Debate a Conservative - Page 3

On March 08 2008 11:23 Boblion wrote:
He probably means that UN had to support war against Iraq :>

On March 08 2008 11:23 Boblion wrote:
He probably means that UN had to support war against Iraq :>

On March 08 2008 10:50 Ancestral wrote:
Ok, right to bear arms.

Countries with very strict gun control have fewer gun deaths. What's so great about guns? I know it's the whole "liberty" thing, and people should be trusted, but they can't be always. I am on the fence on the issue, but how do you justify lax gun laws?

On March 08 2008 11:30 ahrara_ wrote:
Stimulus Package -- Helpful or Placebo?

I'll write more here and take a position when I get the time. I promise if you respond with a well-fleshed out argument, I'll respond in like. ATM, i have to do laundry and deal with my car accident.

I believe in freedom.

6. Neither, just don't defile the sacred entity of marriage.

8. With the oppression and overburdening of taxes that governments lay down on our people nowadays, it is a grand goal to strive for, but an unrealistic goal to acheive. I prefer taking it step by step, slowly lowering tarriffs between nations and such.

On March 08 2008 11:49 Hippopotamus wrote:


What does you definition of freedom include allowing?

-Freedom to smoke marijuana?
-Freedom to not be surveilled by the government?
-Sexual freedom?
-Freedom to give up money to the government in return for certain guarantees in life?



But why is marriage so sacred? It's not exclusively a Christian custom, although I would assume many homosexuals would opt to perform their marriage ceremonies in Christian churces simply because most of them believe themselves to be Christian. In the society that permits divorce has the traditional concept of marriage not already been undermined? Is forbidding gay marriage not tantamount to forbidding neo-nazis from speaking--something that you do not support? Gay marriage may raise questions about the sanctity of marriage, but neo nazis raise questions about the right of non-aryan citizens and lawful residents to be treated equally.



But since you seem also support things such as militaries for protection, you must expect some taxes, yes? What do you consider to be a just level of taxation? Additionally, do you advocate for a flat tax, a progressive tax or (gasp) a regressive tax?

Further on the subject of economy. What about 3rd world countries? How should they (or should they not be at all?) helped? Structural adjustment, import substitution, something else? What about outsourcing, do you support it? If you do not, what would you suggest as a solution that would not involve massive governmental intervention?

"Another kind of inequality arising through the operation of the market is also required, in a somewhat more subtle sense, to produce equity of treatment, or to put it differently to satisfy men's tastes. It can be illustrated most simply by a lottery. Consider a group of individuals who initially have equal endowments and who all agree voluntairly to enter a lottery with very unequal prizes. The resultant inequality of income is surely required to permit the individuals in question to make the most of their initial equality. Redistribution of the income after the event is equivalent to denying them the opportunity to enter the lottery. This case is far more important in practice than would appear by taking the notion of a "lottery" literally. Individuals choose occupations, investments, and the like partly in accordance with their taste for uncertainty. The girl who tries to become a movie actress rather than a civil servant is deliberately choosing to enter a lottery, so is the individual who invests in penny uranium stocks rather than government bonds. Insurance is a way of expressing a taste for certainty. Even these examples do not indicate fully the extent to which actual inequality may be the result of arrangements designed to satisfy men's tastes. The very arrangments for paying and hiring people are affected by such preferences. If all potential movie actresses had a great dislike of uncertainty, there would tend to develop "cooperatives" of movie actresses, the members of which agreed in advance to share income receipts more or less evenly, thereby in effect providing themselves insurance through the pooling of risks. If such a preference were widespread, large diversified corporations combining risky and non-risky ventures would become the rule. The wild-cat oil prospector, the private proprietorship, the small partnership, would all become rare.

Indeed, this is one way to interpret governmental measures to redistribute income through progressive taxes and the like. It can be argued that for one reason or another, costs of administration perhaps, the market cannot produce the range of lotteries or the kind of lottery desired by the members of the community, and that progressive taxation is, as it were, a government enterprise to do so. I have no doubt that this view contains an element of truth. At the same time, it can hardly justify present taxation, if only because the taxes are imposed after the blanks in the lottery of life, and the taxes are voted mostly by those who think they have drawn the blanks. One might, along these lines, justify one generation's voting the tax schedules to be applied to an as yet unborn generation. Any such procedure would, I conjecture, yield income tax schedules much less highly graduated than present schedules are, at least on paper.

On March 08 2008 11:47 Try wrote:


To tell you the truth, this is one of the economic acts that I am somewhat unsure what the results will be until it actually plays out. It is a good idea, but the US market and the economy is so volatile and unpredictable right now. However, I am sure that any raising of taxes would severely punish a struggling economy. Of course, first I'm going to bombard you with the traditional rhetoric of "When the government cuts individual taxes, that encourages individual spending, which then encourages business spending," but it's obvious you are looking for something more indepth.

While the individual tax rebates are something, I think the business tax incentives might actually get us somewhere. Although right now I have to go soon and I can't go really indepth, the investment incentives are really quite appealing to businesses and will improve investment rates. By raising FHA and GSE limits as well, the housing price decline should be able to be slowed.

I will edit and improve this post later, so check back tomorrow.

On March 08 2008 10:27 Lemonwalrus wrote:

The rich ARE getting richer, and the poor ARE getting poorer.

On March 09 2008 00:26 FieryBalrog wrote:


People are such morons when it comes to economics.

On March 08 2008 17:01 ahrara_ wrote:

As far as I'm concerned, cutting individual taxes is the same thing as give out rebates. What irks me about the stimulus package is the expectation that people will spend the rebates. A lot of it will end up being saved, because there's no expiration date, and people are naturally more likely to save money during a recession. In the short run, I agree with you the stimulus package is effective in increasing demand and investment. In the long run, I don't think you should cut taxes when you're already spending on deficit.