impossible for liberals to defeat this argument. If they attempt to defeat this argument...then their attempt (which represents the "best" use of their limited time) would automatically prove your point that people should have the freedom to choose how they use their limited time/money.

    Here's the bottom line. If you can't explain the economic benefits of freedom...then you can't complain when people fail to see the advantages of freedom. If they can't see the advantages of freedom then it's because you're failing to show it to them.

    Admittedly, it's not easy to show people the "unseen"...which was exactly the objective of my post...Perspectives Matter - Economics in One Lesson. Two heads are better than one though...so join the Magna Carta Movement and together we can help people see the "unseen".
     
  2. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Economists are more likely to be liberal than conservative. Many of the schools of thought are also more suited to liberal comment (including the dominant neoclassical school).
     
  3. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That term has been so bastardized I don't even know how to respond.

    Even very freedom loving, personal freedom maximizing economist fall left of center as far as American politics are concerned, but that's saying very little.
     
  4. toddwv

    toddwv Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    30,444
    Likes Received:
    6,429
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Let's start with this.

    From the mouth of God, amiright?

    Any questions?
     
  5. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Except, of course, that the evidence overwhelmingly favors liberal economic policy over conservative economic policy.
     
  6. Xerographica

    Xerographica Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Does your perspective matter?
     
  7. Xerographica

    Xerographica Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Are you going to join the Magna Carta Movement?
     
  8. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The data is pretty clear. Liberal economies grow faster, have a more even distribution of benefits, achieve far greater material prosperity, have far less social unrest, and have overall higher measures of quality of life.
     
  9. parcus

    parcus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2012
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What is a liberal economy for you? As far as I know, most of the countries people refer as examples of development tend to have better ranking on freedom indexes out there. For example, this one http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking lits the US as 10th, canada as 6th and australia as 3rd.
     
  10. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Technically freedom loving will lead you to socialism! One cannot be freedom loving if one ignores the innate coercion within the labour contract
     
  11. Xerographica

    Xerographica Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Errr...you seemed to have missed my question. Does your perspective matter?
     
  12. Slyhunter

    Slyhunter New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    Messages:
    9,345
    Likes Received:
    104
    Trophy Points:
    0
  13. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Oh is this where we start down the wage-labor = slavery stuff?

    Sorry I'll take emergent order over top down every day of the week.
     
  14. MisLed

    MisLed New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    7,299
    Likes Received:
    329
    Trophy Points:
    0
    link to those liberal economies. Thankseverso.
     
  15. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Protection of property rights! Its not possible in capitalism (e.g. Attempts to control the problem, through unionisation, often are used to support hierarchical relationships and redistribution between workers)
     
  16. toddwv

    toddwv Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 18, 2009
    Messages:
    30,444
    Likes Received:
    6,429
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's true. 70 years of progressive economic policies and there was prosperity unseen before in the US.

    30 years of moving towards "conservative" economic policies and the only people prospering are the elite of the elite.
     
  17. Anders Hoveland

    Anders Hoveland Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,044
    Likes Received:
    138
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Both of these arguments have some merits but are fundamentally flawed.
    But I tend to lean towards the left on economic policies, at least within the context of racial separatism.
     
  18. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What perspective? I am not talking about individual analysis or an individual viewpoint. I am talking about hard economic fact. Asking "does your perspective matter" in relation to that is akin to a situation where two people are each looking at a rock; the fact that from the second person's angle the rock happens to look like a rabbit is irrelevant to the question "is the rock made of granite?"
     
  19. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The US (pre-1980), Japan, Germany, France, etc.
     
  20. Someone

    Someone New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2010
    Messages:
    7,780
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wage-labor is top down, not emergent.
     
  21. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    33,372
    Likes Received:
    36,882
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Can you explain to me why is it that the far right delusionals on this board always lose every debate?
     
  22. Anikdote

    Anikdote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2008
    Messages:
    15,844
    Likes Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    63
    At the expense of others, that's the way it goes. Ends justifying the means.

    The institution is top down, it's existence was emergent. No one stepped in and said "hey guys, this is how we're going to handle employment" -- rather the relationship between employee and employer evolved to its current state not entirely on it's own, but the same could be said for anything.
     
  23. Reiver

    Reiver Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    39,883
    Likes Received:
    2,144
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's like saying laws against stealing as 'ends justifying the means'. No, in both circumstances we are referring purely to the protection of property rights
     
  24. Xerographica

    Xerographica Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    345
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I'm talking about hard economic facts also!

    • Having a perspective = you can look at a rock and see a rabbit.
    • Having a perspective that matters = you can look at a rock and see a rabbit...but then have the freedom to choose to use a hammer and chisel to sculpt the rabbit from the rock.

    Why would one person want to sculpt a rabbit from a rock...while another person would want to use that same rock for a granite counter top? Which person should be able to use the rock? Obviously the person that values the rock the most. That's how resources are efficiently allocated.

    What's our most valuable resource? It's our unique perspectives. It's our ability to transform ordinary things into extraordinary things. If we prevent people from choosing how they use their limited resources then we are wasting our most valuable resource.

    What's the benefit of allowing 150 million of our most productive perspectives (taxpayers) to determine the distribution of public funds? What's the harm in allowing 538 perspectives (congresspeople) to determine the distribution of 150 million people's limited resources?

    It's easy to "see" what congress produces...everybody can do that. But it requires an economic mind to "see" the "unseen". The "unseen" is the value of 150 million people's perspectives. How much do you value your own perspective? Multiply that by 150 million...take whatever that equals and then multiply that to the public sector. Can you "see" the product?
     
  25. parcus

    parcus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2012
    Messages:
    59
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The US pre 1980 was a lot more conservative than it is today.

    Anyway, it is interesting that people want the US to do the same Japan is doing, even though there is no evidence that it is working for them (2 lost decades). It is dumb to believe facism is good for the poor.
     

Share This Page