Author Topic: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2  (Read 333601 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #595 on: December 30, 2009, 07:11:10 AM »
www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

I guess Millaahhhhh would like to pin what's said in that link. A good guide on hot to disagree on the Internet.

Offline millahh

  • Retired Pedantic Bastard
  • Moderator Emeritus
  • *****
  • Posts: 3800
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Mark
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #596 on: December 30, 2009, 09:39:08 AM »
www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

I guess Millaahhhhh would like to pin what's said in that link. A good guide on hot to disagree on the Internet.

Good stuff.  I'll probably reformat it and opost it as a sticky.  That's the most concise version I've seen.  Thanks!
Quote from: parallax
WHEN WILL YOU ADRESS MY MONKEY ARGUMENT???? NEVER???? THAT\' WHAT I FIGURED.:lol

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #597 on: December 31, 2009, 06:48:49 PM »

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #598 on: January 02, 2010, 10:22:51 PM »
I have a quick question for the Libertarians that I don't think needs it's own thread so I'll post it here:

What is your opinion on PMCs/Mercenaries? Would these be preferable to national militaries, or is this something where the public option is acceptable?

...my name is Araragi.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #599 on: January 02, 2010, 11:41:38 PM »
constitutionally thats one of the few legitimate duties of the government. So I am fine with a standing military for homeland security, but not what we have now. Do I care much about private militaries or mercenaries? Not really. Also pinkertons ftw.

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #600 on: January 03, 2010, 07:38:48 PM »
OK.

What responsibilities do you think the government has to its people, if any?

...my name is Araragi.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #601 on: January 04, 2010, 02:09:38 PM »
Aside from duties listed in the constitution, I don't think it has any.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #602 on: January 04, 2010, 04:31:15 PM »
Aside from duties listed in the constitution, I don't think it has any.

But only according to your interpretation.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #603 on: January 04, 2010, 07:17:30 PM »
He was asking me...?

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #604 on: January 04, 2010, 09:26:07 PM »
It's a uh... public forum.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #605 on: January 04, 2010, 10:41:39 PM »
Right but for example if I asked you a question, and then you answered, and then someone else chimed in "Yes but only in your own opinion" then what was the point of the third response. Obviously according to my interpretation I think something. Am I just overthinking this?

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #606 on: January 04, 2010, 11:04:34 PM »
It was still under my "I'm trying to establish what libertarians think" train of questions, so yes, what I want to know is his interpretation.

What responsibilities are listed in the constitution? If you don't want to explain it, is there somewhere online that would have that?

...my name is Araragi.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #607 on: January 04, 2010, 11:07:51 PM »
Its mostly summed up in Article 1 Section 8:
Quote
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #608 on: January 04, 2010, 11:14:23 PM »
I guess you could say I was pointing out that doesn't answer the question. I would answer the same way, but we have different view points on just what the Government can do. Article I, Section 8 is rather vague and can be used to justify many positions.

And what of local and state government? What are their responsibilities?


Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #609 on: January 04, 2010, 11:17:41 PM »
Its mostly summed up in Article 1 Section 8:
Quote
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;



What do you define as general welfare?

...my name is Araragi.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #610 on: January 04, 2010, 11:35:41 PM »
Anything that is directly connected to or supports the enumerated powers.

Quote
And what of local and state government? What are their responsibilities?

No more responsibilities than the federal government. I think defense, taxes, and general welfare still apply though.

Define responsibilities, are you trying to get me to or address that they have should duties to the people like providing healthcare and paying for higher education?

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #611 on: January 04, 2010, 11:44:33 PM »
No I just want to understand your stance so that if I do find myself in debate with you I'll get where you're coming from.

...my name is Araragi.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #612 on: January 05, 2010, 07:08:46 AM »
cool. Wanna debate?

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #613 on: January 05, 2010, 09:42:53 AM »
cool. Wanna debate?

Not at the moment, no :p

...my name is Araragi.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #614 on: January 05, 2010, 02:55:44 PM »
Its mostly summed up in Article 1 Section 8:
Quote
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;



What do you define as general welfare?

Based upon an argument I had with him, "general welfare" has nothing to do with "general" or "welfare," as defined by a dictionary and etymology.

Anything that is directly connected to or supports the enumerated powers.

Quote
And what of local and state government? What are their responsibilities?

No more responsibilities than the federal government. I think defense, taxes, and general welfare still apply though.

Define responsibilities, are you trying to get me to or address that they have should duties to the people like providing healthcare and paying for higher education?

So what do you mean by "general welfare"? You didn't really answer the question... you said anything which pertains to one of the enumerated powers, but promoting the general welfare is an enumerated power.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #615 on: January 05, 2010, 04:35:48 PM »
It is the comfort granted when the enumerated powers are being used and enforced efficiently. For example, knowing you are safe within the nation because of a well funded and equipped military would constitute proper welfare whereas having a bankrupt military would cause panic.

It is not every facet of human culture and health that needs to be provided for to function, healthcare as an example.

Offline Dr. SeaWolf

  • DT.net Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3991
  • Gender: Male
  • Living in the pupil of 1,000 eyes.
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #616 on: January 05, 2010, 04:48:18 PM »
That's a rather sketchy interpretation.  I think the most obvious definition of "general welfare" is to keep the people safe and healthy.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #617 on: January 05, 2010, 05:04:46 PM »
It is the comfort granted when the enumerated powers are being used and enforced efficiently. For example, knowing you are safe within the nation because of a well funded and equipped military would constitute proper welfare whereas having a bankrupt military would cause panic.

It is not every facet of human culture and health that needs to be provided for to function, healthcare as an example.

But why include in the doctrine specifically the guidance and the power to "provide for the...general welfare," if it's a result of the other enumerated powers?

And would not a unhealthy nation cause poor general welfare? It's true by definition. You do not fare well when you are sick.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #618 on: January 05, 2010, 05:16:24 PM »
Having a list of enumerated powers shoots that argument out of the sky and also historically makes no sense. I should also bring up again that general welfare is merely part of an introduction followed by the list of actual enumerated powers. Why be painfully specific about what legislation could and could not do if you were going to grant them the ability to do what is necessary to promote whatever we define as "general welfare" at the time? It just doesn't make any sense.  The founding fathers knew welfare, healthcare, everything that we are now funding with tax dollars would inevitably lead to a bigger and more unstable government. Exactly like the one they fought a revolution against.

Heres a question, health was as much of a concern then as it is now if not more so. Why was a government funded healthcare system not implemented then? Why weren't all of these government programs we have now that address larger issues then not implemented? It seems like not until the early/mid 1900s did everything get all fucked up and government funded.


Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #619 on: January 05, 2010, 05:55:07 PM »
Having a list of enumerated powers shoots that argument out of the sky and also historically makes no sense. I should also bring up again that general welfare is merely part of an introduction followed by the list of actual enumerated powers. Why be painfully specific about what legislation could and could not do if you were going to grant them the ability to do what is necessary to promote whatever we define as "general welfare" at the time? It just doesn't make any sense.  The founding fathers knew welfare, healthcare, everything that we are now funding with tax dollars would inevitably lead to a bigger and more unstable government. Exactly like the one they fought a revolution against.

But it makes perfect sense! I'm glad the founding fathers had enough foresight to realize they didn't have enough foresight - they knew circumstances would occur and proposals would arrive which they had not though of. They had to allow for such flexibility, or they would have doomed the government to complete rigidity.

And you're just wrong in saying that it's merely part of an introduction. It's in section 8, titled the powers of congress, and this is the first list of powers given. "Congress shall have the power to... provide for the ... general Welfare."

Quote
Heres a question, health was as much of a concern then as it is now if not more so. Why was a government funded healthcare system not implemented then? Why weren't all of these government programs we have now that address larger issues then not implemented? It seems like not until the early/mid 1900s did everything get all fucked up and government funded.

That's a gross analogy. You completely ignore a myriad of other circumstances, all of them vastly more important, than the theory that government funded health care could not and would not work, and would just function as a drain on society. You also fallacious conclude a conclude the lack of it's implementation was for a reason, and not just circumstances or history.


Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #620 on: January 05, 2010, 06:09:16 PM »
What they knew is that by listing enumerated powers they would discourage or eliminate the idea that a single sentence would disregard the entire document and its meaning. Never once during the constitutional convention or any of its preceding was the idea put forth that the government needed to fix societies every woe. They set forth a list of things the government needed to be able to do to promote peace and prosperity and protect itself. What other proof do you need than that they had just fought for independence from a government that was aggressive with taxes and too large and demanding? Kind of like what our government is becoming.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #621 on: January 06, 2010, 01:43:35 AM »
Then why allow of amending of the Constitution?

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #622 on: January 06, 2010, 09:02:04 AM »
Because they knew circumstances would change that they did not foresee. Those circumstances were not the sudden and unforeseen need to tax people more than necessary and enact federal healthcare .

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #623 on: January 06, 2010, 03:15:26 PM »
Lol. If anything, we're not taxing people enough - we have that huge deficit you like to point out. Just what constitutes the necessary taxation is entirely relative to the circumstances. Who the hell wages a war and doesn't fund it? (Well.. Bush, but that just shows how horrible of a president he was). Taxation has been on a steady decline since the 1950's, not up.

Same goes for health care. I also severely doubt that Founding Father's had any conception of the Modern World, especially the last 100 years. To assume they wouldn't assent to providing for health care with the modern worlds availability of education, doctors, hospitals and knowledge is baseless. It was a much different world in 1787. But the founding father's not only left us a list of specific powers, but a desire on how to use those powers. One of those is promoting the general Welfare of the United States, as well as the necessary powers to do so.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #624 on: January 06, 2010, 04:38:11 PM »
Quote
Insert Quote
Lol. If anything, we're not taxing people enough - we have that huge deficit you like to point out. Just what constitutes the necessary taxation is entirely relative to the circumstances.

That seems to be the problem. The government should not be this giant morphing entity that can consume resources depending on how large it is. It should have a set number of power and duties (constitution) and need to tax only to fund those needs. As Bosk mentioned in the thread about healthcare, part of the reason we have such a huge deficit is because the government is so inept at running social programs.

Quote
Taxation has been on a steady decline since the 1950's, not up

source?

Quote
But the founding father's not only left us a list of specific powers, but a desire on how to use those powers. One of those is promoting the general Welfare of the United States, as well as the necessary powers to do so.

Thats simply incorrect.

Quote
Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence

All of those things are tied to one of the enumerated powers. If general welfare was meant to be applied the way you say it should be, why is not one of the enumerated powers "To be do whatever is necessary to reinforce the general welfare of the populace". It only makes sense that they meant it to be applied in direct relation to the enumerated powers and not to be a fix all.

My point about federal healthcare then was that the needs of the poor and unhealthy were much more vast because of the level of technology at the time. Why, if they would not have been opposed to federal healthcare per the constitution, did they not implement it? Back to my original point, why did they not implement any social programs or support any failing businesses with tax dollars?

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #625 on: January 06, 2010, 05:14:47 PM »
That seems to be the problem. The government should not be this giant morphing entity that can consume resources depending on how large it is. It should have a set number of power and duties (constitution) and need to tax only to fund those needs. As Bosk mentioned in the thread about healthcare, part of the reason we have such a huge deficit is because the government is so inept at running social programs.



Medicare outperforms the "free-market," in terms of cost, efficiency and quality.

Quote
Quote
Taxation has been on a steady decline since the 1950's, not up

source?

Google images:





Social security has gone up, but it's size in comparison to income tax makes it's rise irrelevant to the fact that taxes have gone down.

Quote
Quote
But the founding father's not only left us a list of specific powers, but a desire on how to use those powers. One of those is promoting the general Welfare of the United States, as well as the necessary powers to do so.

Thats simply incorrect.

It's directly in the constitution. Even if someone accepts your insane argument that somehow the Constitution doesn't give Congress the power to provide for the general Welfare of the people - despite the fact that the Constitution literally says, "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

You are now literally ignoring what is written in the Constitution, not simply debating interpretation.

Quote
Quote
Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence

All of those things are tied to one of the enumerated powers. If general welfare was meant to be applied the way you say it should be, why is not one of the enumerated powers "To be do whatever is necessary to reinforce the general welfare of the populace". It only makes sense that they meant it to be applied in direct relation to the enumerated powers and not to be a fix all.

So you really want to ignore the fact that that list starts out by saying these are powers of congress? Maybe they felt "general Welfare" didn't need further description, maybe they felt such was idiotic as it says, "general Welfare" and is thus rather hard to particulate.

But to even answer your question, what of the powers listed which don't pertain to taxes, duties, imposts, excises, paying of debts or defense? There two:

Quote
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

Here's two powers given which don't fit any of your criteria, but do fit the idea of "general Welfare." 


Quote
My point about federal healthcare then was that the needs of the poor and unhealthy were much more vast because of the level of technology at the time. Why, if they would not have been opposed to federal healthcare per the constitution, did they not implement it? Back to my original point, why did they not implement any social programs or support any failing businesses with tax dollars?

Your first sentence doesn't actually work with what you're saying. They didn't implement it because it was entirely impractical at the time, it's infeasibility meant that there was never a debate regarding the issue. To use this as some sort of proof that the founding fathers wouldn't' support universal health care is absurd.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #626 on: January 06, 2010, 05:23:26 PM »
Dont feel like responding to the rest now, but:

Quote
Here's two powers given which don't fit any of your criteria, but do fit the idea of "general Welfare."  

You missed my point. It was that they list a quaint summary of the powers like defense and taxes, and then go on to relist the actual powers in great detail. General welfare is strangely not there. If they meant general welfare as you define it, they would have listed it as a power and elaborated on its uses.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #627 on: January 06, 2010, 05:31:34 PM »
I'm just baffled. I perform an argument, and then you object to my argument by asking for the exact same argument I just gave. They don't specifically restate the power to "provide for the common defense" either, they just list a series of related powers.

Are you just making this up as you go?

Offline Genowyn

  • That name's pretty cool, and honestly, I'd like to change mine to it.
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5288
  • Gender: Male
  • But Hachikuji, I've told you over and over...
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #628 on: January 07, 2010, 09:49:58 AM »
So, here's another question:

What do you feel about drugs, prostitution, censorship, and the banning of books, movies, games, TV shows, etc? Normally these are considered conservative things (the last 2 for, the first 2 against), but I would think a libertarian should have no problem with it, right?

...my name is Araragi.

Offline Nigerius Rex

  • Posts: 478
  • Gender: Male
  • Thats Mr. Doctor Professor Patrick
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #629 on: January 07, 2010, 10:37:50 AM »
For legalizing drugs, prostitution, against censorship in all forms.