Question for shanek [Archive]

shanek

27th March 2003, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
I looked at your homepage and noticed that you recently ran for a seat on your county's commission. You also indicate that you want to show your fellow citizens that government doesn't work.

Do you find that running for political office with such a position to be at least somewhat hypocritical, even comical?

For that matter, can any candidate truly be a libertarian espousing principles such as "government doesn't work" and remain a serious candidate for governmental office? Doesn't it imply that you admit your own ineffectualness? Why vote for you then?

It's an excellent question. The point is that I don't know the best way to run your life...But then, neither do you county commissioners, your governor or state assembly, your Congressmen, or George W. Bush. Libertarians want to take the government back to the model defined in the Constitution: A government that provides a national defense, a justice system, and a very few other functions, with enough checks and balances in place to keep it as effective as possible, and get the government out of every other aspect of our lives.

Government can't keep drugs off the streets (it can't even keep drugs out of its own prisons). It can't protect us from criminals; it can only help mop up afterwards. It can't feed the poor, it can't provide health care, it can't fund your retirement, on and on and on, failure after failure after failure. We can provide these things for ourselves if we just get government out of the way.

Someone in another thread asked me what we can do to make the government obey the Constitution again. My answer was to elect people to office who are dedicated to doing just that. But that's kind of hard to do when there are no candidates who are dedicated to small government. That's where the Libertarian Party comes in.

For myself, I never wanted to be a politician. If you had asked me ten years ago if I'd ever run for office I'd have laughed in your face. But over the years I've become more and more fed up with how the government has interfered in the way I want to live my life even when that harms no one. I have the Federal government telling me what size my toilet should be, my state government telling me I can't refinance my mortgage unless I switch to a company based in NC, and my county government tells me I can't have a gutter on the side of my house.

Having children was what I think really did it. It's amazing how much your perspective changes when you have kids. I worry about the world I've brought them into and am willing to do anything it takes to make it better for them. I would not have fun as a County Commissioner; it'd be boring, it would take up a hell of a lot of my personal time, but I'd be willing to go through that if it means that my kids won't be put through what I have been.

shanek

27th March 2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by LukeT
Also from shane's site:

Technically, that's the Lincoln County LP site. My site is shanek.endofinternet.net.

The questions on the Nolan Chart are way too simplistic and broad in their scope to accurately determine where people stand on any issue.

I would suggest the creator of the questions submit them to a professional polling organization and find out how wrong they are phrased.

Already been done. Scott Rasmussen did a Portrait of America poll and it pretty much debunked all of the complaints against the Quiz.

http://oldsite.self-gov.org/poll1208_libertarian_litmus_test2_b.htm

You could make the quiz more accurate by answering more questions or making the questions more complex, but then fewer people would be willing to stop and take it. I think they did the best job they could and still keep it so small.

I also can't help wondering if the people being surveyed at the Libertarian Booth were asking to have some of the questions explained to them.

Yes, they were, and I was worried about the bias factor, so I answered questions like "How would the minimum wage cause unemployment?" with "If you don't believe so, then your answer is 'No.'" Probably the question I got the most was about "Repeal regulations on sex for consenting adults." My answer was to point out that there were laws that affected what consensual adults, even married couples, did in their own bedroom, but that it also referred to prostitution.

I think Hicks was wish-fulfilling himself into believing there were more libertarian minded people like himself in the county.

Actually, he mostly ran the booth itself while I administered the test. All the while, he was watching me and I was giving him pointers about how not to let bias creep into the questions. The best thing was just to hand people the clipboard and leave them alone unless they asked questions, and then to respond in the manner i described above. We had about 3% of the quiz takers say they disagreed with the results; that's right in line with what others have experienced.

shanek

27th March 2003, 07:32 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK
...the website doesn't validate as HTML 4.01 transitional. You might want to use a custom validation which allows the body->margin property?

Sorry it's the only criticism I can come up with!

Yeah, I know, but fixing it would require a big redesign which is going to have to wait until we switch servers. The new site will validate properly.

BillyTK

27th March 2003, 07:47 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Yeah, I know, but fixing it would require a big redesign which is going to have to wait until we switch servers. The new site will validate properly.

Nah--s'easy to fix. I've got a custom validation doc I could send you which includes the margin elements. All you need to do is post it somewhere on your site and have your doctype declaration point to it instead of the one at the w3c site.

AmateurScientist

27th March 2003, 08:37 AM

Originally posted by shanek

It's an excellent question. The point is that I don't know the best way to run your life...But then, neither do you county commissioners, your governor or state assembly, your Congressmen, or George W. Bush. Libertarians want to take the government back to the model defined in the Constitution: A government that provides a national defense, a justice system, and a very few other functions, with enough checks and balances in place to keep it as effective as possible, and get the government out of every other aspect of our lives.

Government can't keep drugs off the streets (it can't even keep drugs out of its own prisons). It can't protect us from criminals; it can only help mop up afterwards. It can't feed the poor, it can't provide health care, it can't fund your retirement, on and on and on, failure after failure after failure. We can provide these things for ourselves if we just get government out of the way.

Someone in another thread asked me what we can do to make the government obey the Constitution again. My answer was to elect people to office who are dedicated to doing just that. But that's kind of hard to do when there are no candidates who are dedicated to small government. That's where the Libertarian Party comes in.

For myself, I never wanted to be a politician. If you had asked me ten years ago if I'd ever run for office I'd have laughed in your face. But over the years I've become more and more fed up with how the government has interfered in the way I want to live my life even when that harms no one. I have the Federal government telling me what size my toilet should be, my state government telling me I can't refinance my mortgage unless I switch to a company based in NC, and my county government tells me I can't have a gutter on the side of my house.

Having children was what I think really did it. It's amazing how much your perspective changes when you have kids. I worry about the world I've brought them into and am willing to do anything it takes to make it better for them. I would not have fun as a County Commissioner; it'd be boring, it would take up a hell of a lot of my personal time, but I'd be willing to go through that if it means that my kids won't be put through what I have been.

Thanks, Shane, for both complimenting my question and for taking the time to address it in such a thoughtful, earnest manner.

Excellent response! Your focus is obviously well thought-out, well supported by your research and observations, and hard to oppose. In fact, I cannot think of anything in it with which I disagree. Nevertheless, I cannot escape the feeling that it all sounds great in principle, but it begins to break down in practice. The devil is in the details, after all.

The ideals espoused by the Libertarian Party are beautiful. I admire and adhere to them as ideals. The reality, however, is that Americans tend to turn to government for solutions to even small problems. For instance, someone has a serious auto accident at an intersection without traffic lights. Next, the community rallies to demand that someone listen and install a light there. Who has authority to install a light but the government? The alternative is that no one is in charge. Sure, private interests could compete and arrive at a myriad of possible solutions, some of which would probably work. What you would lack in traffic management then, for example, is uniformity from intersection to intersection, town to town, and state to state. No, we don't have perfect uniformity now, but we have a pragmatic, working level of uniformity that serves a vital purpose--to standardize and provide functionality and familiarity to drivers who travel from place to place.

Of course, this is a simple example of some necessary governmental functions. The difficulty lies in drawing lines to separate vital governmental functions from non-vital ones. I will never disagree that far too many functions attempted by or carried out by government as it presently exists are non-vital and indeed counterproductive. That is the mantra of both Libertarians and Republicans. I find enormous difficulty, however, in applying the ideals of the Libertarian Party to the realities of the political marketplace and to the implementation of minimalist government. So much of the implementation would require putting the genie back into the bottle. Legislators would have to vote many of themselves out of a job. They would have to take the terribly unpopular step of drastically cutting government services to their constituents.

How does a system go about doing that? Isn't it a bit like trying to get a spoiled 3 year old child to like his vegetables?

AS

Michael Redman

27th March 2003, 09:20 AM

I think libertarians misinterpret the Founding Fathers' effort to limit the Federal government as based on the idea that government itself should be limited. While that may be true for some of them, it is more accurate, in my understanding, to say that they didn't want to Federal Government to tell people how to run their own lives because that was the states' job. The governments of states, at the time the Constitution was adopted, were far more intrusive into what we would not consider personal matters, like sex, religion, and even business, than even government-loving liberals now feel is appropriate.

Of course the Founders didn't want the Federal government to be involved with what is traditionally considered police powers, but that was because they didn't want to take those powers away from the states. I don't think the idea that your county government should be as small and unobtrusive as possible, whether true or not, is well supported by the work of those who established this country.

Edited to add: I've graduated. This is my 1000th post. :)

AmateurScientist

27th March 2003, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I think libertarians misinterpret the Founding Fathers' effort to limit the Federal government as based on the idea that government itself should be limited. While that may be true for some of them, it is more accurate, in my understanding, to say that they didn't want to Federal Government to tell people how to run their own lives because that was the states' job. The governments of states, at the time the Constitution was adopted, were far more intrusive into what we would not consider personal matters, like sex, religion, and even business, than even government-loving liberals now feel is appropriate.

Of course the Founders didn't want the Federal government to be involved with what is traditionally considered police powers, but that was because they didn't want to take those powers away from the states. I don't think the idea that your county government should be as small and unobtrusive as possible, whether true or not, is well supported by the work of those who established this country.

Edited to add: I've graduated. This is my 1000th post. :)

First, congratulations on your 1000th post!

Second, that's an interesting point you make. I would agree completely if not for the existence of the first ten and 14th amendments.

Once the Bill of Rights is considered, I have to take issue iwith your conclusion in two respects. One--clearly the founders did intend to say something about local and state governments. They explained that some matters would pre-empted for consideration by state or local governments by federal action by Congress. Two, they clearly intended to limit state and local government's intrusion into those unalienable rights expressed in the Bill. Although it was arguably not expressed as such in the Bill of Rights itself, the 14th Amendment later expressly applied it to the states.

So, did the founders intend to limit government intrusion into citizens' affairs? I think so, as the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment demonstrate.

AS

shanek

27th March 2003, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Nah--s'easy to fix. I've got a custom validation doc I could send you which includes the margin elements. All you need to do is post it somewhere on your site and have your doctype declaration point to it instead of the one at the w3c site.

It's wasy to fix the code. It's not so easy to change the files on the server. We've got some more material I've been trying to put up there for a week, and that's just two new HTML pages. Hence the need to move to another server.

shanek

27th March 2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
The reality, however, is that Americans tend to turn to government for solutions to even small problems.

Because they've been brought up in a world where people always do so. I completely acknowledge that this is a problem of public perception. I don't think that problem is insurmountable as some claim. More and more people are getting fed up with the same old same old and not voting. We get as many votes from them as we do from regular voters from the other parties and independents. That's why I reject the whole "Libertarians are just spoilers for Republicans" argument—because many of the people who vote for us wouldn't vote at all otherwise.

For instance, someone has a serious auto accident at an intersection without traffic lights. Next, the community rallies to demand that someone listen and install a light there. Who has authority to install a light but the government?

Well, that's because the government owns the roads. If it were privately owned, then the corporation responsible would have the authority to put up a light.

So much of the implementation would require putting the genie back into the bottle.

Don't think that we don't realize that.

How does a system go about doing that? Isn't it a bit like trying to get a spoiled 3 year old child to like his vegetables?

I don't see it that way. You just have to make people see that they'll be better off with freedom than with government intervention.

shanek

27th March 2003, 10:36 AM

Charles Livingston

27th March 2003, 10:50 AM

Shanek,

I consider myself a libertarain, although probably a bit more of a moderate libertarian, so I often appreciate your posts. I wondered if you would comment on something for me that I have been mulling about lately. Putting aside economic freedom, do you think that countires tending more towards socialism, like some of the scandanavian countries are I believe, results in more, less, or equal personal liberties as a libertarian view? In other words, who is really more free? I dont know much about such scandanavian countries (maybe they arent even tending towards socialism?), but it does seem as if many of these countries have less intrusion in their daily lives than we do in the U.S. (ie, abortion, sex, drugs, etc.). That being said, I realize that economic freedom influences these things, but I am trying to put that aside here.

27th March 2003, 11:27 AM

Thanks for answering my concerns, shanek. That was very helpful and informative.

How much does the job of commissioner pay?

AmateurScientist

27th March 2003, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by shanek

Because they've been brought up in a world where people always do so.

And I would argue it's quite endemic to our culture. The mentality is that somebody's got to do something about every problem. You know, "There ought to be a law..."

Well, that's because the government owns the roads. If it were privately owned, then the corporation responsible would have the authority to put up a light.

I've never bought this argument. How would you ensure that private road owners wouldn't unfairly discriminate against rival businesses by denying them access to their roads? What if you wanted to boycott XYZ Corporation's products due to political differences, but XYZ owned the road in front of your house? What if XYZ fired you and banned you from its roads?

Placing our nation's roadways in the hands of private interests is a terrible idea.

I don't see it that way. You just have to make people see that they'll be better off with freedom than with government intervention.

Well, unfortunately, an awful lot of people have the impression that freedom means being entitled to myriad services they demand their government provides them. Good luck convincing them they'll be better off without so many services they take for granted and which they (incorrectly) believe they're getting for free.

I happen to believe you are being far too idealistic. I prefer a more pragmatic approach.

I'm not trying to affect a seachange. I'm more of a cynical sideline critic.

:D

AS

Michael Redman

27th March 2003, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
. . .the 14th Amendment later expressly applied it to the states.Yes, later. As in, after the Founding Fathers were dead. While some states, as Shanek points out, did have fairly "libertarian" ideals, others clearly did not, at that time. This has been a gradual evolution. We didn't start here. Remember, some states saw no contradiction in ratifying the Constitution while having an official church themselves.

WMT1

27th March 2003, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I think libertarians misinterpret the Founding Fathers' effort to limit the Federal government as based on the idea that government itself should be limited.

Where do people get the idea that libertarian views are dependent on any particular interpretation of what the Founding Fathers thought? :confused:

shanek

27th March 2003, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Charles Livingston
Putting aside economic freedom, do you think that countires tending more towards socialism, like some of the scandanavian countries are I believe, results in more, less, or equal personal liberties as a libertarian view? In other words, who is really more free?

It's a good question, and I really don't have an answer. How does the right not to have part of your hard-earned money taken away to pay for someone else's health care compare to the right to arm yourself against an intruder? You could make the case that the latter is more important because it's more life-threatening, but the former happens much, much more often. How do you really quantify it?

shanek

27th March 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by LukeT
Thanks for answering my concerns, shanek. That was very helpful and informative.

How much does the job of commissioner pay?

I honestly have no idea...I never checked.

shanek

27th March 2003, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
I've never bought this argument. How would you ensure that private road owners wouldn't unfairly discriminate against rival businesses by denying them access to their roads? What if you wanted to boycott XYZ Corporation's products due to political differences, but XYZ owned the road in front of your house? What if XYZ fired you and banned you from its roads?

Placing our nation's roadways in the hands of private interests is a terrible idea.

All of which is irrelevant to the argument. You asked how the government had authority to put up a traffic light; I answered that.

Well, unfortunately, an awful lot of people have the impression that freedom means being entitled to myriad services they demand their government provides them. Good luck convincing them they'll be better off without so many services they take for granted and which they (incorrectly) believe they're getting for free.

Once you can show them what they're getting in return, they can be turned around. Besides, we don't have to turn them all around; just enough to win.

DanishDynamite

27th March 2003, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Charles Livingston
Shanek,

I consider myself a libertarain, although probably a bit more of a moderate libertarian, so I often appreciate your posts. I wondered if you would comment on something for me that I have been mulling about lately. Putting aside economic freedom, do you think that countires tending more towards socialism, like some of the scandanavian countries are I believe, results in more, less, or equal personal liberties as a libertarian view? In other words, who is really more free? I dont know much about such scandanavian countries (maybe they arent even tending towards socialism?), but it does seem as if many of these countries have less intrusion in their daily lives than we do in the U.S. (ie, abortion, sex, drugs, etc.). That being said, I realize that economic freedom influences these things, but I am trying to put that aside here. Mind if I make a comment?

Let me first say that the Scandinavian countries are (still) free-market countries. They've all got private ownership, stock exchanges, etc.

That being said, they are also welfare societies, with "free" health care for all, state pensions for all, and of course welfare checks for those without work (life-long if necessary).

The vast majority of the workforce is organized in unions, including lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc. In Denmark, some 37% of the workforce works in the public sector or for publically owned companies.

All the generous benefits mentioned two paragraphs up, are paid for by the world's highest tax rates. (Or the second highest, as we are in constant battle with the Swedes regarding this infamous position).

In regard to personal freedoms, which is what you inquired about, I personally don't feel oppressed. Denmark was one of the first countries in the world (if not the first) where porn was made legal. Prostitution is likewise legal. Abortion is not only legal, but free, and is furthermore not an issue. I'm not sure about the exact status of drugs, but I think that marijuana, in amounts deemed "for personal use", is legal.

Do these freedoms mean we are a libertarian paradise? Not by a long shot, as I'm sure shanek will agree. We've got regulations coming out of our ears.

Ian Osborne

27th March 2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by shanek
All of which is irrelevant to the argument. You asked how the government had authority to put up a traffic light; I answered that.

I think his point is your solution is unworkable, for reasons which go way beyond the traffic light. His points seem valid to me...

shanek

27th March 2003, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
All the generous benefits mentioned two paragraphs up, are paid for by the world's highest tax rates. (Or the second highest, as we are in constant battle with the Swedes regarding this infamous position).

In regard to personal freedoms, which is what you inquired about, I personally don't feel oppressed.

This is what I don't understand. How come you don't consider the government's intrusion into your wallet a form of oppression?

shanek

27th March 2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
I think his point is your solution is unworkable,

It wasn't presented as a solution. It was presented as a counterexample. It also showed that there was at least one other option between government and a free-for-all, regardless of how workable it might or might not be.

DanishDynamite

27th March 2003, 02:12 PM

Originally posted by shanek

This is what I don't understand. How come you don't consider the government's intrusion into your wallet a form of oppression? It's a question of balance. How much am I willing to pay in order to have as "equalized" a society as the Danish?

Personally, I feel I am paying way too much. There are too many "leaches" who could otherwise be productive, who are just "sucking on the government teat", so to speak. The labor market is much too inflexible. There are tons of things which I don't agree with.

On the other hand, (while I applaud your consistency) your "free-for-all" jungle-rules vision of society seems too harsh and unworkable in reality.

Baker

27th March 2003, 04:16 PM

I must admit outside of the war threads I’m finding that I agree with many more of your opinions then I realized.

27th March 2003, 04:32 PM

I find debating you, shanek, fun. Because I find myself arguing in favor of the government doing a lot of what it does. And as a right-wing conservative Republican, that is a very funny thing for me to be doing.

I do think the government has taken on far more than it should, to an unhealthy degree. And as AS pointed out, it has become a reflex for Americans to ask "What is the government going to do about it?" when confronted with a societal problem. That annoys me.

I like to blame FDR and LBJ for that reflex, but that's just me. :)

So it follows that I support privatization. Where I part ways with the Libertarians, and you I suppose, is just how much we should privatize.

I also part ways on the drug issue, as you well know.

DanishDynamite, I have a story you might appreciate. Our company was bought by another company that is headquartered in the Netherlands. Some of our guys were sent over there to get some training. While there, one of them caught a cold. He went to a pharmacy (chemist?) to get some Tylenol Cold medicine and found it could not be purchased without a prescription. Here in America, a prescription is not required. And yet you can buy dope on the street legally in the Netherlands. It's all upside down! :D

Thinking about it, I am guessing that cold medicine is prescription only so that the government will pay for it. Am I right?

AmateurScientist

27th March 2003, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by shanek

All of which is irrelevant to the argument. You asked how the government had authority to put up a traffic light; I answered that.

I know it's irrelevant to the question at hand. I should have mentioned that it was an aside. I wanted to provoke your response to what I view as a valid question based on what I've read in your posts before. Feel free to disregard it here or to answer it if you wish.

AS

shanek

27th March 2003, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
It's a question of balance. How much am I willing to pay in order to have as "equalized" a society as the Danish?

Except that you aren't paying it willingly. It's being forceably extracted from your paycheck. If it were a matter of how much you were willing to pay, then the free market would handle it.

On the other hand, (while I applaud your consistency) your "free-for-all" jungle-rules vision of society seems too harsh and unworkable in reality.

Please explain how you think my vision constitutes either a "free-for-all" (contradicted by my position of personal responsibility) or "jungle rules" (contradicted by my position of noninitiation of force).

shanek

27th March 2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by LukeT
So it follows that I support privatization. Where I part ways with the Libertarians, and you I suppose, is just how much we should privatize.

Well, I say we draw the line at the Constitution.

And FWIW, I have fun debating with you, too.

BillyTK

28th March 2003, 01:21 AM

Originally posted by shanek

It's wasy to fix the code. It's not so easy to change the files on the server. We've got some more material I've been trying to put up there for a week, and that's just two new HTML pages. Hence the need to move to another server.

Oof--that's harsh! My sympathies, and good look with your server switch!

Victor Danilchenko

28th March 2003, 06:05 AM

shanek

It's a good question, and I really don't have an answer. How does the right not to have part of your hard-earned money taken away to pay for someone else's health care compare to the right to arm yourself against an intruder? You could make the case that the latter is more important because it's more life-threatening, but the former happens much, much more often. How do you really quantify it?Well, you start by saying that you don't have a right to keep all your money -- it's in the contract, the government has the authority to levy taxes (or to amend the contract to create such authority, if you prefer); so taxation is legitimate, and not an infringement of your rights.

Is it a good idea? Well, that depends. Nobody likes to part with money; but on the balance, I would rather have a limit on my right to spend my earnings, and a have variety of other freedoms be unabridged, than the other way around; so yes, given the choice between a taxation state with great social freedom and a tax-free state which is socially intrusive, i would choose the former without a moment's doubt.

The fundamental point is, first and foremost, that I consider social freedoms to be more important than economic freedoms; because ultimately, money is just means to an end -- culture is an end in itself.

You can of course answer that it's better to be healthy and rich then sick and poor -- that it's best to have both economic and social freedom. My answer to that would be that the two are partially at odds. Money is means of coersion just like force, and too much economic freedom will inevitably abridge social freedom; and as I said, I value the latter more than the former.

if you include self-actualization in the list of social freedom -- which, in this day and age, we should, as it's pretty much a keystone of any serious "pursuit of happiness" -- then the case for taxation becomes crystal-clear. In order to give everyone the opportunity to self-actualize, we create social support infrastructure -- subsidized education and medical care, welfare, etc.

In short, taxation is IMO (and according to our social contract) a perfectly reasonable price to pay for a world where people's social freedoms are greatly expanded and protected.

WMT1

28th March 2003, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Well, you start by saying that you don't have a right to keep all your money -- it's in the contract,

Here we go again. When you can't defend your views any other way, fall back on the old "it's in the contract!". :rolleyes:

Okay, shanek and I have hereby entered a contractual agreement for you to start sending each of us 10% of your paycheck. And by not leaving this forum, you've consented to its terms. (Did I leave anything out?)

the government has the authority to levy taxes (or to amend the contract to create such authority, if you prefer);

If power is all you mean by "authority", you might have a point. If you mean something else, well, not so much.

so taxation is legitimate, and not an infringement of your rights.

Just a clarification for everyone else. Don't be fooled by his use of the word "legitimate". Judging from his previous posts, all he means is legal, negating the second part of his statement - unless, of course, he wants to go on record claiming that nothing that is legal could possibly be "an infringement of your rights".

Is it a good idea? Well, that depends. Nobody likes to part with money; but on the balance, I would rather have a limit on my right to spend my earnings,

Your preference does not equate to a right to place that limit on anyone else's right to spend theirs. That's the part you keep forgetting.

and a have variety of other freedoms be unabridged, than the other way around; so yes, given the choice between a taxation state with great social freedom and a tax-free state which is socially intrusive, i would choose the former without a moment's doubt.

Where did you get the idea there are no other choices?

The fundamental point is, first and foremost, that I consider social freedoms to be more important than economic freedoms; because ultimately, money is just means to an end -- culture is an end in itself.

What the hell does that mean? You just seem to be, yet again, arguing that your preferences trump someone else's rights.

You can of course answer that it's better to be healthy and rich then sick and poor -- that it's best to have both economic and social freedom. My answer to that would be that the two are partially at odds. Money is means of coersion just like force,

Yeah, they're practically interchangeable. :rolleyes:

and too much economic freedom will inevitably abridge social freedom;

How?

and as I said, I value the latter more than the former.

Some of us recognize that any preferences we might have between the two don't justify violating anyone else's - economic or social.

if you include self-actualization in the list of social freedom -- which, in this day and age, we should, as it's pretty much a keystone of any serious "pursuit of happiness" -- then the case for taxation becomes crystal-clear. In order to give everyone the opportunity to self-actualize, we create social support infrastructure -- subsidized education and medical care, welfare, etc.

I have to admit that it's been a while since I've seen anyone be quite so blatant about professing that the right to pursue happiness includes having a claim on good or services that must be provided by others. Oh, and using that "self-actualization" thing to support such a view was particularly amusing.

In short, taxation is IMO (and according to our social contract) a perfectly reasonable price to pay for a world where people's social freedoms are greatly expanded and protected.

By the way, I noticed that you haven't been any more up front about what you mean by the "social contract" here than you were in previous discussions. Is there some reason you won't just go ahead and refer to it as "the Constitution", so everyone will know what you're talking about?

shanek

28th March 2003, 07:23 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Well, you start by saying that you don't have a right to keep all your money -- it's in the contract,

What contract? I didn't sign any contract. Is this the same sort of "contract" that I violate when I skip the commercials in my PVR?

Nobody likes to part with money; but on the balance, I would rather have a limit on my right to spend my earnings, and a have variety of other freedoms be unabridged,

What freedoms are unabridged that would be abridged if they didn't take half your paycheck in taxes? As near as I can figure, I'm paying half my paycheck in taxes so that I have to flush my toilet three times, pay $300 extra a month on my house payment, and end up having to replace my garage foundation in ten years for lack of a gutter.

The more the government taxes, the more it has the power to intrude into our lives and obstruct our freedom.

so yes, given the choice between a taxation state with great social freedom and a tax-free state which is socially intrusive,

How could a tax-free state afford to be socially intrusive?

You've set up a false dichotomy here.

The fundamental point is, first and foremost, that I consider social freedoms to be more important than economic freedoms;

Bully for you; but there's nothing saying we can't have both at the same time. In fact, for most of this country's history, with a few exceptions we did.

[bIn short, taxation is IMO (and according to our social contract)[/b]

I'd like to read this social contract sometime. Do you have a link to it?

The only contract we have that I'm aware of is the Constitution.

Victor Danilchenko

28th March 2003, 07:39 AM

WMT1

I am ignoring you, idiot, but your outright lie had to be addressed.

Just a clarification for everyone else. Don't be fooled by his use of the word "legitimate". Judging from his previous posts, all he means is legal, negating the second part of his statementthat's a bold-faced lie. What I said originally was the "the relationship between legitimate and good is akin to relationship between legal and good" -- first of all I compared relationships ("legitimate" only partially overlaps with "good", and so does legal), and secondly, I explicitly said "akin to" rather than "identical with". there is no way anyone but a moron like yourself could interpret that passage to mean that I equate legal and legitimate.

By the way, I noticed that you haven't been any more up front about what you mean by the "social contract" here than you were in previous discussions. Is there some reason you won't just go ahead and refer to it as "the Constitution", so everyone will know what you're talking about?Yes, there is a reason -- same reason as I don't refer to "Accura integra" when i mean to speak about cars. US Constitution is just one specific example of a social contract.

Victor Danilchenko

28th March 2003, 07:51 AM

shanek

What contract? I didn't sign any contract. Is this the same sort of "contract" that I violate when I skip the commercials in my PVR?No, it's the contract you implicitly accepted by living in USA -- the Constitution that you so often speak about.

What freedoms are unabridged that would be abridged if they didn't take half your paycheck in taxes?Do you remember the US "company towns" of 19th century? that's a perfect example of how too much economic freedom abridges personal freedom. if a private entity controls your access to job, shopping, and means of transportation, and chooses to do so in an unfair manner, your personal freedoms are abridged.

The more the government taxes, the more it has the power to intrude into our lives and obstruct our freedom.it has that power anyway; power is power, and can be used for good or ill.

No, I don't trust the government to not abuse power either; but at the same time, there are things which the government is best suited to provide. We have to balance the two, IMO -- not to give it so little power that it cannot fulfill its purpose of providing for people that which they cannot realistically provide for themselves, nor so much power that it smothers the economic and social freedom.

How could a tax-free state afford to be socially intrusive?Oh, the state wouldn't be intrusive; I agree. instead, you would have the state give a free reign for some private entities to intrude upon others.

You've set up a false dichotomy here.I think you simply misconstrued what I said. I didn't claim that minarchic government itself, through its actions, would abridge people's freedoms.

Bully for you; but there's nothing saying we can't have both at the same time.I disagree. just as the existence of my nose in the vicinity of your fist will abridge someone's freedom, so various economic and social freedoms can be used to abridge each other.

In fact, for most of this country's history, with a few exceptions we did.********. people had far less social freedom in the past, than they do now.

I'd like to read this social contract sometime. Do you have a link to it?

The only contract we have that I'm aware of is the Constitution.Yup, that's the one. i am glad that, unlike WMT1, you at least recognize it as our social contract.

Michael Redman

28th March 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
Where do people get the idea that libertarian views are dependent on any particular interpretation of what the Founding Fathers thought? :confused: From libertarians citing the work of the Founding Fathers as authority for their views of the proper relationship between the government and the people. From Shanek:Libertarians want to take the government back to the model defined in the Constitution: A government that provides a national defense, a justice system, and a very few other functions, with enough checks and balances in place to keep it as effective as possible, and get the government out of every other aspect of our lives.My point is that while this is certainly what the Founders wanted from the Federal government, that does not mean that this is how they viewed government in general.

shanek

28th March 2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
I am ignoring you, idiot, but your outright lie had to be addressed.

If you saw something he posted that you concluded to be a lie, then you weren't really ignoring him. :p

shanek

28th March 2003, 09:56 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
No, it's the contract you implicitly accepted by living in USA -- the Constitution that you so often speak about.

Where does the Constitution say that I should be forced to part with my hard-earned dollars to pay for powers the Constitution doesn't even grant to the government to begin with?

Do you remember the US "company towns" of 19th century? that's a perfect example of how too much economic freedom abridges personal freedom.

Oh, don't start that crap up again! I've debunked it several times already!

it has that power anyway;

It can only have that power through the Constitution. Where does the Constitution give them that power?

No, I don't trust the government to not abuse power either; but at the same time, there are things which the government is best suited to provide.

Like?

Oh, the state wouldn't be intrusive; I agree. instead, you would have the state give a free reign for some private entities to intrude upon others.

How so?

I think you simply misconstrued what I said. I didn't claim that minarchic government itself, through its actions, would abridge people's freedoms.

Well, you at least claimed that it would result in the abridgement of freedoms. I want you to support that.

I disagree. just as the existence of my nose in the vicinity of your fist will abridge someone's freedom, so various economic and social freedoms can be used to abridge each other.

How?

********. people had far less social freedom in the past, than they do now.

In what way?

Yup, that's the one. i am glad that, unlike WMT1, you at least recognize it as our social contract.

Then, in case you haven't noticed, the government has been in blatant breach of this contract for decades. Libertarians want the government to go back in line with the Constitution. So I really don't see how you can use this "social contract" to defend big government spending.

Victor Danilchenko

28th March 2003, 11:17 AM

shanek

Where does the Constitution say that I should be forced to part with my hard-earned dollars to pay for powers the Constitution doesn't even grant to the government to begin with?Nowhere, of course; but then your beef is not with taxation, but with taxes being spent inappropriately. Income taxation itself is perfectly legit.

Oh, don't start that crap up again! I've debunked it several times already!how about a link then?..

It can only have that power through the Constitution. Where does the Constitution give them that power?You wrote:

The more the government taxes, the more it has the power to intrude into our lives and obstruct our freedom.

it didn't sound like you were referring to constitutional authority, but to power itself -- to ability to intrude into people's lives. it was this sense of power (rather than "constitutional power") that I was speaking about.

Like?I already gave you the list before -- military and judicial systems (which yuo agree with), but also local roads and public education, to name just two. You seem to be interested in arguing that all other things are best provided by private means, but I think your specific arguments about specific areas repeatedly fall short of the mark.

Yes, there are some areas where government runs things, where market could do it better; but not all areas of governmental involvement (excluding military and judiciary) are like that.

How so?I already explained how so. Money, just as other forms of power, can be used to coerce, and thus to abridge people's freedoms. if your company controls the only highway to my town, for example (and mind you, this is just an example), there are all sorts of freedoms of mine that you can abridge.

Well, you at least claimed that it would result in the abridgement of freedoms. I want you to support that.You claim that market can solve the world's ills without creating more ills (or at least while resulting in a better balance of ills that the governments could produce). I would like you to support that.

But when you are confronted with the evidence of the fact that market is not omnipotent, you simply ignore it.

Can I support the contention that economic power can result in an abridgement of freedom? Sure; the examples of that are countless through history, from 19th century America to merchantile-era Europe to ancient world. But tell me honestly, would you accept any such examples? What would be the criteria to make an example acceptable to you? Wouldn't you instead simply claim that all those examples occurred under non-libertarian government, and thus don't bear any impact on the validity of libertopia?

How?The presence of my nose abridges your freedom to swing your fist, or the swinging of your fist abridges my freedom from physical assault. If you control the sole highway to town, you can abridge all sorts of freedoms in that town. If you control the water main or the power cables on my street, there are all sorts of abridgements you can impose as a price of my continued access to your product (this in general applies to many "last-mile" utility carriers).

before you say that these are just hypothetical examples -- remember that your question 'how?" was in regard to my statement that such abridgements can exist.

Well, this is how they can occur.

In what way?Oh, try blue laws, for example; or try the ridiculous treason and sedition laws; or try the segregation laws. hell yeah, people were enjoying fewer social freedoms in American past.

Then, in case you haven't noticed, the government has been in blatant breach of this contract for decades. Libertarians want the government to go back in line with the Constitution.Possibly true, and arguably true; but neither point supports the contention that taxation itself is not legitimate.

So I really don't see how you can use this "social contract" to defend big government spending.I didn't; in fact, you may recall that I agree with libertarian position with regard to many areas where the government is dominant. You can only call my position "defense of big government' if you say that anything bigger than a minarchy is "big government". No, I use "social contract" to defend taxation; specific application of taxation money is up for grabs, but taxation itself is legitimate.

shanek

28th March 2003, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Nowhere, of course; but then your beef is not with taxation, but with taxes being spent inappropriately. Income taxation itself is perfectly legit.

Income Tax is unnecessary to the Constitutional functions of government and only enables them to wield unconstitutional powers.

how about a link then?..

They seem to have expired from the forum; a search didn't turn them up. Here in the US, the company-owned towns had higher than average quality if life with lower than average costs of living. Further, it was completely possible to exchange company scrip for US Dollars, and when compared to the exchange rate the prices at the company store were reasonable. Morale in these towns was high and anyone who wanted to could leave and go somewhere else. Workers were mobile, and turnover rates were high. The competitive market for workers benefited them greatly. The company provisions of stores, houses, and schools, instead of being some nefarious plot to enslave the workers (as many would have you believe), were part of a competitive benefits package.

These places were nightmares, however, in Mexico, Latin America, and other places, where the scrip was basically worthless and the police would actively stop people from leaving. In those areas, it was the government intervention on behalf of the companies that made these workers no better than slaves. Many have tried to claim that these atrocities were also in place in American company towns, but that just isn't the case.

Read "Operations of 'Unfettered' Labor Markets" by Price V. Fishback, Journal of Economic Literature, June 1998.

I already explained how so. Money, just as other forms of power, can be used to coerce, and thus to abridge people's freedoms.[/n]

How? The only way I can think is to force you to give it up, something now done only by the government and criminals.

[b]if your company controls the only highway to my town, for example (and mind you, this is just an example), there are all sorts of freedoms of mine that you can abridge.

What's to stop someone else from making a highway and taking disgruntled customers away from that company?

You claim that market can solve the world's ills without creating more ills (or at least while resulting in a better balance of ills that the governments could produce). I would like you to support that.

I have been doing so, constantly and consistently, through the history of this forum.

But when you are confronted with the evidence of the fact that market is not omnipotent, you simply ignore it.

I challenge you to support that accusation.

Can I support the contention that economic power can result in an abridgement of freedom? Sure; the examples of that are countless through history, from 19th century America to merchantile-era Europe to ancient world.

The ancient world and Europe of centuries ago are hardly examples of free-market economies. OTOH, I once posted an example of Viking culture, which was very liberty-oriented and worked wonderfully, and received nothing more than excuses. And I've already debunked the myths of the economy of 19th Century America.

But tell me honestly, would you accept any such examples?

No, becuase they're either not examples of free market economies, or the ones that are are just flat out myths.

If you control the water main or the power cables on my street, there are all sorts of abridgements you can impose as a price of my continued access to your product (this in general applies to many "last-mile" utility carriers).

Then why isn't that the case in places that have deregulated the water or power supplies? Are Pennsylvanians living under a more restrictive system now that they have their choice of power companies?

before you say that these are just hypothetical examples

They are hypothetical, whereas I've constantly given actual real world examples, both historical and present.

Oh, try blue laws, for example; or try the ridiculous treason and sedition laws; or try the segregation laws. hell yeah, people were enjoying fewer social freedoms in American past.

Sounds like that's all due to government to me. :rolleyes:

You can only call my position "defense of big government' if you say that anything bigger than a minarchy is "big government".

Anything bigger than allowed by the Constitution is big government.

WMT1

28th March 2003, 12:09 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
WMT1

I am ignoring you,

Translation: Victor hasn't thought his views through very well, and he knows they don't withstand much point-by-point scrutiny.

idiot,

And namecalling is one way he can be counted on to try to create the illusion of superiority to cover for that failure.

but your outright lie had to be addressed.

Uh-huh. We'll see how well you substantiate this characterization ...

Well, you start by saying that you don't have a right to keep all your money -- it's in the contract, the government has the authority to levy taxes (or to amend the contract to create such authority, if you prefer); so taxation is legitimate, and not an infringement of your rights.

Just a clarification for everyone else. Don't be fooled by his use of the word "legitimate". Judging from his previous posts, all he means is legal, negating the second part of his statement - unless, of course, he wants to go on record claiming that nothing that is legal could possibly be "an infringement of your rights".

that's a bold-faced lie.

Naw, at worst it's a pretty sound conclusion based on your own use of the word (stay tuned for examples), subsequent calls for clarification that you ignored, and my qualifier "judging from his previous posts".

What I said originally was the "the relationship between legitimate and good is akin to relationship between legal and good" --

Let's stop right there. First, that's all the explanation you provided at the time. Second, as I pointed out, you ignored my requests for further clarification, so any that you're trying to put forth in this reactionary post are a little late in the game to justify calling something a "bold-faced lie". Finally, if you wanted to be clear, is there some reason you didn't just provide a definition for "legitimate", rather than relying on some vague explanation about its relationship to other words?

first of all I compared relationships ("legitimate" only partially overlaps with "good", and so does legal), and secondly, I explicitly said "akin to" rather than "identical with". there is no way anyone but a moron like yourself could interpret that passage to mean that I equate legal and legitimate.

That's right. Just keep telling yourself that. :rolleyes:

In fact, if you keep trying to cover for your own incompetence by calling me a "moron", there might even be someone in this forum to whom it will make your IQ seem higher.

Now, let's revisit some of your other comments left out of this picture so far.

So what? it's legit because it's an amendment -- our social contract, in this scenario, has been legitimately amended in accordance with the procedures specified therein. This is why it's legitimate. if you don't like it, you can agitate against it or move out of US (compare to my hypothetical response to Drug Amendment), but you cannot complain about it being illegitimate or unconstitutional etc. -- not without appearing a moron at least. [emphasis mine]

Now, if legal is not what you meant, can you identify what definition of "legitimate" you were using in these comments - you know, one that would clearly make someone a "moron" for challenging the legitimacy of an amendment? Or, probably more to the point, do you want to go on record claiming there is no meaning of the word "illegitimate" that could reasonably be used to describe an amendment?

And here's another exchange:

Incidentally, can I take it you would be just fine with the war on drugs if an amendment were passed making it Constitutional?

No. However, that would make War on Drugs be legitimate -- a really stupid idea, but a legitimate part of social contract. I would join the movement trying to kill that amendment (the way prohibition got killed);

Again, if you don't mean legal, then what the hell do you mean? Is it something which is based on an objective standard like "legal"? And if not, then how would that justify calling someone a "moron" for referring to an amendment as "illegitimate"? And if all you mean is "constitutional", then isn't the expression "legitimate part of social contract" redundant?

You also said:

The difference between "legitimate" and "good" has never been confused by me; rather, you confused it, by claiming that taxation is not legitimate

I asked you to identify what statements of mine you were referring to, and on this, too, you were strangely silent - well, not so strange for you, I guess.

And then there was your attempt to attribute words to me that I had not expressed, in order to (yet again) create the impression of a valid criticism ...

It seems that you now wish to backpedal and claim that you meant to argue that "it's legitimate but bad" all along

Again I asked you to clarify, and again the silence was deafening. What a surprise.

So, if you're going to continue to use a particular word to try to make your points, especially if some of those points involve attributing views to others that they have not expressed, to manufacture phony criticisms for which there is no basis, and you then ignore calls for clarification about your meaning, you've got no complaints coming about how someone interprets your use of that word.

Now, if you want to take this opportunity to finally explain just exactly what you mean by the word, as well as to answer those questions of clarification you ignored before, then we can take a closer look at the validity of some of those earlier points in which you used it.

By the way, I noticed that you haven't been any more up front about what you mean by the "social contract" here than you were in previous discussions. Is there some reason you won't just go ahead and refer to it as "the Constitution", so everyone will know what you're talking about?

Yes, there is a reason -- same reason as I don't refer to "Accura integra" when i mean to speak about cars. US Constitution is just one specific example of a social contract.

Then which "contract" were you referring to when you said the following?

Well, you start by saying that you don't have a right to keep all your money -- it's in the contract,

...

the government has the authority to levy taxes (or to amend the contract to create such authority, if you prefer);

...

In short, taxation is IMO (and according to our social contract) a perfectly reasonable price to pay for a world where people's social freedoms are greatly expanded and protected.

And if your answer is "the Constitution", then that gets back to my earlier question. Why didn't you just say that in the first place, so everyone would know what the hell you're talking about?

And if it's some other contract, then please identify it, as well as its terms, and explain who agreed to it, and when.

WMT1

28th March 2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by shanek
What contract? I didn't sign any contract. Is this the same sort of "contract" that I violate when I skip the commercials in my PVR?

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
No, it's the contract you implicitly accepted by living in USA -- the Constitution that you so often speak about.

Are you ever going to take any responsibility for actually explaining the leaps you have to make to justify the "implicitly accepted by living in USA" part? That seems like a fairly pivotal component of your whole rationalization, one without which everything else falls apart. Yet you somehow seem to think merely saying it over and over again is sufficient to establish it as fact. And it's another one of those points about which you've been known to dodge questions in previous discussions. For some reason, I'm reminded of a line from one of your own posts a while back: "You seem to be unable to grasp the fact that your assumptions are only assumptions".

No, I use "social contract" to defend taxation; specific application of taxation money is up for grabs, but taxation itself is legitimate.

Now, if you would only get around to telling us what definition of "legitimate" you're using. :confused:

WMT1

28th March 2003, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I think libertarians misinterpret the Founding Fathers' effort to limit the Federal government as based on the idea that government itself should be limited.

Originally posted by WMT1
Where do people get the idea that libertarian views are dependent on any particular interpretation of what the Founding Fathers thought? :confused:

Originally posted by Michael Redman
From libertarians citing the work of the Founding Fathers as authority for their views of the proper relationship between the government and the people. From Shanek:

Libertarians want to take the government back to the model defined in the Constitution: A government that provides a national defense, a justice system, and a very few other functions, with enough checks and balances in place to keep it as effective as possible, and get the government out of every other aspect of our lives.

Then allow me to set the record straight. The principles of libertarianism stand on their own, and are not in any way dependent on, or defined by, the Constitution, or any other such documents, or what the "Founding Fathers" intended. In fact, I'm betting that, if you specifically ask other libertarians about this point (including shanek), they would agree with me.

Victor Danilchenko

28th March 2003, 12:37 PM

WMT1,

As I said before, arguing with you in like talking to a blank wall; this is why I try not to do it. As to "legal" vs. "legitimate" -- yes, of course they are different. they partially overlap, but there are things which are legal but not legitimate (CDC, segregation laws, Japanese internment during WWII, war on drugs' property forfeiture, etc.) and things which are legitimate but not necessarily legal (burning a flag, carrying a concealed weapon without permit, etc.)

the thing is that political legitimacy derived from lockean theory of government; and since USA was deliberately set up based on Locke's ideas, most illegitimate things are eventually declared illegal, and most legitimate things are eventually declared legal. In USA, then, the two concepts largely overlap; but they happen to overlap more or less accidentally and not by their nature. If you go into certain countries outside USA, the distinction between legality and legitimacy becomes much clearer. I don't use 'legal" and "legitimate" interchangeably precisely because they are concepts of different meaning and derivation, even though in the specific case of USA they tend to overlap a lot.

Similarly, I use "social contract" rather than "Constitution" because it's the fact of being our social contract that gives US Constitution its power. There can easily be illegitimate constitutions, and the mere fact of being a constitution of a country does not necessarily confer any special legitimacy on a document (but the fact of being a social contract does confer such). If you have trouble keeping track of the fact that Constitution is our social contract, then maybe you need a brain transplant.

Lastly, yes, my original statement in no way implies equivalency between legality and legitimacy; it took a moron like you to interpret it thusly. I ignored your requests for clarification precisly because you are a moron and a waste of time.

shanek

28th March 2003, 01:46 PM

Originally posted by WMT1

Then allow me to set the record straight. The principles of libertarianism stand on their own, and are not in any way dependent on, or defined by, the Constitution, or any other such documents, or what the "Founding Fathers" intended. In fact, I'm betting that, if you specifically ask other libertarians about this point (including shanek), they would agree with me.
I do, in fact, agree 100%, and I apologize if my remarks appeared to construe otherwise.

However, it is true that right now the Constitution is (with a few granted faults) not only a pretty good expression of a Libertarian government, but one that our own government is supposed to be obeying anyway. Therefore, to use Victor's word, it would appear to be the most "legitimate" argument. It's certainly an excellent starting point.

So, I have no problems stating that Libertarians want the government to abide by the Constitution.

Victor Danilchenko

28th March 2003, 01:52 PM

shanek

Income Tax is unnecessary to the Constitutional functionsThat is up to Congress and SCOTUS to decide, i think. While there are clear cases of constitutional violations by the government, many more are rather grey, and can be defended as legal.

Regardless, my point was that income taxation per se is legitimate. I don't hear you disagreeing with that point, but rather claiming that income taxation opens doors to abuse.

They seem to have expired from the forum;Really? that must have been a long, long time ago that you posted them, then. Can you dig up any links outside the forum? I am certainly not going to drop everything and read that one book right away. I do know enough about statistics to know how easily they can be used to mis-represent reality, so excuse me if I don't take your interpretation of the book at face value.

How [can money be used to coerce]? The only way I can think is to force you to give it up, something now done only by the government and criminals.Government enforces property laws. If I have certain property, it's possible to arrange things in such a manner that excercising of some freedoms on your part would require you to infringe upon the said property, thus bringing in government's muscle in my property's defense.

This is a way I can think of. i am surprised you couldn't think of it by yourself.

What's to stop someone else from making a highway and taking disgruntled customers away from that company?Oh, just three examples off the top of my head: geography, land ownership, and cost. The geography may be such that there is only one viable route for the road to be laid. land ownership may be arranged so that the road-owning company owns a thin strip of land around town, or at least blocking all the viable routes, thus preventing anyone else from building a competing road. Lastly, building a road is an expensive enterprise -- a second road may not be worth it if the town is small.

So yes, my ownership of the soile road to town can very easily abridge your freedoms.

I have been doing so, constantly and consistently, through the history of this forum.At trying toi, at least. You succeed sometimes, and fail at other times. You certainly can't claim a ~100% success rate.

I challenge you to support that accusation.How about that old argument about public education? You simply refused to acknowledge the importance of the literacy rate as a consequence of state education.

No, becuase they're either not examples of free market economies, or the ones that are are just flat out myths.As I said, you reject any such examples a-priori.

Then why isn't that the case in places that have deregulated the water or power supplies? Are Pennsylvanians living under a more restrictive system now that they have their choice of power companies?Did the 'last mile"carriers get de-regulated? I doubt it. There is no viable way to have alternative power or water or sewage or phone "last mile" carriers; especially not water nor sewage (power and phone are arguable).

Sounds like that's all due to government to me. :rolleyes:Well, those laws were contemporary with greater economic freedom, no?.. hell, what about industrial revolution? how much freedom do you have if your only alternatives are to starve, or to work an 80-hour week? that's about as much of a free choice, as dying or handing over your wallet is.

Mysteriously, the historical growth of social freedom has been consistently accompanied by growth of government economic regulations.

Anything bigger than allowed by the Constitution is big government.Constitution is very interpretable. it's certainly not a given that your interpretation thereof is the right one. We already saw you goof on congressional taxation powers issue...

shanek

28th March 2003, 01:55 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
As I said before, arguing with you in like talking to a blank wall; this is why I try not to do it. As to "legal" vs. "legitimate" -- yes, of course they are different. they partially overlap, but there are things which are legal but not legitimate (CDC, segregation laws, Japanese internment during WWII, war on drugs' property forfeiture, etc.) and things which are legitimate but not necessarily legal (burning a flag, carrying a concealed weapon without permit, etc.)

I'm willing to hear you out on this, Victor, but right now I think I'd have to agree with WMT1—you are using the term "legitimate" to mean "legal," at least in a Constitutional manner. Your examples of things which are legal but not legitimate are not powers granted by the Constitution, and some are even restricted, while your examples of things which are legitimate but not legal are rights that the Constitution protects.

Even if it's not true that you mean "legitimate=legal," it certainly does appear that you mean "legitimate=Constitutional." I certainly don't think it's any reason to call WMT1 a liar or a moron.

Similarly, I use "social contract" rather than "Constitution" because it's the fact of being our social contract that gives US Constitution its power.

While I'm not disagreeing here, I do think the statement is interesting in that the President, Congress, members of the armed forces, and most state and local politicians swear an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution, whereas you and I are never asked for such an oath. Yet, you seem to be focusing on our obligation to the Constitution rather than that of the politicians.

shanek

28th March 2003, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Regardless, my point was that income taxation per se is legitimate. I don't hear you disagreeing with that point, but rather claiming that income taxation opens doors to abuse.

That's my main point of contention, but actually I do consider the idea of an Income Tax to be an affront to liberty.

Really? that must have been a long, long time ago that you posted them, then. Can you dig up any links outside the forum?

Links I'm not sure about. I'll see if anyone's referenced or summarized it online. I'm sure Lew Rockwell or mises.org has something to say on it.

I am certainly not going to drop everything and read that one book right away.

It's an article in an economic journal.

Government enforces property laws. If I have certain property, it's possible to arrange things in such a manner that excercising of some freedoms on your part would require you to infringe upon the said property, thus bringing in government's muscle in my property's defense.

I guess that depends on whether or not you believe that you have the "freedom" to infringe on others' property. Personally, I don't.

Oh, just three examples off the top of my head: geography, land ownership, and cost.

All of these are limiting factors to building roads, but the free market has shown time and time again that it's much better than government at getting the most out of scarce resources. The government doesn't even do a good job of getting people water.

At trying toi, at least. You succeed sometimes, and fail at other times. You certainly can't claim a ~100% success rate.

I'm sure I can't, but I think at all times I've presented evidence backing up my arguments, however flawed they might be.

How about that old argument about public education? You simply refused to acknowledge the importance of the literacy rate as a consequence of state education.

Now, that's a mischaracterization. The only problem I had with literacy rates is that you wanted me to use literacy rates OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION to measure the success of those who went to non-government schools, a requirement I don't think any reasonable person would agree with.

But, if you recall, I did post figures for the literacy rates (at least, the best ones I could find) and showed that there was a much greater rate of decrease in illiteracy before government schools than after. I even made a graph.

Did the 'last mile"carriers get de-regulated?

Not yet; they're still working on it. But look at, say, cable TV and internet. While the government has restricted cable companies to local monopolies, meaning it's no skin off their back if they take their time getting into rural areas because there's no competitive pressure (I still don't have cable access here), the satellite companies are not only delivering service to those areas, they're doing so more cheaply and with superior quality. The cable companies are only now starting to catch up with digital satellite. And DBS would be much better technology than it is now if the government hadn't been slapping it down every couple of years at the behest of the cable lobby.

So you'll pardon me if I don't appear too convinced by your "last mile" argument.

especially not water nor sewage (power and phone are arguable).

I've posted counterexamples to this numerous times. There are alternatives to water and sewer, but most are prohibited by local ordinances.

Well, those laws were contemporary with greater economic freedom, no?

So?

.. hell, what about industrial revolution? how much freedom do you have if your only alternatives are to starve, or to work an 80-hour week?

Hoo boy, here we go again...you really have bought the whole anti-capitalist myth, haven't you? Why don't you tell us about child labor next? :rolleyes:

Constitution is very interpretable.

That's not what our founders said. Or at least, when some did say it, others were very emphatic about pointing out that it really isn't.

WMT1

28th March 2003, 02:16 PM

Originally posted by shanek
I do, in fact, agree 100%, and I apologize if my remarks appeared to construe otherwise.

They didn't to me. Only to some others apparently.

However, it is true that right now the Constitution is (with a few granted faults) not only a pretty good expression of a Libertarian government, but one that our own government is supposed to be obeying anyway.

Agreed.

So, I have no problems stating that Libertarians want the government to abide by the Constitution.

The only problem I have with that statement is that, by itself, it can (and often does) leave the impression that libertarian views are based on the Constitution. As long as you're clarifying that it's because "libertarians believe xyz" and "the Constitution happens to (for the most part) support xyz", I'm okay with it.

Victor Danilchenko

28th March 2003, 02:16 PM

shanek

I'm willing to hear you out on this, Victor, but right now I think I'd have to agree with WMT1—you are using the term "legitimate" to mean "legal," at least in a Constitutional manner.if you are willing to hear me on this one, then just read the previous post to WMT1 -- i explained that in specific US case, given that our Constitution was based on lockean political theory, "legal" and 'legitimate" are largely the same -- but this is a property of US state, rather than an inherent feature of the terms themselves.

Thus, I use the terms in a distinct manner. Compare this to "house" vs. "home" -- they are the same for many people, but if your friend lives on a boat and owns a summer house in the mountains, using the two terms interchangeably will only confuse things. Furthermore, habitually interchanging those terms because you live in your house, will lead to confusion further on -- when your abovementioned boat-living friend speaks about "getting a lift home", you may think he is asking you to drive himn to the mountains rather than to the dock. Therefore I, as a matter of policy, try not to confuse connotationally distinct distinct terms with incidentally similar denotational domains.

WMT1's attack on me seems to hinge on deliberately ignoring the very clear distinction I made between those two terms, presumably in order to ascribe me some silly strawman views I don't hoold.

Even if it's not true that you mean "legitimate=legal," it certainly does appear that you mean "legitimate=Constitutional."As i said, this is a particular feature of US Constitution, and not true in general case. Constitution in this context is simply a convenient example of a social contract, and thus treating particular properties of the Constitution as general properties of the terms in question is very misleading.

I certainly don't think it's any reason to call WMT1 a liar or a moron.Sure there is. He ascribed to me a view which could not be reasonably derived from my statements, and then started running with it. You cannot derive such interpretation from my statements ("the relationship between good and legitimate is akin to the relationship between good and legal", as I recall). WMT1 was simply fishing for compromat on me.

While I'm not disagreeing here, I do think the statement is interesting in that the President, Congress, members of the armed forces, and most state and local politicians swear an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution, whereas you and I are never asked for such an oath. Yet, you seem to be focusing on our obligation to the Constitution rather than that of the politicians.I happen to think that politicians qua politicians have far more duties that individual citizens do, and fewer rights. however, the focus here repeatedly ends up being on the issue of taxation, and this is an issue that affects politicians and non-politicians equally (and there are far more non-politicians than politicians).

if you want to talk about what i think politicians' special obligations and restrictions should be, start a different thread.

WMT1

28th March 2003, 02:18 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
As I said before, arguing with you in like talking to a blank wall; this is why I try not to do it.

Wouldn't this characterization be more appropriate for someone who dodges questions about the arguments he makes, and uses namecalling to cover for his own inadequacies?

(It's good to see that you're still ignoring me, by the way.)

As to "legal" vs. "legitimate" -- yes, of course they are different. they partially overlap, but there are things which are legal but not legitimate (CDC, segregation laws, Japanese internment during WWII, war on drugs' property forfeiture, etc.) and things which are legitimate but not necessarily legal (burning a flag, carrying a concealed weapon without permit, etc.)

So, to avoid any further confusion, how about ending the mystery once and for all, and actually providing us with a definition of the word itself, so we can go back and review your earlier arguments with that definition in mind? At the very least, as a step in that direction, could you clearly explain why your first list of examples fails the legitimacy test, and your second list does not? Merely continuing to compare "legitimate" to other words, or citing what you consider to be examples, falls a bit short. You don't seem to want to be pinned down, and I think it's becoming pretty clear why.

the thing is that political legitimacy derived from lockean theory of government;

Based on what? You just seem to trying to pass off opinion as fact. Otherwise, it is just as valid to claim that political legitimacy - actual political legitimacy - is derived from libertarian theory of government. What makes your statement any more correct than mine? Again, it would help if we could manage to pin you down on what you mean by "legitimacy". Are you talking about something for which there is an objective standard, or is it just a subjective assessment in the same way "good" is? (The dodging continues ...)

and since USA was deliberately set up based on Locke's ideas, most illegitimate things are eventually declared illegal, and most legitimate things are eventually declared legal.

Then how much longer are we going to have to wait until taxation is declared illegal? :D

In USA, then, the two concepts largely overlap; but they happen to overlap though accident and not by their nature. If you go into certain countries outside USA, the distinction between legality and legitimacy becomes much clearer. I don't use 'legal" and "legitimate" interchangeably precisely because they are concepts of different meaning and derivation, even though in the specific case of USA they tend to overlap a lot.

That's nice. You're certainly saying an awful lot of stuff to get around providing the definition you've been using, which would be much more helpful than merely identifying something else ("legal") that it does not always mean.

Similarly, I use "social contract" rather than "Constitution" because it's the fact of being our social contract that gives US Constitution its power.

I'm pretty sure the power wasn't in question. Now, authority is another matter. Remember, contracts draw their validity from the consent of the parties to be bound by its terms, and you still have yet to explain how anyone can reasonably assume consent to that contract from not leaving the country.

There can easily be illegitimate constitutions, and the mere fact of being a constitution of a state does not necessarily confer any special privileges on a document (but the fact of being a social contract does confer such). If you have trouble keeping track of the fact that Constitution is our social contract, then maybe you need a braintransplant.

I hate to break it to you, but your constant insults don't strengthen your rather incomprehensible rationalizations the way you apparently think they do. I mean, really, "the fact of being a social contract does confer such"??? Where did you come up with that one? Sorry, but if you think you've said anything that clearly establishes the "social contract" in question as a valid contract, you don't have a lot of room to be commenting on anyone else's mental abilities.

I also find it interesting how selective you are in terms of what you respond to, and what you choose to "ignore". I asked a question earlier, following my comment about my "contract" with Shane. If you had any confidence in your position about social contracts, that question should have been a perfect setup for you to make your point clearly.

laslty, yes, my original statement in no way implies equivalency between legality and legitimacy;

This from the guy who thinks staying in the country implies consent to the terms of contracts. :rolleyes:

In any case, I dealt with this question pretty thoroughly in my previous post. I guess if you don't bother responding to things on a point-by-point basis, it kinda makes it easier to just repeat your original denial, huh?

it took a moron like you to interpret it thusly.

I'll give you credit for one thing. You're really persistent when it comes to using namecalling to try to add some punch to your otherwise lame responses. Now, if you could only set your sights a little higher.

I ignored your requests for clarification precisly because you are a moron and a waste of time.

Translation: Victor ignored my requests for clarification, because he knew such clarifications would invalidate previous points and/or insults, and, as should be painfully clear to anyone following these exchanges, calling me a "moron" is his way of covering for his own evasiveness.

Is there anybody out there who agrees with Victor on all this stuff, and would like to pick up the ball where he keeps fumbling it?

In the meantime, have a nice weekend everyone.

DanishDynamite

28th March 2003, 03:46 PM

shanek:Except that you aren't paying it willingly. It's being forceably extracted from your paycheck. If it were a matter of how much you were willing to pay, then the free market would handle it.Yes, like every other law that I must abide, it is ultimately enforced by force. Whether said law is a Constitutional law or otherwise, makes no difference. Abiding by the laws of the land is the price of living in a land ruled by law.

Your mantra that "the free market will provide" is a contention.
Please explain how you think my vision constitutes either a "free-for-all" (contradicted by my position of personal responsibility) or "jungle rules" (contradicted by my position of noninitiation of force). We've discussed these things before.

Let me ask you a question. Suppose ShanekWorld (TM) was implemented. Would this world have the same or better level of services as are now available? Would it have the same coverage? If both of these questions are answered in the affirmative, would the percent of annual income spent for these services be lower than they are today? If so, is that the main difference for citizens? I.e., is the end result of total liberlization of all sectors that people would generally spend less on "essentials" and that society would be more effecient?

shanek

28th March 2003, 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
if you are willing to hear me on this one, then just read the previous post to WMT1 -- i explained that in specific US case, given that our Constitution was based on lockean political theory, "legal" and 'legitimate" are largely the same -- but this is a property of US state, rather than an inherent feature of the terms themselves.

Okay, so how about providing distinct definitions for "legal" and "legitimate"?

shanek

28th March 2003, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
shanek:Yes, like every other law that I must abide, it is ultimately enforced by force.

Well, at least you admit that. But earlier you said:

It's a question of balance. How much am I willing to pay in order to have as "equalized" a society as the Danish?

The mere fact that it's "enforced by force" removes any consideration about how much you're willing to pay. The free market is based on how much you're willing to pay; government isn't.

Let me ask you a question. Suppose ShanekWorld (TM) was implemented. Would this world have the same or better level of services as are now available?

I can't think of any that would be available at a lower level.

Would it have the same coverage?

If not better. It would certainly be more efficient.

If both of these questions are answered in the affirmative, would the percent of annual income spent for these services be lower than they are today?

Yes, due to competition and increased efficiency.

If so, is that the main difference for citizens?

The main difference is that you don't have to pay for services that you don't want or use. You are free.

DanishDynamite

28th March 2003, 05:07 PM

shanek:Well, at least you admit that. Have I ever denied this?
The mere fact that it's "enforced by force" removes any consideration about how much you're willing to pay. The free market is based on how much you're willing to pay; government isn't.Crapola. Provision of a service is always a matter of how much you are willing to pay.
Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Suppose ShanekWorld (TM) was implemented. Would this world have the same or better level of services as are now available? Would it have the same coverage? If both of these questions are answered in the affirmative, would the percent of annual income spent for these services be lower than they are today? If so, is that the main difference for citizens? I.e., is the end result of total liberlization of all sectors that people would generally spend less on "essentials" and that society would be more effecient?
shanek's replies....
I can't think of any that would be available at a lower level. Technically an evasion, but I'll take that as a Yes.
If not better. It would certainly be more efficient.Hmmm. Is that a yes or no? On balance, I judge it as a Yes.
Yes, due to competition and increased efficiency. OK. So, at this point we are assured that in ShanekWorld the same (or better) services, with the same coverage, would be available at a lower cost than today.
The main difference is that you don't have to pay for services that you don't want or use. You are free.I am free today.

What I have gathered from your responses is that aside from the freedom to chose (figuratively) between McDonald and BurgerKing, the main difference between the way it is now and the untried ShanekWorld is that society will be more effecient. The question is therefore: Would I be willing to demolish most of the current, functioning, public institutions in the hope that similar non-public institutions will arise and be more efficient, and thus reduce my tax rates?

shanek

28th March 2003, 07:36 PM

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
shanek: Have I ever denied this?

No, but getting others to admit this is like pulling eye teeth.

Crapola. Provision of a service is always a matter of how much you are willing to pay.

Not if your will doesn't enter into it. When your money is taken from you by force, you don't get any say in how much goes to anything. You aren't paying anything. You don't have any more control over it than you do over the money a mugger takes from your wallet.

Technically an evasion, but I'll take that as a Yes.

It's a yes with a qualification.

Hmmm. Is that a yes or no? On balance, I judge it as a Yes.

I thought it was a clear yes.

I am free today.

You are not free to spend, save, or give all of the money you make as you see fit.

The question is therefore: Would I be willing to demolish most of the current, functioning, public institutions in the hope that similar non-public institutions will arise and be more efficient, and thus reduce my tax rates?

Who said anything about "demolish"ing them? Ever heard of privatization?

Victor Danilchenko

29th March 2003, 05:36 AM

shanek

Okay, so how about providing distinct definitions for "legal" and "legitimate"?Well, "legal" is self-evident -- -- it's comething that's in accordance with a given body of laws.

"Legitimate (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=legitimate)" is a little more complicated. In the general case, I mean it to be in senses 2 and 3 of the above definition:

2. Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards: legitimate advertising practices.
3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.

Now in political theory specifically, these senses of legitimacy pretty much automatically imply a Lockean social-contract state, for it is both the nearly-universally accepted theory of government, and a logical solution to the problem of anarchy and human rights.

Remember, according to Locke, a state is voluntarily created by the people to provide that which they cannot provide for themselves. If you reject lockean theory, you either reject the idea that a state should created by consent of the governed (which is authoritarian), or you reject the parsimonious idea that the sole function of the state should be to provide for the people that which they cannot provide for themselves.

I hope you agree that a libertarian ideas about state would be either anarchistic ir minarchic. Ignoring the rather rare former option, libertarian minarchy is simply a special case of social-contract state: a Lockean government with the additional provision that only very, very few functions -- typically judiciary and military -- are the ones which peoiple cannot provide for themselves, and thus create a state to provide for them.

(so no, WMT1, there is no "libertarian theory of state" that's apart from Lockean theory)

Victor Danilchenko

29th March 2003, 06:39 AM

P.S. the reason I excluded definition #1 of 'legitimate" ("Being in compliance with the law; lawful: a legitimate business.") is because legitimacy must be applicable in domains where legality is not -- social contract precedes legal system for example, and we couldn't meaningfully speak about the legitimacy of a social contract if we accepted definition #1.

shanek

29th March 2003, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Well, "legal" is self-evident -- -- it's comething that's in accordance with a given body of laws.

Except that there is such a thing as an "illegal law."

Remember, according to Locke, a state is voluntarily created by the people to provide that which they cannot provide for themselves.

No, to Locke, the state is created by the people to protect their rights. You make Locke sound like a Socialist.

a Lockean government with the additional provision that only very, very few functions -- typically judiciary and military -- are the ones which peoiple cannot provide for themselves, and thus create a state to provide for them.

No, those are functions which are there to preserve the rights of the people from those who would seek to infringe upon them, both from within and without.

Victor Danilchenko

29th March 2003, 06:57 AM

WMT1,

Based on what? You just seem to trying to pass off opinion as fact.Well, you did ask me how I was using the term 'legitimate", moron...

Otherwise, it is just as valid to claim that political legitimacy - actual political legitimacy - is derived from libertarian theory of government.Coming from someone who has no clue about any theory of government, this is quite amusing. See my post to Shane, idiot.

That's nice. You're certainly saying an awful lot of stuff to get around providing the definition you've been using, which would be much more helpful than merely identifying something else ("legal") that it does not always mean.My aim here is not to be helpful to you, but rather to disprove your stupid lies about me. You asserted that I use "legitimate" to mean "legal" -- to counter this assertion, all I need to do is prove that i don't use the terms synonymously. Taking a page from your book, I decided to simply do that, instead of being helpful and explaining what "legality" and "legitimacy" are actually used to mean here; or have you forgotten the thread where you spent 3 pages bitching at RandFan about sex, instead of simply and helpfully saying that you have no problem with consensual necrophilia (or whatever it was)?

I hate to break it to you, but your constant insults don't strengthen your rather incomprehensible rationalizations the way you apparently think they do.they amuse me, as does your painfully impotent intellecual flopping. The lack of comprehension is all in your mind, dude...

I also find it interesting how selective you are in terms of what you respond to, and what you choose to "ignore". I asked a question earlier, following my comment about my "contract" with Shane. If you had any confidence in your position about social contracts, that question should have been a perfect setup for you to make your point clearly.I made my point clear numerous times before -- and one other thing that became clear is that it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you. Therefore, I am not wasting time talking to you about any actual political issues.

Victor Danilchenko

29th March 2003, 07:15 AM

shanek

Except that there is such a thing as an "illegal law."Indeed. A given body of laws can be internally inconsistent, so yes, there can be "illegal laws". What's the problem?

No, to Locke, the state is created by the people to protect their rights.that's only one of the things that people cannot do for themselves, and thus need a state for. The most important thing the people need the state for, according to Locke, is the protection of private property (not general rights) -- but the reason for this postulate is that protection of private property is needed for public good.

You make Locke sound like a Socialist.No, I make him sound like a social-contract theorist. Given different auxilliary assumptions, a variety of specific political arrangements can be derived from Locke (not socialism, but both libertarian minarchy and european welfare state certainly can) -- but there's no getting away from his social contract itself.

shanek

29th March 2003, 08:49 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Indeed. A given body of laws can be internally inconsistent, so yes, there can be "illegal laws". What's the problem?

Because by your definition, they would be both legal and illegal, a paradox. Since you do acknowledge that there are illegal laws, then there must be an aspect of legitimacy to something that is legal.

that's only one of the things that people cannot do for themselves, and thus need a state for. The most important thing the people need the state for, according to Locke, is the protection of private property (not general rights) -- but the reason for this postulate is that protection of private property is needed for public good.

Well, he realized the importance of private property to a free state.

No, I make him sound like a social-contract theorist.

Your description is, almost word for word, the phrasing Socialists use to justify welfare etc.

The contract of the Constitution is not between society and the government, but between individuals and the government. Whenever the Constitution refers to "the people," it's referring to individuals with individual rights.

Victor Danilchenko

31st March 2003, 05:11 AM

shanek

Because by your definition, they would be both legal and illegal, a paradox.So? if you start with the premise that 1=2, then you can prove that 2=3. So what? Of course you can get an inconsistent conclusion if you start with inconsistent premises! That's not the problem with the definition, that's the problem with inconsistent premises -- just as in my 2=3 example, it's not Peano axioms that are the problem, but the faulty premise.

Since you do acknowledge that there are illegal laws, then there must be an aspect of legitimacy to something that is legal.Why? I don't see how that follows from anything. It's possible for laws to be totally illegitimate.

Well, he realized the importance of private property to a free state.Indeed. that's what io said -- and this is why I didn't agree that I made locke sound like a socialist. Socialism, given that it precludes private ownership of means of production, cannot be derived from lockean social-contract theory. It can be derived from Rousseau's social-contract theory, but not from Locke's.

Your description is, almost word for word, the phrasing Socialists use to justify welfare etc.And your point is?..

You have to look beyond the surface, Shane. Locke starts out with certain non-libertarian-seeming premises, but arrives at a conclusion that is most agreeable to libertarians. Similarly, Mill starts out with utilitarianism ('greatest good for the greatest number'), which seems utterly non-libertarian, and concludes that liberty is the most important such good (to which end he even wrote a highly influential treatise, "On Liberty").

You shouldn't knee-jerk in rejection the moment you discover that some ideology isn't libertarian from its very first assumption down to its last conclusion. Yes, you can derive socialist ideas from the notion of social contract; so fscking what? You seem to be employing a version of ideological "guilt by association" -- if a certain idea is used by socialism or totalitarianism or whatever, it's automatically tainted. I hope you realize that this is not a good way to approach philosophy.

The contract of the Constitution is not between society and the government, but between individuals and the government. Whenever the Constitution refers to "the people," it's referring to individuals with individual rights.that's arguable; however, I don't see how it has any bearing on my point.

shanek

31st March 2003, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
So? if you start with the premise that 1=2, then you can prove that 2=3. So what? Of course you can get an inconsistent conclusion if you start with inconsistent premises! That's not the problem with the definition, that's the problem with inconsistent premises -- just as in my 2=3 example, it's not Peano axioms that are the problem, but the faulty premise.

And what is the faulty premise in this case? If the definition of "legal" is "in accordance with a given body of laws," and those laws could be illegal laws, then a given action could be both legal and illegal at the same time!

Why? I don't see how that follows from anything. It's possible for laws to be totally illegitimate.

That's what I was pointing out—there are legitimate and illegitimate laws. Therefore, you can't base the legitimacy of something on whether or not it's legal.

Indeed. that's what io said -- and this is why I didn't agree that I made locke sound like a socialist. Socialism, given that it precludes private ownership of means of production, cannot be derived from lockean social-contract theory. It can be derived from Rousseau's social-contract theory, but not from Locke's.

Okay, but just be careful how you word that in the future.

Locke starts out with certain non-libertarian-seeming premises, but arrives at a conclusion that is most agreeable to libertarians. Similarly, Mill starts out with utilitarianism ('greatest good for the greatest number'), which seems utterly non-libertarian, and concludes that liberty is the most important such good (to which end he even wrote a highly influential treatise, "On Liberty").

I agree. But you didn't go that far in your description. Locke and Mill have been used to attempt to justify Socialism before.

Yes, you can derive socialist ideas from the notion of social contract; so fscking what?

So, you need to be careful to differentiate what it is you're talking about when you mention it.

that's arguable; however, I don't see how it has any bearing on my point.

The implication that people are helpless and need government to step into their lives is Socialist; and that idea is consistent with the statement you made about Locke but not Locke himself.

We simply don't need government to provide what we cannot provide for ourselves. I can't perform an appendectomy on myself should I need one; but I don't have to go to the government for it. I go to a doctor, and I get to choose my own doctor (well, unless I'm in a government-based medical plan).

Victor Danilchenko

31st March 2003, 07:39 AM

shanek

And what is the faulty premise in this case? If the definition of "legal" is "in accordance with a given body of laws," and those laws could be illegal laws, then a given action could be both legal and illegal at the same time!The faulty premise is the self-contradictong body of laws itself! The contradiction between laws is one of the inputs yoou feed into the legality evaluation function. If an input is undefined, the results are not guaranteed to be predictable. GIGO.

That's what I was pointing out -- there are legitimate and illegitimate laws. Therefore, you can't base the legitimacy of something on whether or not it's legal.I didn't! WMT1, the idiot, claimed that I did! I always made a distinction between legality and legitimacy -- WMT1 was the one who lacked the reading comprehension to get it.

Okay, but just be careful how you word that in the future.it makes no difference. WMT1 will ignore the carefully worded statements in favor of his mis-interpretations anyway, and most normal people can be reasonably talked with as a mean of clearing up the confusion, should any arise.

I agree. But you didn't go that far in your description. Locke and Mill have been used to attempt to justify Socialism before.Do you expect me to write an essay each time I make a post? I am doing "lazy evaluation" here. I will answer concerns as they are raised, rather than try do answer all possible objections from the get-go. Given the medium, this is a perfectly reasonable policy I think.

So, you need to be careful to differentiate what it is you're talking about when you mention it.but it makes no difference! The fact that you can derive socialism from the idea of a social contract, does not obligate me to suffix each reference to social contract with a disclaimer about me not actually deriving socialism from it -- just as I feel no need to say "I disagree with objectivism" each time I speak about logic.

Context, dude, context! Don't let your ideological paranoia -- or the misguided desire to protect your retarded co-ideologue -- do the thinking for you!

The implication that people are helpless and need government to step into their lives is Socialist; and that idea is consistent with the statement you made about Locke but not Locke himself.Yes, it is consistent with Locke -- Locke believes that people are helpless in some respects; namely, to provide a proper framework for defining and protecting private property. The difference is in how far this "helplessness" extends.

We simply don't need government to provide what we cannot provide for ourselves. I can't perform an appendectomy on myself should I need one; but I don't have to go to the government for it.Being able to procure the service from another at a reasonable expense counts as being able to provide it for yourself, shane. Obviously the fact that you don't raise your own cows doesn't necessitate government beef production!

shanek

31st March 2003, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
The faulty premise is the self-contradictong body of laws itself! The contradiction between laws is one of the inputs yoou feed into the legality evaluation function. If an input is undefined, the results are not guaranteed to be predictable. GIGO.

So then you do need some concept of legitimacy as it applies to laws to determine which laws are legal and which are illegal. The mere fact that a law exists does not make it legal; it must be a legitimate law derived from the just powers granted to the government by consent of the governed.

I didn't! WMT1, the idiot, claimed that I did! I always made a distinction between legality and legitimacy -- WMT1 was the one who lacked the reading comprehension to get it.[/b][/quote]

But since there can be illegal laws, the only laws which are legal are legitimate. So, in your usage of the words, "legal" and "legitimate" are certainly tied together, and given the caveat above, your original claim that taxation is legitimate stems from the fact that it is legal. That is what WMT1 was referring to. You could have substituted the word "legal" and the sentence would have had the same meaning, given the constraints we've discussed.

Do you expect me to write an essay each time I make a post?

No, but you should refrain from using ambiguities.

but it makes no difference! The fact that you can derive socialism from the idea of a social contract, does not obligate me to suffix each reference to social contract with a disclaimer about me not actually deriving socialism from it

But you shouldn't use phrases that encompass it when you mean to exclude it.

Yes, it is consistent with Locke -- Locke believes that people are helpless in some respects; namely, to provide a proper framework for defining and protecting private property. The difference is in how far this "helplessness" extends.

No, they're not helpless, because they can form a government to protect it. The individuals are the ones that form a Lockean government; if they were truly helpless to do it, it wouldn't work and would have to be imposed upon them from outside. This may seem like a pedant point to you, but I think it's important.

Being able to procure the service from another at a reasonable expense counts as being able to provide it for yourself, shane.

So how is that different from the individuals forming a government of, by, and for the people to protect their property rights?

Victor Danilchenko

31st March 2003, 09:47 AM

shanek

So then you do need some concept of legitimacy as it applies to laws to determine which laws are legal and which are illegal.Yes, you can and should apply the concept of legitimacy to laws; but realize that it goes the other way around, too -- a policy can be legal but illegitimate, legitimate but illegal, legitimate and legal, and neither legitimate nor legal. This merely implies that the concepts of legitimacy and legality are related -- which fact I myself stated before; but not in any way does it imply that they are equivalent.

The mere fact that a law exists does not make it legal; it must be a legitimate law derived from the just powers granted to the government by consent of the governed.No, that is what's necessary to make it a legitimate law; but it can be legal yet illegitimate.

Now it so happens that in USA an illegitimate law is nearly-automatically illegal; but please stop generalizing so blindly!

But since there can be illegal laws, the only laws which are legal are legitimate.In USA, yes. I have said that numerous times -- that USA was explicitly set up in such a manner that legitimacy and legality are aligned. Didn't you read me say it the last dozen times?

So, in your usage of the words, "legal" and "legitimate" are certainly tied together,that they are related I never denied; but that relationship is non-trivial. They are nearly identical in USA only, which fact I keep repeating over and over, and which fact you seem to be utterly ignoring. Yes, they are different in the general case!

To use my earlier example, just because your house is also your home doesn't mean that "house" is the same as "home"!

and given the caveat above, your original claim that taxation is legitimate stems from the fact that it is legal.and from the fact that in USA, legal ~= legitimate.

I repeatedly said that it's not the mere fact of legality of taxation that makes it legitimate, but the fact that it was defined according to a legitimate social contract in a legitimately-specified manner.

That is what WMT1 was referring to.WMT1 refers to whatever he pleases. his statements have at most marginal relationship to reality.

You could have substituted the word "legal" and the sentence would have had the same meaning, given the constraints we've discussed.Because we were talking about USA, Shane. USA was the "case study" for legitimacy of income taxation -- if it's legitimate here, then income taxation can be legitimate, which was my point! (there obviously can be illegitimate taxation as well).

No, but you should refrain from using ambiguities.You should refrain from going out on a limb in order to defend an idiot who doesn't merit defense, because he dug his own hole, with his ignorance and stupidity and refusal to educate himself.

But you shouldn't use phrases that encompass it when you mean to exclude it.I meant neither to exclude it nor to include it. I meant nothing about socialism at all. I was trying to explain why a legitimate social contract is a sufficient basis to ground laws in.

No, they're not helpless, because they can form a government to protect it.Again, obviously. That's kinda the point -- that people are incapable of solving certain issues except by forming a government to handle them. Again, you are making an irrelevant objection.

The individuals are the ones that form a Lockean governmentor Rousseauan government, or Hobbesian governemnt... it's like this for pretty much any social contract. It's a given that when we speak about issues which people can't handle themselves and to handle which they form a government, by "themselves" we mean the people without the government's intervention.

This may seem like a pedant point to you, but I think it's important.This is a given point. Kinda like if, when you speak about "up", I started reminding you that "up" is not absolute but rather relative to the local gravity field. DUH!

So how is that different from the individuals forming a government of, by, and for the people to protect their property rights?it's not. People "forming a government of, by, and for the people to protect their property rights" is a specific baseline instance of Lockean social contract. You can't derive a smaller legitimate state from Locke, but you can certainly derive a larger legitimate one.

shanek

1st April 2003, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
No, that is what's necessary to make it a legitimate law; but it can be legal yet illegitimate.

Okay, now I'm confused again. You just agreed that if a law is legitimate then it is a legal law. So in order for there to be legal yet illegitimate laws then there must be yet a third aspect that we haven't covered that can make an illegitimate law legal.

Again, obviously. That's kinda the point -- that people are incapable of solving certain issues except by forming a government to handle them. Again, you are making an irrelevant objection.

My point is if people are capable of doing something to solve an issue, even if that thing is forming a government, then they aren't helpless. That's why governments must operate with the consent of the governed, or else they become tyrannies.

We can save for our own retirement; yet the government forces us into a fraudulent Social Security scheme ostensibly because we can't be trusted to save for our own retirement. The government doesn't trust us to make our own medical decisions, use our own property responsibly, on and on and on. Government is intruding into areas where we can help ourselves on the suspicion that we won't make the "right" decision. That's why I balk at the idea that government is there for the functions we're too "helpless" to provide for ourselves, and why I don't at all agree that this objection is irrelevant.

This is a given point. Kinda like if, when you speak about "up", I started reminding you that "up" is not absolute but rather relative to the local gravity field. DUH!

Except that, to continue your analogy, the government has many people convinced that up is down. Or sideways.

it's not.

Thank you.

WMT1

1st April 2003, 06:34 AM

Damn. I disappear for a couple of days, and just look at the mess waiting for me when I get back.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
WMT1's attack on me

:rolleyes:

This from the guy who makes a habit of referring to people as "moron", "idiot", or "retard" when he can't defend his own statements.

seems to hinge on deliberately ignoring the very clear distinction I made between those two terms,

Nonsense. At the time I posted what you referred to as a "lie", you had made no such clear distinction.

presumably in order to ascribe me some silly strawman views I don't hoold.

Actually, what I've been trying to do is pin you down on the views you do hold. So far, you don't seem to like answering questions about them. Remember, you were the first to make an issue of the meaning of "legitimate", in response to my use of it, and you have since ignored several questions of clarification about your own use of it.

He ascribed to me a view which could not be reasonably derived from my statements

Wrong. I dealt with this point exhaustively last week.

You cannot derive such interpretation from my statements ("the relationship between good and legitimate is akin to the relationship between good and legal", as I recall).

I provided more foundation than that, as I recall. But like I said, if you don't bother responding to things on a point-by-point basis, it kinda makes it easier to just repeat your original denial, doesn't it?

WMT1 was simply fishing for compromat on me.

Does anyone else know what this means? :confused:

Victor Danilchenko

1st April 2003, 06:35 AM

shanek

Okay, now I'm confused again. You just agreed that if a law is legitimate then it is a legal law.Where? law is legal by definition; we want our laws to also be legitimate, but there can be illegitimate laws, and legitimate but illegal actions or action policies (obviously they aren't laws).

Besides, it's perfectly conceivable for two laws to both be legitimate, yet to contradict each other, thus at least one of them could also be legitimate but illegal (again, remember that a body of laws can be internally inconsistent).

So in order for there to be legal yet illegitimate laws then there must be yet a third aspect that we haven't covered that can make an illegitimate law legal.No. A law can be legal but illegitimate if a government that makes the laws is not based on a legitimate social contract; consider USSR for example -- there were plenty of illegitimate laws there.

You atre still missing my point, it seems. Illegitimate laws are nearly automatuically illegal in USA only, and that is only because USA was explicitly set up based on Lockean political theory, so as to align legality and legitimacy.

My point is if people are capable of doing something to solve an issue, even if that thing is forming a government, then they aren't helpless. That's why governments must operate with the consent of the governed, or else they become tyrannies.Agreed, and agreed. How does that disagree with anything I have said?

We can save for our own retirement; yet the government forces us into a fraudulent Social Security scheme ostensibly because we can't be trusted to save for our own retirement.Correction: most of us can save for our own retirement. As far as I am concerned, the systems like SS or welfare exist not to take care of people who can already take care of themselves, but of those who can't; as we as a society found out that we as individuals cannot take care of the elderly or the jobless or the dispossessed well enough.

Now you can of course argue that this is not the case; and that's a perfectly fine subject for debate -- but start by realizing that SS or welfare aren't a-priori illegitimate, the way for example a tyranny and its laws would be a-priori illegitimate.

The government doesn't trust us to make our own medical decisions, use our own property responsibly, on and on and on. Government is intruding into areas where we can help ourselves on the suspicion that we won't make the "right" decision. That's why I balk at the idea that government is there for the functions we're too "helpless" to provide for ourselvesWhere 'too helpless to provide for ourselves" means "too helpless to provide for ourselves except creating a government to do it". You are barking up the wrong tree. Instead of arguing about why specific government actions are illegal and illegitimate, you are arguing against the very framework that gives legitimacy to our social contract.

In fact, I have never before seen you argue that; but I have seen WMT1 argue that, and you seem to be assuming his position in order to defend that idiot.

Except that, to continue your analogy, the government has many people convinced that up is down. Or sideways.Yes, the government convinced many that there are things which the people cannot provide for themselves except through government; that itself is a perfectly true statement. The government has convinced people to include into that category certain factors which don't belong there, some things which people can provide for themselves; but the category itself is sound.

Again, you should be arguing against specific misapplications of social contract, rather than about the problems with the social contract itself, which you seem to be doing.

WMT1

1st April 2003, 06:38 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Well, "legal" is self-evident -- it's comething that's in accordance with a given body of laws. "Legitimate" is a little more complicated. In the general case, I mean it to be in senses 2 and 3 of the above definition:

2. Being in accordance with established or accepted patterns and standards: legitimate advertising practices.

3. Based on logical reasoning; reasonable: a legitimate solution to the problem.

If you accept number 3 as a valid definition, then what the hell was your point in making an issue of the meaning of the word in the first place, right after I said:

But what arguments could you possibly make as part of such a movement? Couldn't anyone just trump them by pointing out "but it's in the implicit social contract"? And if you don't think that qualifies as legitimate rebuttal to anyone arguing for change, then why have you relied so heavily on it?

Was it beyond your comprehension that I was simply using definition #3?

Moreover, which definition were you using when you posted the following?

So what? it's legit because it's an amendment -- our social contract, in this scenario, has been legitimately amended in accordance with the procedures specified therein. This is why it's legitimate. if you don't like it, you can agitate against it or move out of US (compare to my hypothetical response to Drug Amendment), but you cannot complain about it being illegitimate or unconstitutional etc. -- not without appearing a moron at least. [emphasis mine]

In particular, unless you're using some objective standard, how does being an amendment automatically make something "legit"? Would you refer to an amendment allowing institutionalized slavery as "legit"? And given that you yourself now apparently admit that someone could be using the word "illegitimate" to mean unreasonable, would now you like to reconsider your "moron" comment?

(*crickets*)

And once again, regarding the following comments ...

No. However, that would make War on Drugs be legitimate -- a really stupid idea, but a legitimate part of social contract. I would join the movement trying to kill that amendment (the way prohibition got killed);

To repeat my questions from earlier, which you ignored ...

Again, if you don't mean legal, then what the hell do you mean? Is it something which is based on an objective standard like "legal"?

(*crickets*)

Now in political theory specifically, these senses of legitimacy pretty much automatically imply a Lockean social-contract state,

According to who? You sure seem to have to base a lot of arguments on what you think something else implies. :rolleyes:

for it is both the nearly-universally accepted theory of government,

Isn't this what they call argumentum ad populum?

and a logical solution to the problem of anarchy and human rights.

Except for one small problem - when you start using the whole "social contract" thing to justify stuff like taxation, that "logical solution" begins to violate human rights. Now, is it your position that anything that is in the "social contract" is, by definition, not a violation of rights? And if that is not your position, then how do you make a distinction between those that are a violation and those that are not? And if something is a violation of rights, can it still be a legitimate part of the social contract?

(*crickets*)

Remember, according to Locke, a state is voluntarily created by the people to provide that which they cannot provide for themselves. If you reject lockean theory, you either reject the idea that a state should created by consent of the governed (which is authoritarian),

Don't you really just mean "consent of some of the governed"? :D

And if you're just going to go back to that thing of consent being determined by not leaving the country, can you explain what gives any particular group the authority to put together a contract, and to then just assume that everyone who doesn't emigrate consents to their contract?

(And please, if you end up actually taking a shot at answering this one, try to come up with something that isn't really just a thinly veiled argument about who has power at the time.)

or you reject the parsimonious idea that the sole function of the state should be to provide for the people that which they cannot provide for themselves.

Actually, what some of us reject is the idea of making people pay for things they haven't agreed to pay for, or claiming they've consented to a "contract" simply by not leaving the country. It might help if you let us in on Locke's position on these points. They're a little too important to dismiss. And if he was ambiguous about them, then maybe even he didn't think things through as thoroughly as he should have.

(so no, WMT1, there is no "libertarian theory of state" that's apart from Lockean theory)

There is if Lockean theory supports taxation. So, does it or doesn't it?

Besides, that wasn't what I asked in the first place. You do seem to have this recurring problem of ignoring the question that was actually asked in favor of one you'd apparently rather answer (and something tells me we haven't seen the last of it).

So, just to refresh your memory, you said:

the thing is that political legitimacy derived from lockean theory of government;

And I responded:

Based on what? You just seem to trying to pass off opinion as fact. Otherwise, it is just as valid to claim that political legitimacy - actual political legitimacy - is derived from libertarian theory of government. What makes your statement any more correct than mine?

Now, is there any chance you can provide a straightforward answer to that question?

WMT1

1st April 2003, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
the thing is that political legitimacy derived from lockean theory of government;

Originally posted by WMT1
Based on what? You just seem to trying to pass off opinion as fact.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Well, you did ask me how I was using the term 'legitimate", moron...

Actually, I've asked you quite a few questions about your use of the term, which you have yet to answer, moron. And you seem to be hellbent on covering for your evasiveness by doing just about anything other than answering what was actually asked. Moreover, merely proclaiming what you think political legitimacy is "derived from" does not tell me your definition of the word "legitimate". That definition is an issue you brought up, remember? So, would you like to try again?

Otherwise, it is just as valid to claim that political legitimacy - actual political legitimacy - is derived from libertarian theory of government.

Coming from someone who has no clue about any theory of government, this is quite amusing.

Coming from someone who has demonstrated such profound incompetence at defending his own theory of government, accusing anyone else of not having a "clue" is what is amusing.

In fact, let's take a closer look at your insult. Is this cluelessness just your way of describing someone who disagrees with, and challenges, your conclusions? Or does it refer to someone not having read everything you've read about political theory? You've certainly had every opportunity to explain it, and to respond to my questions about it, but if your ability to do so is any indication of its merit, then it doesn't seem as if I've missed much. You've clearly demonstrated an ability to parrot rhetoric, just like some can quote the Bible, but when it comes to fielding pointed questions about that rhetoric, you've revealed yourself to be, shall we say, a bit clueless. Because your constant stumbling, fumbling, and overall ineptness at defending your "social contract" arguments reflect all the critical analysis of someone who keeps defending religious authoritarianism by citing scripture and proclaiming "the Bible is God's word, because it says so in the Bible, and God's word wouldn't lie".

See my post to Shane, idiot.

And here we have yet another example of resorting to namecalling to cover for your own inability to come up with an answer.

Just to refresh your memory again, you said:

the thing is that political legitimacy derived from lockean theory of government;

And I responded:

Based on what? You just seem to trying to pass off opinion as fact. Otherwise, it is just as valid to claim that political legitimacy - actual political legitimacy - is derived from libertarian theory of government. What makes your statement any more correct than mine?

So, yet again, is there any chance you can provide a straightforward answer to that question?

That's nice. You're certainly saying an awful lot of stuff to get around providing the definition you've been using, which would be much more helpful than merely identifying something else ("legal") that it does not always mean.

My aim here is not to be helpful to you,

Nor, apparently, is it to be helpful to the defense of your rather poorly founded conclusions.

but rather to disprove your stupid lies about me. You asserted that I use "legitimate" to mean "legal" -- to counter this assertion, all I need to do is prove that i don't use the terms synonymously.

Then when are you going to? I defended my position last week, and you have so far declined to address those points. I'll refrain from repeating them all in detail here, but I will remind you of my summarized comments that followed some of them:

So, if you're going to continue to use a particular word to try to make your points, especially if some of those points involve attributing views to others that they have not expressed, to manufacture phony criticisms for which there is no basis, and you then ignore calls for clarification about your meaning, you've got no complaints coming about how someone interprets your use of that word.

I also then invited you to answer the questions I had asked you about your use of those words, but alas, you still have not gone near most of them.

Taking a page from your book, I decided to simply do that, instead of being helpful and explaining what "legality" and "legitimacy" are actually used to mean here;

I don't know what "page" you're talking about, but the one you should probably consider taking is the one about answering questions about the statements you make. Rather than proving anything, all you seem to be doing here is admitting to not being helpful. But that didn't need to be pointed out - it's been quite apparent for a long time, thanks to your clearly established pattern of ignoring tough questions (or even simple questions of clarification, for that matter).

or have you forgotten the thread where you spent 3 pages bitching at RandFan about sex, instead of simply and helpfully saying that you have no problem with consensual necrophilia (or whatever it was)?

Yeah, I corrected you on this point once before, too (something you neither refuted nor acknowledged, of course - no big surprise there). And now it appears your memory is growing even foggier. But just to set the record straight, yet again, I made my position clear from very early on in that discussion, with the words "I don't care", and it was RandFan (and now apparently you, too) who could not seem to infer neutrality or indifference from those words. It's getting pretty sad when, after reaching that far back to try to make a point, you still manage to come up empty.

I hate to break it to you, but your constant insults don't strengthen your rather incomprehensible rationalizations the way you apparently think they do.

they amuse me, as does your painfully impotent intellecual flopping.

Like all your other insults, this one, too, is best suited for someone too incompetent to answer questions about his views in a straightforward manner. Which of us do you suppose has established such a track record? Hmmm?

(*crickets*)

The lack of comprehension is all in your mind, dude...

Or in the mind of any self-respecting skeptic, for that matter. As with your previous multitude of attempts to spin your own failures as someone else's, this one has about as much validity as that of someone doing a lousy job of defending the authenticity of their religious beliefs claiming "if you don't believe what I say, it's because you don't really want to".

I also find it interesting how selective you are in terms of what you respond to, and what you choose to "ignore". I asked a question earlier, following my comment about my "contract" with Shane. If you had any confidence in your position about social contracts, that question should have been a perfect setup for you to make your point clearly.

I made my point clear numerous times before --

You might have made some point clear, but what you've proven to be downright awful at is answering the questions you are actually asked, in a clear, straightforward manner.

and one other thing that became clear is that it's impossible to have a meaningful conversation with you.

Yeah, you've used some variation on this comment before, too, whenever you're trying put the best possible spin on your inability to defend your arguments.

So pay close attention. If "a meaningful conversation" is really what you're after, a good step in that direction would be to acknowledge your contribution to the problem - most notably, your chronic evasiveness, and your tendency to use namecalling to spin your own failures (like the aforementioned evasiveness) as someone else's fault, or as a shortcoming in their mental capacity. These behaviors do tend to create obstacles - that is, if what you're going for is "a meaningful conversation". Moreover, they are habits characteristic of some of the laughing stocks in this forum, and are unbecoming of someone who is as full of himself, and of his education and vocabulary, as you are.

Therefore, I am not wasting time talking to you about any actual political issues.

Translation: He's tired of having the weaknesses in his political opinions repeatedly exposed by a level of scrutiny to which he's not accustomed.

WMT1

1st April 2003, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by shanek
That's what I was pointing out -- there are legitimate and illegitimate laws. Therefore, you can't base the legitimacy of something on whether or not it's legal.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
I didn't! WMT1, the idiot, claimed that I did! I always made a distinction between legality and legitimacy -- WMT1 was the one who lacked the reading comprehension to get it.

Yeah, that's the problem. :rolleyes:

Once again, get back to us about "reading comprehension" when you are up to the challenge of comprehending (and answering) the questions I've asked you about your various uses of the word, and about your strange responses to my use of it.

WMT1 will ignore the carefully worded statements in favor of his mis-interpretations anyway,

Someone who is as selective as you are in your responses has little room to be commenting on what anyone else ignores. But if you're going to make such negative comments about me anyway, it would be sporting of you to at least identify some statement of mine that reflects such misinterpretation. And if you're still just talking about that legitimate vs. legal thing, then get back to either of us when you're prepared to address the specific points I made in defense of that position last week - you know, the ones you have thus far ignored?

and most normal people can be reasonably talked with as a mean of clearing up the confusion, should any arise.

Perhaps someone forgot to tell you, but talking to people reasonably, and being willing to clear up confusion, usually involves actually answering the questions you are presented with, rather than insulting the person doing the asking - especially when they are questions asked for clarification. (Or were you just going for self-parody again?)

I will answer concerns as they are raised

Well, apparently not quite all of them.

The fact that you can derive socialism from the idea of a social contract, does not obligate me to suffix each reference to social contract with a disclaimer about me not actually deriving socialism from it -- just as I feel no need to say "I disagree with objectivism" each time I speak about logic.

Does your acknowledgement of this fact mean you finally agree that merely identifying something as part of the social contract is worthless as a defense of the merit of that something?

(*crickets*)

Don't let your ideological paranoia -- or the misguided desire to protect your retarded co-ideologue -- do the thinking for you!

Shane:

I doubt that's what you're doing, but if you are, then for the record, please don't do so on my account. Victor has proven to be quite easy to handle. He argues like a spoiled child, and when he's backed into a corner, he seems to think that if he calls someone a "moron" or "idiot" enough times (or "retarded ideologue"), someone else might become convinced that his struggles in defending his views actually are someone else's fault.

Being able to procure the service from another at a reasonable expense counts as being able to provide it for yourself, shane.

So, does that mean the definition of government is all the stuff that gets provided by someone else at an unreasonable expense? :D

No, that is what's necessary to make it a legitimate law; but it can be legal yet illegitimate.

...

I repeatedly said that it's not the mere fact of legality of taxation that makes it legitimate, but the fact that it was defined according to a legitimate social contract in a legitimately-specified manner.

:confused:

Did you ever get around to identifying just one definition of "legitimate" that you're sticking to? If so, I must have missed it, so could you please clearly identify which one applies to the above statements?

(*crickets*)

WMT1 refers to whatever he pleases. his statements have at most marginal relationship to reality.

This from a guy who thinks consent to contracts is communicated just by not leaving the country. :rolleyes:

You should refrain from going out on a limb in order to defend an idiot who doesn't merit defense, because he dug his own hole, with his ignorance and stupidity and refusal to educate himself.

Is the above description more fitting for someone who has demonstrated a pattern of taking on all questions about the views he has expressed, or for someone who repeatedly runs from questions about them, and relies heavily on namecalling to divert attention from his failures?

(*crickets*)

Victor Danilchenko

1st April 2003, 06:46 AM

WMT1

Does anyone else know what this means? :confused:While your repeated lack of comprehension has become quite familiar to me by now, this may be one of the very few cases where it's actually excusable.

"Compromat", like "samizdat", is a term fairly well-known among those who bothered to study the enemy that was USSR. It's Soviet term meaning a compromizing material, or a collection of compromising materials, referring to a specific person or group; "compromat" was typically prepared by the government or private citizens, to be used as tools against the said specific person or group.

if you want to rail against tyranny, it would behoove you to spend some time studying your opposition; but of course you haven't spend any time studying a host of other subjects critical to understanding social and political theory and philosophy, so why should this be any exception?

WMT1

1st April 2003, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Where 'too helpless to provide for ourselves" means "too helpless to provide for ourselves except creating a government to do it". You are barking up the wrong tree. Instead of arguing about why specific government actions are illegal and illegitimate, you are arguing against the very framework that gives legitimacy to our social contract.

In fact, I have never before seen you argue that; but I have seen WMT1 argue that, and you seem to be assuming his position in order to defend that idiot.

And here we have more bad paraphrasing to justify namecalling. :rolleyes:

Besides, I thought it was your position that it was the "social contract" that gave legitimacy to the framework, not the other way around. Are you having trouble making up your mind?

Victor Danilchenko

1st April 2003, 07:11 AM

WMT1

Besides, I thought it was your position that it was the "social contract" that gave legitimacy to the framework, not the other way around.Social contract is the framework for laws in USA; but "the very framework that gives legitimacy to our social contract" I spoke about is Lockean social-contract theory.

And on this note, WMT1, farewell. Welcome to my ignore list, were you are joining such mavens as Franko and Interesting Ian, who, just like you, managed to utterly confound me with their incisive critique. :rolleyes:

WMT1

1st April 2003, 07:31 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
While your repeated lack of comprehension has become quite familiar to me by now

Like I said before, get back to me about comprehension when you've applied enough critical analysis to your own opinions to answer questions about them, without becoming insulting and hostile toward those asking those questions. :rolleyes:

if you want to rail against tyranny, it would behoove you to spend some time studying your opposition;

Um ... that's sort of the point of asking you all those questions you can't seem to answer.

but of course you haven't spend any time studying a host of other subjects critical to understanding social and political theory and philosophy, so why should this be any exception?

Apparently I've spent enough time studying, listening, debating, and understanding to kick the living **** out of the arguments you've been making over the last few months. :D

WMT1

1st April 2003, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Social contract is the framework for laws in USA; but "the very framework that gives legitimacy to our social contract" I spoke about is Lockean social-contract theory.

Then if that's all you're talking about, on what basis do you justify the characterization "idiot"? Yeah, that's what I thought. Yet again, you seem to be jumping through hoops to create the illusion of a valid insult to cover for your own imcompetence. Nice work.

And on this note, WMT1, farewell.

:(

Welcome to my ignore list, were you are joining such mavens as Franko and Interesting Ian, who, just like you, managed to utterly confound me with their incisive critique.

Well, as long as we're making comparisons, it's been difficult throughout these discussions to avoid noticing the similarities between your approach to debate and that of JK or hammegk. You're not quite as evasive as they are, but then, they've set the bar pretty damn high, and you're pretty damn close. You also demonstrate a similar level of confidence in poorly thought out arguments, and you fail with almost as much swagger as they do.

Out of curiosity, will this period of ignoring me last longer than the previous one?

And in the meantime, is there anyone else out there who agrees with Victor's arguments, and would care to pick up the ball where he's dropped it?

shanek

1st April 2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by WMT1
I doubt that's what you're doing, but if you are, then for the record, please don't do so on my account.

I'm not; I'm just trying to understand where he's coming from. And every time I think I understand it, and it seems reasonable, he says something else that throws it out of whack.

This from a guy who thinks consent to contracts is communicated just by not leaving the country. :rolleyes:

Well, the beauty of the Constitution is that it's not necessary for individuals to consent to it. Only government, because the restrictions are placed against government, not the people. The Constitution protects the rights of the people; but since people can voluntarily choose not to exercise their rights, where is any realistic idea of individuals having to consent to the Constitution?

Example: The Second Amendment gives me the right to own and carry a gun. But I can choose not to. However, the government cannot choose to take that right away from me.

shanek

1st April 2003, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Where? law is legal by definition;

That's not what you said above; you agreed that there were such things as illegal laws.

Besides, it's perfectly conceivable for two laws to both be legitimate, yet to contradict each other,

Example?

Agreed, and agreed. How does that disagree with anything I have said?

Because you said that government was there to provide things for the people that they were helpless to provide for themselves.

Correction: most of us can save for our own retirement. As far as I am concerned, the systems like SS or welfare exist not to take care of people who can already take care of themselves, but of those who can't;

What you draw from SS is based on what you put into it. So how would those people not be able to put that same amount of money into a retirement account and have a much, much higher rate of return than through SS?

as we as a society found out that we as individuals cannot take care of the elderly or the jobless or the dispossessed well enough.

When did we find that out? Or did government just tell us that? Ever heard of charities? Have you seen my breakdown in other threads showing that the poor and the elderly would actually have more money if we got rid of the Income and Social Security taxes even if we eliminated welfare and SS?

but start by realizing that SS or welfare aren't a-priori illegitimate, the way for example a tyranny and its laws would be a-priori illegitimate.

Well, then, since you've acknowledged several times that, in the US, legitimacy is based on what is allowed by the "social contract" (i.e., the Constitution, although why you don't just say "the Constitution" I have no idea), then all you have to do is point out where the Constitution gives the government the power to run a welfare state.

I'd also like to know why you think it is that any time someone in the real world sets up an investment scheme similar to SS they're arrested for fraud.

Where 'too helpless to provide for ourselves" means "too helpless to provide for ourselves except creating a government to do it".

Except that in your examples above, that isn't the case. We can found and fund charities to take care of the poor and the elderly. We can save for our own retirement.

You are barking up the wrong tree. Instead of arguing about why specific government actions are illegal and illegitimate, you are arguing against the very framework that gives legitimacy to our social contract.

Where are those actions allowed by the "social contract"? Just point that out!

In fact, I have never before seen you argue that; but I have seen WMT1 argue that, and you seem to be assuming his position in order to defend that idiot.

I've let this assertion that I'm somehow defending WMT1 slide before, but if you insist on continuing the assertion, then I'll point out that this conversation initially started because I wanted to give you a chance to defend yourself against him.

Again, you should be arguing against specific misapplications of social contract, rather than about the problems with the social contract itself, which you seem to be doing.

When have I ever argued against the Consitution? Certainly there are some problems with it that I'd like to see fixed, but 99.9% of what I do in P&CE is speak out against the government taking for itself powers not granted it by the Constitution.

Victor Danilchenko

1st April 2003, 08:56 AM

shanek

I'm just trying to understand where he's coming from. And every time I think I understand it, and it seems reasonable, he says something else that throws it out of whack.Well, I have been pretty clear, i think. I would suggest that if you want to understand what I am saying, stop listening to what WMT1 says I say, and start listening to what I say.

Well, the beauty of the Constitution is that it's not necessary for individuals to consent to it. Only government, because the restrictions are placed against government, not the people.Constitution enumerates both powers and restrictions of the government; it both lists what various branches of government cannot do, and what they have the power to do. Consider for example the existenc eof the legal system: you are subject to it because the government is granted power to enforce laws. Now whether you consent to be within the US state's jurisdiction, is a different matter.

So yes, Constitution requires consent from individuals, and obedience from institutions.

The Constitution protects the rights of the people;it also grants powers to the government branches.

shanek

1st April 2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Well, I have been pretty clear, i think. I would suggest that if you want to understand what I am saying, stop listening to what WMT1 says I say, and start listening to what I say.

I've only been paying passive attention to WMT1 in this thread. And every time you've said something that confused me, I've pointed it out. I don't understand why you can't just state your position without trying to shoehorn me into some kind of personal conflict between you and him, a conflict which I am not the least bit interested in.

Constitution enumerates both powers and restrictions of the government; it both lists what various branches of government cannot do, and what they have the power to do.

No, not really. It does mention some restrictions, but it does not enumerate them as an exclusive list. It has to be in the Constitution to be a power of the government. To be a power restricted to the government, all it has to do is not be mentioned in the Constitution.

Consider for example the existenc eof the legal system: you are subject to it because the government is granted power to enforce laws. Now whether you consent to be within the US state's jurisdiction, is a different matter.

Except the emphasis is to defend my rights if I am taken into that system by force. If someone else accuses me of a crime, they can't just grab me and throw me in jail. They have to give me a lawyer, a fair trial, and preserve all of my rights. Even if I'm convicted, I still have rights against cruel and unusual punishments. If I'm not forceably taken by the system, I can choose to ignore it. I can ignore the mugger who took my wallet, or I can press charges. But the mugger, who will be taken by force if I decide to press charges, must have his rights preserved.

That's why my consent is not required. I can voluntarily choose whether or not to be a part of the system unless I am taken into it by force; in which case, there are numerous restrictions on what the government can do to me.

Victor Danilchenko

1st April 2003, 09:24 AM

shanek

That's not what you said above; you agreed that there were such things as illegal laws.yes. illegal laws are both illegal (for contradicting other laws) and legal (for being laws); this is a contradiction, stemming from the fact that you start out with a self-contradictory body of laws. I already explained this to you.

Example?There can be a law stating that owning a piece of land implies ownership of the mineral rights under the property, and another law that states that mineral rights are separate from land rights. Each law individually is a reasonable implementation of the property protection, but they are mutually exclusive.

Because you said that government was there to provide things for the people that they were helpless to provide for themselves.And i also said that "helpless to provide for themselves' is automatically taken to mean 'helpless to provide for themselves except by creating a government"; that's a given. The notion of the social contract makes no sense otherwise.

What you draw from SS is based on what you put into it. So how would those people not be able to put that same amount of money into a retirement account and have a much, much higher rate of return than through SS?What you draw from SS is based on what you put into it []non-lineraly[/b]; it's not a savings account. As such, SS helps people who couldn't have saved enough, but who did have enough to contribute to SS.

When did we find that out? Or did government just tell us that? Ever heard of charities?yes, and i also saw plenty of data showing that private charities haven't nearly enough reach to help most people who need help.

This is besides the point, though; if you want to argue about SS and charity, start a new thread. My point is that institutions like that aren't a-priori illegitimate. their legitimacy or illegitimacy is based on specific facts and circumstances rather than on their very nature.

Well, then, since you've acknowledged several times that, in the US, legitimacy is based on what is allowed by the "social contract" (i.e., the Constitution, although why you don't just say "the Constitution" I have no idea), then all you have to do is point out where the Constitution gives the government the power to run a welfare state.US COnstitution, Article 1, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"

Now you can argue that "general welfare" does not concern specific individuals, but only the contry as a whole; but interpreting that passage to imply helping the elderly and the unemployed is, again, not an a-priori unreasonable interpretation.

Except that in your examples above, that isn't the case. We can found and fund charities to take care of the poor and the elderly. We can save for our own retirement.As I said, this a reasonable synthetic conclusion, but it's not an a-priori one; it's certainly debatable, and had been debated to death. The point is that you cannot simply proclaim SS to be illegitimate, the way you can proclaim, say, expropriation of all means of production to be illegitimate; you have to actually look at specific data, and examine specific issues, first.

My beef is with WMT1-style arguments like 'income taxation is theft, it cannot be a legitimate part of a social contract'. I really hope you don't take up that stupid line of reasoning, although it seems to me as if you are skirting kinda close to it.

Where are those actions allowed by the "social contract"? Just point that out!I just did. As I said, you can disagree, and argue your case; but keep in mind that you are arguing against specific misapplications of social contract, rather than against its principles.

When have I ever argued against the Consitution?You haven't; that's the point. All of your arguments I have seen so far before this thread have been about how various specific government actions overstep the Constitutional boundaries; but in this thread, you made some statements that sounded like you were attacking the conceptual framework giving our Constitution its legitimacy -- which is WMT1's tack, but not yours.

WMT1

1st April 2003, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Well, I have been pretty clear, i think. I would suggest that if you want to understand what I am saying, stop listening to what WMT1 says I say, and start listening to what I say.

Actually, if this were a contest of basing our points on badly paraphrasing what the other says, you'd win it hands down. Stay tuned for examples.

Constitution enumerates both powers and restrictions of the government; it both lists what various branches of government cannot do, and what they have the power to do. Consider for example the existenc eof the legal system: you are subject to it because the government is granted power to enforce laws.

Granted power by whom? And if you're just going to cite the "social contract" again, then who agreed to it in the first place? I think it's pretty clear by now that one of the reasons you're stumped by so many of these questions is that you know your answers to them would expose a bit of circular reasoning.

Now whether you consent to be within the US state's jurisdiction, is a different matter.

A matter which is also different from whether you consent to any contract, by the way.

So yes, Constitution requires consent from individuals,

Or what ... it's not a valid contract? :D

it also grants powers to the government branches.

On whose authority? The relatively few who agreed to it, and conveniently assumed the consent of everyone else?

(*crickets*)

I already explained this to you.

After the ever-growing list of questions I've had to repeat that you have yet to answer, you're complaining about having to repeat yourself to someone else?

The notion of the social contract makes no sense otherwise.

It doesn't anyway, at least not as explained and *cough* defended by you.

My point is that institutions like that aren't a-priori illegitimate. their legitimacy or illegitimacy is based on specific facts and circumstances rather than on their very nature.

How could anybody tell? Nobody can pin you down to a clear, single definition of "legitimate" in the first place.

My beef is with WMT1-style arguments like 'income taxation is theft, it cannot be a legitimate part of a social contract'. I really hope you don't take up that stupid line of reasoning, although it seems to me as if you are skirting kinda close to it.

Thanks for the conveniently placed example of the paraphrasing I referred to at the beginning of this post. Wait. Look out. Here comes another one ...

but in this thread, you made some statements that sounded like you were attacking the conceptual framework giving our Constitution its legitimacy -- which is WMT1's tack, but not yours.

And to think it was only yesterday that you accused me of ignoring carefully worded statements in favor of misinterpretation. Now, if only you could manage to sustain any kind of criticism using statements I've actually made.

Victor Danilchenko

1st April 2003, 10:55 AM

shanek

I've only been paying passive attention to WMT1 in this thread. And every time you've said something that confused me, I've pointed it out. I don't understand why you can't just state your position without trying to shoehorn me into some kind of personal conflict between you and him, a conflict which I am not the least bit interested in.OK. perhaps I have been looking at your posts through the wrong prism in this thread. let's start from scratch.

My position is that legitimacy and legality are distinct concepts, as described previously; ledgitimacy derives from lockean theory of government, while legality derives from a specific body of laws. These two concepts are related, and often at least partially overlapping, yet conceptually distinct. In USA, the two are nearly equivalent, because US social contract -- the Constitution -- was explicitly set up that way.

Laws can be legitimate or illegitimate, depending on how well they cohere with the Lockean idea of legitimate role of government. Laws can also be illegal if they contradict other laws, in which case starting with a contradiction (one law contradicting another) results in a contradiction (a law being both legal and illegal) -- the GIGO principle.

Some laws, actions, and action policies, can be illegitimate a-priori, based on their very nature; others may be illegitimate a-posteriori, based on speicific circumstances; and yet others may be perfectly legitimate (yet still legal or illegal).

Income taxation can obviously be legal; it may or may not be legitimate, but it's not illegitimate a-priori -- its legitimacy depends on specific social and economic and political circumstances surrounding the said taxation laws. This point was my big beef with WMT1 -- he kept trying to make a an argument for income taxation being illegitimate a-priori, by its very nature.

No, not really. It does mention some restrictions, but it does not enumerate them as an exclusive list. It has to be in the Constitution to be a power of the government. To be a power restricted to the government, all it has to do is not be mentioned in the Constitution.but the powers that are mentioned in the Constitution can be very broadly interpreted.

Except the emphasis is to defend my rights if I am taken into that system by force.That's not the point. The point is still that there is an implied consent on the part of the governed -- consent to recognize the defined authority of the government, if nothing else.

WMT1

1st April 2003, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
ledgitimacy derives from lockean theory of government

Did I overlook a reference to Locke in those definitions of "legitimate" you cited? :confused:

This point was my big beef with WMT1 -- he kept trying to make a an argument for income taxation being illegitimate a-priori, by its very nature.

There's that paraphrasing thing again. And this time, you've even managed to add to the confusion by choosing to use words whose meaning you yourself refuse to be pinned down on.

The point is still that there is an implied consent on the part of the governed

Don't you mean assumed? :D

shanek

1st April 2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
And i also said that "helpless to provide for themselves' is automatically taken to mean 'helpless to provide for themselves except by creating a government"; that's a given.

No, it isn't, becuase it's the exact excuse that tyrants use.

What you draw from SS is based on what you put into it []non-lineraly; it's not a savings account. As such, SS helps people who couldn't have saved enough, but who did have enough to contribute to SS.[/b]

How does it help them when they end up drawing less than they would have if they had put the money they had put into SS into even a simple savings account?

yes, and i also saw plenty of data showing that private charities haven't nearly enough reach to help most people who need help.

Mostly because of government intrusion.

US COnstitution, Article 1, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States"

Now you can argue that "general welfare" does not concern specific individuals, but only the contry as a whole; but interpreting that passage to imply helping the elderly and the unemployed is, again, not an a-priori unreasonable interpretation.

It is because a) the Constitution doesn't say that and b) the writings of the people who wrote the Constitution made it very clear that that was not what they were talking about. That was an introductory statement, and the rest of the section fleshed it out. Saying that Congress had power to lay and collect taxes did not give them the power to lay and collect direct taxes without apportionment.

The point is that you cannot simply proclaim SS to be illegitimate, the way you can proclaim, say, expropriation of all means of production to be illegitimate; you have to actually look at specific data, and examine specific issues, first.

I can, because nowhere does the Constitution give the government that authority, and any time someone tries it in the real world, they're (rightfully) arrested for fraud. Since when is fraud legitimate?

I just did. As I said, you can disagree, and argue your case; but keep in mind that you are arguing against specific misapplications of social contract, rather than against its principles.

And again, when did I ever argue against the principles of the Constitution?

shanek

1st April 2003, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
but the powers that are mentioned in the Constitution can be very broadly interpreted.

No; they have been very broadly interpreted, but that is most certainly not how they were meant. Just because you can do a thing does not mean that it's valid to do so. The Constitution is written in plain English, and a plain English reading of the Constitution does not allow for the intrusive government we have today.

That's not the point. The point is still that there is an implied consent on the part of the governed -- consent to recognize the defined authority of the government, if nothing else.

Again, when would that recognition ever be an issue, outside of being forced into it?

Victor Danilchenko

2nd April 2003, 08:58 AM

shanek

No, it isn't, becuase it's the exact excuse that tyrants use.yeah. And guns are what criminals use to kill people. Doesn't mean that i have to say "guns except for guns used by criminals" each time I argue against gun control.

How does it help them when they end up drawing less than they would have if they had put the money they had put into SS into even a simple savings account?it doesn't; but there are also people who end up drawing more from SS than they could have saved.

It is because a) the Constitution doesn't say that and b) the writings of the people who wrote the Constitution made it very clear that that was not what they were talking about. That was an introductory statement, and the rest of the section fleshed it out. Saying that Congress had power to lay and collect taxes did not give them the power to lay and collect direct taxes without apportionment.The Constitution also granbts the Supreme Court the power to interpret Constitution. You seem to automaticalyl assume that your reading of the Constitution is always the right one... kinda bizarre, an infallibilist complex.

I can, because nowhere does the Constitution give the government that authority, and any time someone tries it in the real world, they're (rightfully) arrested for fraud. Since when is fraud legitimate?Oh, stuff it. SS not a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi scheme demands that each subsequent generation be significantly bigger than the previous generation, in order to finance the high return for the previous generation. SS doesn't promise high interest, and thus doesn't require the rapid expansion of the pool of participants.

Ponzi scheme is a fraud because it promises increase without actually creating any extra value; so inevitably, the last generation will pay without getting anything in return. SS does not do that -- there is no reason why the current generation couldn't keep up payoffs for the previous generation; because SS does not guarantee a fixed growth where no real growth is occurring.

No; they have been very broadly interpreted, but that is most certainly not how they were meant. Just because you can do a thing does not mean that it's valid to do so. The Constitution is written in plain English, and a plain English reading of the Constitution does not allow for the intrusive government we have today.yes, it does. What you consider the plain meaning of the words, is very clearly not what others consider the plain meaning of the words. Language is like that -- uncertain and interpretable. This is not physics, where you can actually prove beyond reasonable doubnt that X is false.

Again, when would that recognition ever be an issue, outside of being forced into it?Whenever it becomes an issue, you are automatically forced into it; so your question is like asking: "what mammals lactate, except for the ones that have milk glands?"

Yes, consent to be governed is usually not an issue; and when you refuse that consent, you can either leave the country or face the force of law. Either way, there is still a need for the citizens to consent to recognize the government's authority.

P.S. About socialism -- I betcha you didn't know that there is nothing about socialist ideas that precludes a free market and a democratic, nearly-libertarian csociety...

shanek

2nd April 2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
yeah. And guns are what criminals use to kill people. Doesn't mean that i have to say "guns except for guns used by criminals" each time I argue against gun control.

Hardly the same thing. It is never the gun itself that causes the crime, even when wielded by a criminal. So, no such distinction is necessary because it doesn't apply.

it doesn't; but there are also people who end up drawing more from SS than they could have saved.

Care to support this?

The Constitution also granbts the Supreme Court the power to interpret Constitution.

Where? I can't find that in the Constitution anywhere.

Oh, stuff it. SS not a Ponzi scheme. Ponzi scheme demands that each subsequent generation be significantly bigger than the previous generation, in order to finance the high return for the previous generation. SS doesn't promise high interest, and thus doesn't require the rapid expansion of the pool of participants.

It doesn't have to promise a high interest rate to be a Ponzi scheme. The distinguishing characteristic of a Ponzi scheme is that money taken from new investors is used to pay off the old investors, with little to no actual investment taking place. It's a fraud because those who run the Ponzi scheme use the money for themselves, just as Congress repeatedly raids the SS funds to pay for their own favorite boondoggles.

yes, it does. What you consider the plain meaning of the words, is very clearly not what others consider the plain meaning of the words.

Well, I have THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IT in agreement with me. Amazing how we keep ignoring that little fact, isn't it?

Whenever it becomes an issue, you are automatically forced into it;

No, it isn't. As I said, if you're mugged, it does "become an issue," but it's only such an issue insofar as you make the decision whether or not to involve the justice system.

Yes, consent to be governed is usually not an issue; and when you refuse that consent, you can either leave the country or face the force of law.

Or work to change it. Amazing how many people keep forgetting that option.

Victor Danilchenko

3rd April 2003, 05:42 AM

shanek

Hardly the same thing. It is never the gun itself that causes the crime, even when wielded by a criminal.Bingo. And it's not the idea of the social contract itself that causes welfare-state or socialism or whatever, either. This is why I never felt the need to explicitly disclaim the possible socialist interpretations of various concepts of 'social contract".

Care to support this?You only need top contribute to SS for 4 years to gain a right to get payoff from it. You can then collect th epayoff for the rest of your life (if you are young and become disabled, this can be a very long time); small though the paycheck would be each month, it would most certainly exceed what you contributed to SS in the first 4 years.

Where? I can't find that in the Constitution anywhere.Article III, Section 2:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution.

Now one of the powers of the courts in general is to interpret the laws they are judging under -- they have to, they have no choice; all documents must be interpreted in order to understand what they mean, even if it's a literal interpretation. Therefore, the power to judge constitutional cases necessarily means interpreting the Constitution, the key word here being "interpreting".

Realize this: even when you try to discern Founders' intent in the Constitution, you are interpreting it. What does "equal protection" clause of the 14th amendment mean? does it guarantee de-segregation? Does it prevent slavery? Does it permit a ban on inter-racial marriage? Does it allow DC to exist, given that its residents have no congressional representation?

Or take the first amendment; it doesn't protect libel and slander, yet it does say: "congress shall make no law..." So does that mean that there should be no restrictions on any sort of speech at all? or does protected speech mean a subset of all speech? Does it mean that only states have a right to ban slander and libel? but if so, then doesn't this interpretation also imply that the states can ban free speech, that only Congress cannot do so?

No matter what conclusion you reach, you are interpreting the Constitution. Well, SCOTUS, being the supreme court, has the ultimate authority to try Constitutional cases, and thus to interpret what the Constitution means. Even if you are a constitutional constructionist, you are still talking about interpreting the Constitution.

It doesn't have to promise a high interest rate to be a Ponzi scheme. The distinguishing characteristic of a Ponzi scheme is that money taken from new investors is used to pay off the old investors, with little to no actual investment taking place.but it's fraud because the last generation of investors will inevitably get nothing, not simply because it uses some people's money to pay other people. That is not the case with SS -- SS's worst-case scenario is that it's supposed to offer payoffs that are kept up by the new members of the population, so it's not dealing with a basically fixed potential participant pool like a Ponzi scheme is.

It's a fraud because those who run the Ponzi scheme use the money for themselves, just as Congress repeatedly raids the SS funds to pay for their own favorite boondoggles.First of all, I disagree -- the appropriation of a part of the proceedings is not what makes a Ponzi scheme be fradulent; secondly, Congress doesn't take money -- it borrows money (which I still think should be illegal, but it's not the sort of skimming you are talking about). However, even if we agree, that's an argument not against SS, but against its abuse by Congress.

In short, when you compare SS to a Ponzi scheme, you are flat-out wrong. It's a clever soundbite with no substance behind it.

Well, I have THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE IT in agreement with me. Amazing how we keep ignoring that little fact, isn't it?You have some of the people who wrote it, in what you interpret to be in agreement with you. Hamilton and Madison weren't the only ones signing the Constitution, nor the only ones who wrote it. The Federalist Papers are important, but they don't have the weight you ascribe to them -- just as the justification clause of the 2nd amendment doesn't give us license to ban guns because we no longer consider militia to be critical to the security of the United States, even though that would be a much stronger cause for action than the Federalist Papers.

Or work to change it. Amazing how many people keep forgetting that option.You are of course correct; I apologize for leaving that out. My only defense is that, when this subject repeatedly came up numerous times before, I explicitly listed this option (disagree but work within the system to change it) as one of the options of dealing with the government.

shanek

3rd April 2003, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Bingo. And it's not the idea of the social contract itself that causes welfare-state or socialism or whatever, either.

The Constitution is supposed to restrict the government from running a welfare state. Our leaders have been ignoring the Constitution for decades.

You only need top contribute to SS for 4 years to gain a right to get payoff from it. You can then collect th epayoff for the rest of your life (if you are young and become disabled, this can be a very long time); small though the paycheck would be each month, it would most certainly exceed what you contributed to SS in the first 4 years.

Can you post any numbers from real-life examples of this?

Article III, Section 2:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution.

That gives them the power to enforce the Constitution, not interpret it. You're reaching. The Constitution was deliberately written so that no interpretation was necessary; kind of like the Randi challenge.

Or take the first amendment; it doesn't protect libel and slander, yet it does say: "congress shall make no law..."

Libel and slander are state laws.

No matter what conclusion you reach, you are interpreting the Constitution.

Then I'm now going to have to ask you for your definition of "interpret," because you seem to mean something else than when the rest of the English-speaking world uses the word. The language of the Constitution is its own interpretation.

but it's fraud because the last generation of investors will inevitably get nothing,

And this is true of SS as well; or haven't you been paying attention? Even now, the rate of return has been growing smaller, the benefits are being restricted...Again, anyone doing this in the real world would find themselves in jail.

First of all, I disagree -- the appropriation of a part of the proceedings is not what makes a Ponzi scheme be fradulent;

Well, the law disagrees with you.

State of Missouri vs. Wahl, 1980:

Solicitation of individuals to join pyramid structured club, the purpose of which was to generate money payable to members higher up on the pyramidal scale, violated statute prohibiting pyramid sales schemes.

SEC v. Cook, 2001:

This case centers upon an investment program titled Dennel Finance Limited ("Dennel"), which was operated by Benjamin Cook and others (the "Defendants") for the sole purpose of conducting a Ponzi scheme. Under the scheme, the Defendants collected over $45,000,000, most of which they used to pay returns to earlier investors, to pay commissions to facilitators for recruiting investors, and to purchase personal property and cover personal expenses for themselves.

US v. Orton, 1996:

Orton told friends, relatives, and acquaintances that, as an employee of BP Oil, he could invest in an incentive program BP Oil had for its executives. He further told them that the investments would mature in a few months and would yield a high rate of return. He persuaded 44 victims to purchase investment "units." As part of the scheme, Orton used money "invested" by later victims to pay "interest" to earlier victims, providing the successful image necessary to entice new victims and to encourage additional "investments" by other victims.

Not good enough? How about the ACFE Fraud Manual:

The distinguishing feature of a Ponzi-type pyramid is that old victims are paid back with funds received from new victims. As long as the fraud continues to grow, the investors are not usually aware that their money has been misappropriated. Most Ponzi schemes are uncovered when new "investors" can no longer be located. All Ponzi schemes, therefore, are pyramids. But not all pyramids are Ponzi schemes.

secondly, Congress doesn't take money -- it borrows money (which I still think should be illegal, but it's not the sort of skimming you are talking about).

It's fundamentally no different than what the operators of Ponzi schemes do.

In short, when you compare SS to a Ponzi scheme, you are flat-out wrong. It's a clever soundbite with no substance behind it.

Let me know if you still feel that way after seeing the evidence provided above.

You have some of the people who wrote it, in what you interpret to be in agreement with you. Hamilton and Madison weren't the only ones signing the Constitution, nor the only ones who wrote it. The Federalist Papers are important, but they don't have the weight you ascribe to them

Those are just examples. There's also the anti-Federalist papers, the personal correspondence of Thomas Jefferson and others, and many other examples. The Federalist and anti-Federalist papers are most relevant because they're a direct debate about the Constitution and what it means.

If this is untrue, all you have to do is quote one framer who disagrees.

Victor Danilchenko

3rd April 2003, 08:57 AM

shanek

The Constitution is supposed to restrict the government from running a welfare state. Our leaders have been ignoring the Constitution for decades.i thought we were talking about my wording the social contract principles in a way that permitted a socialist interpretation?..

Can you post any numbers from real-life examples of this?Sure. I filled out the benefits calculator at http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/calculator.htm -- I set the age to be "26" (assuming you are 26 when you become disabled, and paid SS only for a couple of years), and yearly earnings at $20K; set in today's dollars. Monthly benefit for diability -- $834.

$834/month is most certainly way above what a $20K/year earner would pay in SS tax; and this benefit would last for your entire remaining life.

That gives them the power to enforce the Constitution, not interpret it. You're reaching. The Constitution was deliberately written so that no interpretation was necessary; kind of like the Randi challenge.Any document needs to be interpreted; some readings are moer obvious than others, but no reading is totally self-evident.

Libel and slander are state laws.My point exactly. If the 1st amendment allows the states to do what the US Congress cannot ('congress shall make no law...'), then it follows that laws abridging freedom of speech are perfectly OK for states to pass as well -- that the 1st amendment merely mandates that the Fed cannot do so.

Oh, and let's not forget that under Constitution, only men count towards the congressional representation. 19th amendment repealed voting discrimination based on sex, but a literal reading of 19th and 14th amendments does not imply that the number of representatives is equally free of mysogynistic bias.

Then I'm now going to have to ask you for your definition of "interpret," because you seem to mean something else than when the rest of the English-speaking world uses the word. The language of the Constitution is its own interpretation.:rolleyes:

And this is true of SS as well; or haven't you been paying attention? Even now, the rate of return has been growing smaller, the benefits are being restricted...And this is arguably a problem with bad SS implementation, but not with SS principle; and you were trying to argue that SS is in principle illegitimate.

Well, the law disagrees with you.

State of Missouri vs. Wahl, 1980:This states that the p[yramid-like nature of the Ponzi scheme -- rather than the fact that the schemers skimmed from the top -- is the problem. This is a problem with any pyramid scheme; the bottom level necessarily gets shafted.

Whatever gave you the idea that this case supports your claim that SS is a Ponzi scheme?

SEC v. Cook, 2001:Again, where does it say that the schemers' collection of fees, rather than the pyramid nature of the scheme, are the fradulent part?

US v. Orton, 1996:Same as above.

Not good enough? How about the ACFE Fraud Manual:This one says that the pyramid nature of the scheme is the problem, as far as I can tell.

So, whatever gives you the idea that my claim -- that the problem with Ponzi is not that the schemer takes a cut, but that the last generation (the bottom of the pyramid) necessarily gets shafted -- is wrong?

It's fundamentally no different than what the operators of Ponzi schemes do.Why? Congress takes that money openly, and promises to pay it back with interest. unless US Government defaults on its debt, this money is not taken, but borrowed. Big difference.

Let me know if you still feel that way after seeing the evidence provided above.What fscking evidence?!. the citations you offered do nothing to support your contention!

Those are just examples. There's also the anti-Federalist papers, the personal correspondence of Thomas Jefferson and others, and many other examples. The Federalist and anti-Federalist papers are most relevant because they're a direct debate about the Constitution and what it means.And even if the founding fathers disagreed about it and debated about it, what the hell gives you an idea that there is one clear objective meaning to the Constitution?

If this is untrue, all you have to do is quote one framer who disagrees.Who disagrees with what? Welfare? the concept didn't exist then! that's like saying that machine guns should be illegal because no framer supported their legality ('cuz they didn't exist back then, obviously).

shanek

3rd April 2003, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
i thought we were talking about my wording the social contract principles in a way that permitted a socialist interpretation?

I thought we were talking about the Constitution as a social contract. Maybe you should make yourself more clear in the future.

Sure. I filled out the benefits calculator at http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/calculator.htm -- I set the age to be "26" (assuming you are 26 when you become disabled, and paid SS only for a couple of years), and yearly earnings at $20K; set in today's dollars. Monthly benefit for diability -- $834.

Disability pay ≠ retirement pay. We were talking about retirement. Even the lowest Long Term Disability plan pays 50% of your income, and since $834 is right at $10,000, you're getting the lowest you would get out of disability insurance. And disability payments are even tax free (provided you paid the premiums with after-tax dollars). SS payments aren't. So you're actually coming out better because you don't have to pay taxes on it. Also, for this "insurance," you were paying about $250 a month, much more than all but the highest risk group would pay for LTD insurance.

This states that the p[yramid-like nature of the Ponzi scheme -- rather than the fact that the schemers skimmed from the top -- is the problem. This is a problem with any pyramid scheme; the bottom level necessarily gets shafted.

And SS works the exact same way.

Whatever gave you the idea that this case supports your claim that SS is a Ponzi scheme?

Because SS works the exact same way.

So, whatever gives you the idea that my claim -- that the problem with Ponzi is not that the schemer takes a cut, but that the last generation (the bottom of the pyramid) necessarily gets shafted -- is wrong?

Because they can be put in jail long before they ever get to that point!

Why? Congress takes that money openly, and promises to pay it back with interest.

Some running Ponzi schemes have done this, too, and they were still prosecuted.

What fscking evidence?!. the citations you offered do nothing to support your contention!

They completely supported my contention! Are you blind? If so, is it willful? Any reasonable person could read those and conclude as I have done! It's as plain as day!

Who disagrees with what?

Disagrees with a constructionist "interpretation" of the Constitution. Try to keep up.

Victor Danilchenko

4th April 2003, 06:33 AM

shanek

I thought we were talking about the Constitution as a social contract. Maybe you should make yourself more clear in the future.In that specific exchange, we were talking about your accusation that my wording of social contract theory permitted socialist usage. Try to keep up. :rolleyes:

Disability pay ≠ retirement pay.OK; fair enough.

See the retirement benefits calculations at the same location. I entered retirement age of 62 (assuming 4 years before retirement), then clicked on "see the earnings we used", and set all past earnings, except for current year, to 0. The result? Retirement benefit at 65 would be $256/month! that's $3K per year; at the standard SS tax rate of 6.2%, you would contribute ~2.5K/year to SS. If you simply live longer that 4 years, you will get more out of SS than you put in.

Benefits are of course much higher if you paid in longer; that was a bare minimum.

Now an alternative computation. Use the same calculator, assuming you have paid SS taxes on $40K for 10 years before retirement. Your total contribution would be ~25K; your benefits at 65 would be $720/mo, or ~$8.6K/year. By simply living for three years, you will get more out of SS than you put in.

As I said before, SS is not a savings account, and for you to treat it as such misses the point.

And SS works the exact same way.how does SS guarantee that the last generation 'get shafted" in any way that doesn't occur with any other savings account? I mean, the obvious answer -- the generation that has no children gets no benefit -- forces the same conclusion for any retirement plan; if there is no next generation working, your savings or investments won't be worth the paper they are printed on. So in what way does SS, like a Ponzi scheme, guarantee that the last generation gets shafted?

Some running Ponzi schemes have done this, too, and they were still prosecuted.YES! because the fraud is not that they skim of the top of borrow against it ('cuz then not skimming of the top, or repaying the borrowed amount, would make a pyramid scheme legal), but that the very nature of the pyramid guarantees that the last generation gets defrauded, regardless of whether anyone skims of the top!

Think a little, will ya?.. The fraud lies in the very nature of the pyramid -- the bottom rung gets defrauded by definition. A system which doesn't necessarily exhibit such property (SS) is not necessarily fradulent. Ponzi scheme is fradulent because the last generation is necessarily defrauded, by the very nature of the scheme; SS is not like that, except in the trite case (end of civilization) which applies equally to regular investments as well.

They completely supported my contention!:rolleyes:

Are you blind? If so, is it willful? Any reasonable person could read those and conclude as I have done! It's as plain as day!See? that's the problem with your idea of something being self-evident and reasonable; when you think it is, it very possibly isn't.

Disagrees with a constructionist "interpretation" of the Constitution.But you aren't talking about a constructionist interpretation -- at least not strict constructionism. Strict constructionism entails trying to interpret the Constitution literally, rather than trying to discern the intent behind it as you are doing. At best, you are a loose constructionist.

but now we are examining intent, and looking for contradictions of intent. Well, gee! Declaration of Independence reads that all men are endowed with inalienable rights, among them liberty -- but many founders owned slaves.

Just for example.

Or will you now say that Declaration of Independence is inadmissible in trying to discern the founders' intent, but Federalist papers are admissible?

shanek

4th April 2003, 06:52 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
In that specific exchange, we were talking about your accusation that my wording of social contract theory permitted socialist usage. Try to keep up. :rolleyes:

Except that that whole exchange started when you claimed that the "social contract" allowed for the welfare state we have today, and since our "social contract" is the Constitution...

See the retirement benefits calculations at the same location.

How about we don't? I asked you for real world figures, anbd your laughable scenario just doesn't apply. How about we look at actual, real-world figures???

Galveston County, TX privatized Social Security in 1981 by taking advantage of a loophole in the law (which was quickly closed by Congress to prevent it from happening anywhere else). In Galveston County, retirement benefits are over three times as high as they are for Social Security; that's looking at the same data in the same timeframe. And that's without investing some of the money in the stock market, which would have led to dramatically higher returns. Not only that, but the county didn't increase its participation rate at anywhere near the level that the Federal government raised the Social Security tax, so today Galveston County workers are paying in only half of what we pay into Social Security, and again, get three times the return.

That speaks a lot better than you punching in some wildly unrealistic numbers into some web page with no data about whether or not that actually happens in the real world.

how does SS guarantee that the last generation 'get shafted" in any way that doesn't occur with any other savings account?

Again, this isn't a necessary quality of a Ponzi scheme. Again, many people have been put in jail without their scheme reaching this point. You're trying to weasel out of it just because the government gets to force people to participate in its scam. It doesn't make it any less a scam.

See? that's the problem with your idea of something being self-evident and reasonable; when you think it is, it very possibly isn't.

You haven't shown that it isn't, just a lot of blathering that doesn't change the reality of the situation.

But you aren't talking about a constructionist interpretation -- at least not strict constructionism. Strict constructionism entails trying to interpret the Constitution literally, rather than trying to discern the intent behind it as you are doing. At best, you are a loose constructionist.

That is a flat-out lie! I have been advocating a plain language reading of the Constitution all along and you know it!

Victor Danilchenko

4th April 2003, 07:37 AM

shanek

Except that that whole exchange started when you claimed that the "social contract" allowed for the welfare state we have today, and since our "social contract" is the Constitution...But the point -- the accusation I was defending myself against -- was that it was my fault for not explicitly disclaiming socialist interpretation. To defend myself, i have given you different examples showing how such disclaimers in general are unnecessary.

How about we don't? I asked you for real world figures, anbd your laughable scenario just doesn't apply. How about we look at actual, real-world figures???

Galveston County, TX privatized Social Security in 1981How about we talk about what actually happened in this thread?

I didn't say that SS was a great investment scheme; i said that it wasn't an investment scheme at all, and that many people get mroe out of SS than they put in. You asked me for some figures ("Can you post any numbers from real-life examples of this?" was your wording) when i asserted that, say, paying SS for 4 years would allow you to get more out of it than you put in.

The calculations I gave you are real and normal. if you contribute to SS for only 10 years before retirement, you will collect benefits to exceed your contributions only after 3 years. there is nothing laughable or improbable about a scenario where you contribute to SS for the last 10 pre-retirement years.

You wanted examples of why SS is not a savings plan -- I gave them to you. Stop evading tso blatantly.

That speaks a lot better than you punching in some wildly unrealistic numbers into some web page with no data about whether or not that actually happens in the real world.Dude, wake the fsck up. What's "wildly unrealistic" about contributing to SS for the last 10 pre-retirement years? How can you dismiss the authoritative SS calculation as being provided by "some page"? What lunacy leads you to suggest that contributions like that don't happen in real life?!. You are simply grasping at straws in an futile attempt to dismiss thefact that SS allows many people to get a lot more out of it than they put in; that SS is not a savings account but a social safety net, guaranteeing you a certain level of income even if you contributed very little to it.

Again, this isn't a necessary quality of a Ponzi scheme. Again, many people have been put in jail without their scheme reaching this point.that doesn't change the fact that those schemes would have necessarily reached that point, had they been let to continue; so yes, it's a necessary property of any ponzi scheme, even if a specific instance thereof was cut short -- just as all hardware eventually fails, even if you throw it out before the failure occurs.

You're trying to weasel out of it just because the government gets to force people to participate in its scam. It doesn't make it any less a scam.I think i have quite clearly demonstrated that SS is not a scam, much less a Ponzi scheme. You are grasping at straws, buried by your own ignorance of how SS actually works.

You haven't shown that it isn't, just a lot of blathering that doesn't change the reality of the situation.What fscking blathering? I have shown you how SS is not a savings account, in that it allows you to draw far more than you contributed to it; and I have shown you how it's not a fraud, because unlike a Ponzi scheme, defrauding certain participants is not a necessary component of SS structure.

I am stil waiting for you to tell me how th elast generation in SS necessarily gets shafted.

That is a flat-out lie! I have been advocating a plain language reading of the Constitution all along and you know it!And your "plain language reading" involves trying to figure out what the Founders meant, instead of what they said. That's exactly my point -- that any reading, even one that tries to be 'plain language', necessarily relies on some measure of interpretation.

Charles Livingston

4th April 2003, 08:12 AM

"The calculations I gave you are real and normal. if you contribute to SS for only 10 years before retirement, you will collect benefits to exceed your contributions only after 3 years. there is nothing laughable or improbable about a scenario where you contribute to SS for the last 10 pre-retirement years.

You wanted examples of why SS is not a savings plan -- I gave them to you. Stop evading tso blatantly."

I am not necessarily arguing with you, but, assuming I have lived in the U.S. since a young age and have held a job during my adult life, how could I only contribute to SS for 10 years before retirement? (assuming normal retirement age, outside of a disability, is it possible to retire early and still collect the SS benefit?) And how many people actually do only contribute for a short amount of time, rather than pay the SS tax for 40 odd years? I think maybe this issue is what Shanek is referring too when he asks for real world examples?

Next,
I dont have time to discuss the SS/ponzi scheme right now, but I would like to come back when I have time. However, from what has been posted in this thread, I tend to agree with Shanek that it is somewhat like a Ponzi scheme. I dont have time to get into why I agree right now, but I would like to add this: so far Victor has been focussing on a final generation that is the last, but lets think for a minute about when the next generation is less than the previous, this seems to be more likely in the context of SS. Also, what is to preclude a ponzi scheme (actually no, a pyramid scheme, from Shaneks links above it seems as if a ponzi type scheme does not necessarily need to involve skimming from the top even though the original may have, but I know that is part of what victor is arguing and I dont want to go into that issue, yet) from always having a subsequent generation, just because no one is forced too like SS?

Charles Livingston

4th April 2003, 08:15 AM

BTW, I had no idea my original question would spark such a long thread, but I thank both Shanek and Victor for it cause it has been very interesting and informative. Is anyone else paying attention to this thread besides me, victor, and shanek?

shanek

4th April 2003, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
I didn't say that SS was a great investment scheme; i said that it wasn't an investment scheme at all, and that many people get mroe out of SS than they put in.

And you have been completely unable to provide any real world examples of this. How often does your scenario happen? What percentage of people? And do they really get the amount of money your site says?

You asked me for some figures ("Can you post any numbers from real-life examples of this?" was your wording)

Yes, FROM REAL-LIFE EXAMPLES. REAL-LIFE EXAMPLES. Do you know what that phrase means?

You wanted examples of why SS is not a savings plan

No, I wanted examples of why SS is better than a savings plan. I've been saying all along that it's a Ponzi scheme—you've been attempting to rebut that very assertion—and a Ponzi scheme is not a savings plan.

What lunacy leads you to suggest that contributions like that don't happen in real life?!.

Well, the fact that you refuse to supply any examples, for a start...

that doesn't change the fact that those schemes would have necessarily reached that point, had they been let to continue;

Oh, you know that? Psychic, are you? And you're also apparently psychic enough to know that this will never happen with SS, despite the predictions of many economists that it will? :rolleyes:

I'm starting to see the problem WMT1 has with you.

I think i have quite clearly demonstrated that SS is not a scam,

Only in your own mind.

I am stil waiting for you to tell me how th elast generation in SS necessarily gets shafted.

Each generation pays more and gets fewer benefits than the one before. No one, except you, denies this.

And your "plain language reading" involves trying to figure out what the Founders meant, instead of what they said.

Another lie. I've been providing what they said. And what they said supports a plain language reading of the Constitution.

Victor Danilchenko

4th April 2003, 10:18 AM

shanek

And you have been completely unable to provide any real world examples of this.Well, i am sorry, i can't go digging through others' tax returns.

How often does it happen? Dude, I haven't provided a scenario -- I provided a set of scenarios that outline a range of real-world situations; scenarios that show how, if you contribute very little to SS, you will get more out of it that you paid in.

How often does your scenario happen? What percentage of people?That's not the point. I didn't claim that it happens to everyone, or to many,people -- what i claimed was that SS, as a social safety net, provided certain level of benefits even to the ones who didn't contribute enough to cover it. it was that that context that you asked me for examples of people getting more out of it than they paid in -- which examples I provided.

And do they really get the amount of money your site says?Well, that's the site of SS administration, so I suppose it's a pretty authoritative figure.

No, I wanted examples of why SS is better than a savings plan.I never claimed that it's better than a savings plan; you are changing the subject. I said that it does something a savings plan can't -- it provides a certain level of benefits even to those who couldn't have afforded enough to save otherwise. Your example -- about how savings yield higher return than SS -- doesn't help those who can't save enough.

Well, the fact that you refuse to supply any examples, for a start...As i said, I can't go digging around people's tax returns; but you wanted an example of how SS can provide benefits to those who couldn't afford to save -- and I gave you a realistic example.

Oh, you know that? Psychic, are you?Don't be an ass. it doesn't take a psychic to know that a pyramid scheme guarantees that the bottom level gets shafted. that's what makes it fradulent.

And you're also apparently psychic enough to know that this will never happen with SS, despite the predictions of many economists that it will? :rolleyes:it might happen to SS; but if it does, it will be because of mismanagement, and not due to SS's very nature -- unlike a Ponzi scheme, which is guaranteed to shaft the last generation because of its very nature.

I'm starting to see the problem WMT1 has with you.I am starting to see a pattern of problems with libertarians -- lack of critical thinking. So far, it's 1.5 examples... you aren't quite as far gone as WMT1, but it's possible that, once you are held up against a wall a little longer, you will turn as irrational as he is.

Only in your own mind.let's see:
The government skimming off the top doesn't make SS a scam; at worst, it makes the specific SS management bad. Ask yourself -- would you still consider SS a scam if Congress wasn't raiding it all the time?
SS is not a-priori fradulent the way pyrami schemes like Ponzi are; simply because it's not a pyramid scheme, as it doesn't guarantee increasing returns on investment (it's the guarantee of high return that necessitates pyramid shape of a Ponzi scheme).
So, how is SS a scam?

Each generation pays more and gets fewer benefits than the one before. No one, except you, denies this.I don't deny this -- SS is struggling with the aging of a society. if society keeps aging while retirement age remains the same, SS will be a fraud; but the former assumption is simply incorrect (it's not clear that the aging will be indefinite, and retirement age has already been changed). Again, this is simply a question of how SS is managed, rather than of whether it is legitimate or not due to its very nature.

Another lie. I've been providing what they said. And what they said supports a plain language reading of the Constitution.:rolleyes: There is no plain-language reading of anything that doesn't require some interpretation, as long as that anything was written in a natural language like english.

So, how about all men being endowed with the right to liberty? Pretty plain language, there... I guess the founders didn't interpret "men" to include slaves...

WMT1

4th April 2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by shanek
I'm starting to see the problem WMT1 has with you.

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
I am starting to see a pattern of problems with libertarians -- lack of critical thinking. So far, it's 1.5 examples... you aren't quite as far gone as WMT1, but it's possible that, once you are held up against a wall a little longer, you will turn as irrational as he is.

And I've been seeing a pattern of problems with libertarian critics for quite some time. They seem to think evasiveness is a reflection of critical thinking, and being able to ask questions that expose the problems in someone else's poorly thought out views is a sign of being "irrational". :rolleyes:

shanek

4th April 2003, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Well, i am sorry, i can't go digging through others' tax returns.

Balderdash. It's not like there aren't statistics on this stuff. That's just an excuse because you apparently can't provide any.

How often does it happen? Dude, I haven't provided a scenario -- I provided a set of scenarios that outline a range of real-world situations;

No, you showed that you could plug a certain set of numbers in a web site and get the result you wanted. You provided nothing to show that, in the real world, this would actually be accepted and paid thus and that this actually is happening.

Whereas I showed you a real world example supporting my case; actual people, living in the US, who are better off without SS.

what i claimed was that SS, as a social safety net, provided certain level of benefits even to the ones who didn't contribute enough to cover it.

And you have yet to support that. Who is benefitting from this?

Well, that's the site of SS administration, so I suppose it's a pretty authoritative figure.

If you'd bother to read the site, instead of just plugging in numbers until you get what you're looking for, you'd see this:

Social Security benefits are based on earnings, and the "Quick Calculator" can not access your earnings record. It has only the information you enter. The benefit statement you received from Social Security is much more accurate because it uses your earnings record for ALL past years (not just the current year like the "Quick Calculator"). If you compare the estimated earnings produced by the "Quick Calculator" to your actual earnings, you will probably see many differences.

You were basing your conclusion on the assumption of not having worked previous years, whereas this calculator is just concerned with the current year. Now note:

Unless you provide additional earnings data, the program must estimate your past earnings--and the longer that past is, the greater the likelihood of errors.

And your "past" in this hypothetical scenario is about as long as you can get. Hence, your numbers cannot be considered accurate.

I never claimed that it's better than a savings plan;

You claimed that many people benefit more from Social Security than they would if they saved the money themselves. That's what I'm trying to make you prove.

I said that it does something a savings plan can't -- it provides a certain level of benefits even to those who couldn't have afforded enough to save otherwise.

And that would make the system "better" for those people. Unfortunately, those people thus far remain completely hypothetical.

As i said, I can't go digging around people's tax returns; but you wanted an example of how SS can provide benefits to those who couldn't afford to save -- and I gave you a realistic example.

According to that very site, it's not realistic, as I quoted above.

Don't be an ass. it doesn't take a psychic to know that a pyramid scheme guarantees that the bottom level gets shafted. that's what makes it fradulent.

Not what the sources I've provided have said. And the number of sources you've provided so far backing up your claim is exactly zero.

it might happen to SS;

It is happening to SS! Right now! It has been for awhile!

I am starting to see a pattern of problems with libertarians -- lack of critical thinking.

:rolleyes:

The government skimming off the top doesn't make SS a scam; at worst, it makes the specific SS management bad. Ask yourself -- would you still consider SS a scam if Congress wasn't raiding it all the time?

Yes, because it's still at its core a fraudulent scheme. Again, any time someone sets up a similar system, even if they don't skim off the top, they're still arrested for fraud.

SS is not a-priori fradulent the way pyrami schemes like Ponzi are; simply because it's not a pyramid scheme,

That shows a willful disregard for the very definition of a pyramid scheme, as I have repeatedly shown.

as it doesn't guarantee increasing returns on investment

As I have shown, not everyone arrested for pyramid frauds guaranteed increasing returns.

So, how about all men being endowed with the right to liberty? Pretty plain language, there... I guess the founders didn't interpret "men" to include slaves...

You know perfectly well that Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, wanted to free the slaves. You're just desperate.

From Jefferson's original draft:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce; and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, and murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.

Victor Danilchenko

4th April 2003, 12:24 PM

shanek

Balderdash. It's not like there aren't statistics on this stuff. That's just an excuse because you apparently can't provide any.neither can you -- you simply cited one example of something that goes your way. Plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Anyway, show me where I can find statistics on the ration between SS contributions and payoffs, and I will give you your data. So far, i have never seen those statistics.

No, you showed that you could plug a certain set of numbers in a web site and get the result you wanted. You provided nothing to show that, in the real world, this would actually be accepted and paid thus and that this actually is happening.So your claim is that my data is wrong because SS wouldn't nohor its own payment schedule?.. :rolleyes:

If you'd bother to read the site, instead of just plugging in numbers until you get what you're looking for, you'd see this:You may have missed it, dude, but I said that I explicitly edited earnings history to reflect exactly the scenarios I showed. The calculator first gives you a generic estimate based on their guess about your earnings history, but then you can edit the earnings history year by year, which was what I have done. The numbers I gave you accurately reflect the scenarios I defined.

And your "past" in this hypothetical scenario is about as long as you can get. Hence, your numbers cannot be considered accurate.No, I explicitly set the 'past' to be 4 and 10 years respectively, by editing the earnings history to have 0 for all other years.

And that would make the system "better" for those people. Unfortunately, those people thus far remain completely hypothetical.I guess it's purely hypothetical for someone to only pay into SS for the last 10 or 20 years of their life... nevermind divorcees, or people who come off state retirement programs (like I might be -- I pay no SS tax right now, instead paying into the state retirement fund).

Not what the sources I've provided have said.The sources you provided didn't say that Ponzi is fradulent because someone skims off the top.

Yes, because it's still at its core a fraudulent scheme. Again, any time someone sets up a similar system, even if they don't skim off the top, they're still arrested for fraud.E-fscking-xactly! the problem is that the pyramid scheme itself is fradulent, by its very nature! the skimming off the top is not what makes it be a fraud!

That shows a willful disregard for the very definition of a pyramid scheme, as I have repeatedly shown.You have shown nothing of the sort.

As I have shown, not everyone arrested for pyramid frauds guaranteed increasing returns.Show me which of the cases you cited says that a Ponzi scheme doesn't offer high return rates to investors.

You know perfectly well that Thomas Jefferson, who wrote the Declaration of Independence, wanted to free the slaves.Wanted; but didn't -- not until his death, as i recall; and what about all the other slave-owning founding fathers? Didn't they see th eobvious literal interpretation of 'all men" as being "all men of any race"? :rolleyes:

shanek

4th April 2003, 03:46 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
neither can you

Yes, I did! Galveston County, Texas is an actual, real-life example of privatized Social Security! It's happening, no matter how much you want to stick your head in the sand!

you simply cited one example of something that goes your way. Plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

It's *NOT* one example, and it's *NOT* an anecdote! What's your malfunction today? We're talking about thousands and thousands of workers in Galveston Co. who only pay in half of what they would under SS and get three times what they would under SS! That's not anecdotal! That's what the statistics show!

Your "data," however, doesn't even rise to the level of an anecdote.

Anyway, show me where I can find statistics on the ration between SS contributions and payoffs, and I will give you your data. So far, i have never seen those statistics.

Then you shouldn't have made the claim. Don't claim what you can't back up.

So your claim is that my data is wrong because SS wouldn't nohor its own payment schedule?.. :rolleyes:

No, the data on that site is not an accurate representation of SS's payment schedule, which you would know if you'd read the site!

You may have missed it, dude, but I said that I explicitly edited earnings history to reflect exactly the scenarios I showed. The calculator first gives you a generic estimate based on their guess about your earnings history, but then you can edit the earnings history year by year, which was what I have done. The numbers I gave you accurately reflect the scenarios I defined.

Not what the site itself says.

I guess it's purely hypothetical for someone to only pay into SS for the last 10 or 20 years of their life...

Your figures above didn't figure in 10 or 20 years. What are you trying to pull?

The sources you provided didn't say that Ponzi is fradulent because someone skims off the top.

:rolleyes:

E-fscking-xactly! the problem is that the pyramid scheme itself is fradulent, by its very nature! the skimming off the top is not what makes it be a fraud!

Yes, and SS is a pyramid scheme! What about that don't you get?

You have shown nothing of the sort.

I quoted the law. I quoted court cases. I quoted the single best fraud resource there is. If that isn't enough for you, that's your own hangup.

Show me which of the cases you cited says that a Ponzi scheme doesn't offer high return rates to investors.

Only one of them did mention a high rate of return. What does that tell you? If it were such a big deal, don't you think it would at least be mentioned?

On the other hand, you can't use the fact that they didn't mention that they didn't offer high return rates as evidence. They also didn't mention that they didn't offer to have pizzas delivered by naked Ernest Borgnine lookalikes. So what?

You accused me of a lack of critical thinking, but your logic here is astoundingly bad.

Wanted; but didn't

Because he couldn't. The law didn't permit it. Same reason George Washington didn't free his.

Solitaire

5th April 2003, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by WMT1
And I've been seeing a pattern of problems with libertarian critics for quite
some time. They seem to think evasiveness is a reflection of critical thinking,
and being able to ask questions that expose the problems in someone else's
poorly thought out views is a sign of being "irrational".

The pot calls the kettle black and then the kettle calls the pot black.

At this point Shanek said, "And you're also apparently psychic enough to know that
this will never happen with SS, despite the predictions of many economists that it will?"

We know Victor is right, not because he is psychic, but because he is not psychic.
Experts make projections, those predictions work well in the short term, but gradually
degrade in accuracy and eventually do not resemble reality in the long term. If one made
a bet on the future, one would bet against the economists predictions every time.

One of my favorite prediction curves involves oil production based upon proven reserves
of oil. The prediction, oil production will peak at 2012 and then decline. I know this will
not happen, not because I know anything about the nature of oil production, but because
I know the nature of prediction.

Any reasonable person knows that the social security system contains a large pool
of people who pay in and a small pool of people who get payments. A Ponzi scheme,
however, starts will a small pool of people who get payments from a larger pool of people.
As you can clearly see these two schemes are completely different.

You have my permission to bang your head against the wall, if you don't.

In the Ponzi scheme you start out with a small pool of people who get paid from
a larger group, then this larger groups must get paid by an even larger pool of people.
Mathematically a Ponzi scheme resembles a pyramid, but it real life it flares out stopping
against a walls of less gullible people.

In Social Security, you start with a defined groups of working people and a defined group
of retired persons in any given year. The definition of who receives benefits by age and amount,
as well as, the amount each worker pays and time to pay in changes year by year depending
upon the size of each group. This active feature of social security prevents it from ever crashing
into a wall and therefore the predictions of economists of failure must always be wrong.

The idea of Social Security loaning money to the government does seems wrong
to me. They should give back the unused portion of your money to you, I think.
Okay, let's go back to watching the conversation.

shanek

5th April 2003, 09:26 PM

Originally posted by Synchronicity
Experts make projections, those predictions work well in the short term, but gradually degrade in accuracy and eventually do not resemble reality in the long term.[/quoet]

I don't know where you're getting this from, but in the case of economic predictions it is the long-term predictions that have been shown to be astoundingly accurate and the short-term predictions that have been shown to be questionable.

[quote]If one made a bet on the future, one would bet against the economists predictions every time.

Only if one wanted to lose a lot of one's money.

Any reasonable person knows that the social security system contains a large pool of people who pay in and a small pool of people who get payments. A Ponzi scheme, however, starts will a small pool of people who get payments from a larger pool of people. As you can clearly see these two schemes are completely different.

I've read this several times, and you actually said the same thing both times. Money is taken from a larger pool of people and given to a smaller pool of people.

WMT1

6th April 2003, 08:07 AM

Solitaire

6th April 2003, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by shanek
I don't know where you're getting this from, but in the case of economic
predictions it is the long-term predictions that have been shown to be
astoundingly accurate and the short-term predictions that have been
shown to be questionable.

I am at once astounded by this statement and bemused. If one can
not hit the broad side of a barn from a yard away, yet pick off a tin
can from two hundred yards away then one has a very unusual skill.
The prediction of economic activity ought to be most accurate one
year into the future, poor in accuracy in ten, and totally inaccurate
a hundred years hence.

The price of a particular commodity, say gold, doesn’t change much
over the short term, but as time progresses, events like the invention
of new extraction technologies or new uses by industrial processes or
even panics that cannot be predicted will change the price in ways no
economist can predict. Either short-term predictions don't function the
same way long-term predictions do; or by some magical means, the
errors refuse to multiply and cancel each other out.

Only if one wanted to lose a lot of one's money.

It would be wise to examine closely the claim before betting.
I suspect loose terms apply.

I've read this several times, and you actually said the same thing both
times. Money is taken from a larger pool of people and given to a smaller
pool of people.

In Social Security, pyramid schemes, lotteries, and even in insurance
group plans, the same large pool and small pool payment forms exist.
If I get incredibly lucky, for example catch and incurable disease, have
my house burn down, and have a significant other die in an automobile
accident then I get paid from a larger group of individuals most who will
never get anything in return. Do I call insurance policies a Ponzi scheme?
Do I say it’s better that I invest the money in the market and become
self-insured? Is it a scam when the insurance company splurges upon
the executives of the company? In short if I take your position on the
matter, a number of private sector economic activities need be banned
as well.

shanek

6th April 2003, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Synchronicity
I am at once astounded by this statement and bemused.

Then learn some basic economics. You can predict overall trends over a period of years and decades, but not specifics over a period of weeks or months. Example: No one knows exactly what the stock market will do today, or this week, or this month; but we do know what it'll do over years and decades for the purposes of long-term investment.

It would be wise to examine closely the claim before betting. I suspect loose terms apply.

Then why did you state it in such an absolute manner?

If I get incredibly lucky, for example catch and incurable disease,

I think this phrase is all we need to completely dismiss the rest of this as balderdash...Yeah, those lucky cancer and AIDS sufferers...Those lucky people who have to rebuild their homes and start their lives over... :rolleyes:

Victor Danilchenko

7th April 2003, 08:08 AM

shanek

Yes, I did! Galveston County, Texas is an actual, real-life example of privatized Social Security! It's happening, no matter how much you want to stick your head in the sand!Yes, it's happening. it's one example (no matter how many people are involved, this is still one instance).

Then you shouldn't have made the claim. Don't claim what you can't back up.By that reasoning, your counter-claim is just as unsupported -- because you have to show that a representative sample of population (which Galveston County retirees aren't) consistently gets higher returns on privatized plans than on SS -- and then, you would have to show that the privatized plans also do at least as good a job of supporting the very poor retirees! because the latter was my point from the begining -- I would readily grant you the former point, except that now I want to be as ridiculous about my criteria of "evidence", as you have been.

I did back up my claim -- you are just asking for utterly unreasonable type of support.

No, the data on that site is not an accurate representation of SS's payment schedule, which you would know if you'd read the site!Did you try clicking on 'edit earnings history' button?

Not what the site itself says.What exactly does this site say, then? Reference the specific statement which you think supports your claim that the results are inaccurate.

Your figures above didn't figure in 10 or 20 years. What are you trying to pull?I did give you a number for 10 years -- look above; and I also privately computed a number for 20 years, with similar result, except I didn't bother posting it; but you can edit the earnings history to 20 years yourself. It becomes harder to do it accurately farther back, because it's difficult to account for both inflation and change in SS tax rate.

Yes, and SS is a pyramid scheme! What about that don't you get?It's not a pyramid scheme! it's not a pyramid scheme because its very setup doesn't demand increase in each successive generation's size -- and because the benefit propagation keeps pace with population growth. Ponzi scheme spreads so fast that it deals with an effectively static population; in SS, each successive member generation is actually the next population generation, thus SS needn't ever run out of people "at the bottom".

If you use a definition of "pyramid scheme" that will include SS, then it will also include the far more pyramidal legitimate pyramids, like MLM.

I quoted the law. I quoted court cases. I quoted the single best fraud resource there is. If that isn't enough for you, that's your own hangup.the references you quoted don't say what you claim they say! Argumentum ad nauseam is a fallacy.

Only one of them did mention a high rate of return. What does that tell you?It tells me that a high rate of return is not the fraudulent part, but rather that which, in conjunction with the mechanism for obtaining the return, necessitates that the scheme be a fraud.

Suppose you form a "money club" of fixed membership -- say, 10 people. Each month, you send $10 to each member of the club, thus sending out $100, and get $10 back from each. Every person gets paid with money from others, but this is not a fraud! of course you have 0% profit -- but that's exactly my point.

but change the equation -- you send out $10 to each person, but you are promised back twice what you sent out, that is, $200/month! now the club will have to either fail instantly, or start growing, doubling in size each month in order to keep up the payments. Assuming trouble-free growth, it will be at over 10 thousand members in 10 months; at over 10 million members after 20 months; over 10 billion members after 30 months -- and there's not enough people in the world; you you have been getting your 100% profit each month, but half the world is now stuck being out $100 each, a quarter broke even, and the rest made profit. The last generation -- the half of the population to join last -- are the victims of the ponzi scheme; their inevitable existence is what makes Ponzi a fraud, not whether anyone took a cut of each transaction.

If it were such a big deal, don't you think it would at least be mentioned?It is mentioned, and it's not mentioned more because it's the cause of the scheme's fradulence, but isn't a fradulent property itself; just as you may not hear references to childhood abuses in a definition of rape.

On the other hand, you can't use the fact that they didn't mention that they didn't offer high return rates as evidence. They also didn't mention that they didn't offer to have pizzas delivered by naked Ernest Borgnine lookalikes. So what?Think a little, will you? Ponzi scheme is necessarily a fraud because the last generation will necessarily get shafted -- this is what defines a Ponzi scheme, it's a property of Ponzi scheme's very nature! Ponzi is a particular sort of pyramid; but it's fradulent due to its pyramid nature combined with the fact that the sole product it produces is the re-distribution of money.

Ponzi is a fraud because Ponzi investors get lied to about their earnings prospects. It's not a fraud because someone takes a percentage of the proceeds (although that can be a fraud in its own right, if undisclosed -- it's embezzling).

Read your own quotes. Nowhere do they support your assertion that the organizers' skimming is what makes Ponzi scheme be fradulent. In fact, if nobody took a percentage of proceeds, Ponzi would still be a fraud!

The only pyramid which are legitimate are the ones that eventually produce a product. Ponzi doesn't. Ponzi thus is a fraud because of the sort of pyramid it is.

You accused me of a lack of critical thinking, but your logic here is astoundingly bad.:rolleyes: You aren't even reading your own citations. You don't recognize the obvious fact that they don't support your claims! Do you think that you can buttress your assertion by providing reams of irrelevant quotes?!.

Because he couldn't. The law didn't permit it.Really? he could have no way to free his slaves legally? i would love to see you support that.

besides, if he couldn't free his slaves legally, that merely supports my contention -- that the language of Constitution and related documents is not as plain and obvious as you pretend it to be; that it's very much open to interpretation, and was so even in the Framers' times.

shanek

7th April 2003, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Yes, it's happening. it's one example (no matter how many people are involved, this is still one instance).

??? No matter how many people there are, it's still one??? What can I say to that, but: :rolleyes:

By that reasoning, your counter-claim is just as unsupported -- because you have to show that a representative sample of population (which Galveston County retirees aren't)

How so? There are thousands and thousands of them, that's more than enough for a proper sample size, so what's so special about Galveston County that would mean that privatization would work there but not anywhere else? And what, did they get lucky that the one place it was allowed to be tried was the one place in the country it could have succeeded? You're proposing a very incredible coincidence with nothing at all to back it up.

and then, you would have to show that the privatized plans also do at least as good a job of supporting the very poor retirees!

You're completely free to research the issue on your own and come up with rebuttal evidence. Why don't you?

I did back up my claim

NO YOU DIDN'T!!!! Your ONLY "evidence" was a website that you used under conditions that THE WEBSITE ITSELF said was inaccurate!

What exactly does this site say, then? Reference the specific statement which you think supports your claim that the results are inaccurate.

I did reference it! I quoted it above! What are you trying to pull?

I did give you a number for 10 years

No, you gave a number for someone working 10 years their entire career—that did not figure in the ~40 years before then when they presumably weren't working. Read the site.

It's not a pyramid scheme!

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... SS fits the very definition of a pyramid scheme, as I have pointed out AND REFERENCED many times. Where are your references?

it's not a pyramid scheme because its very setup doesn't demand increase in each successive generation's size

In net figures, it does, because it's dependent on the people you have to pay off dying in a short amount of time, something that other pyramid schemes don't figure.

If you use a definition of "pyramid scheme" that will include SS, then it will also include the far more pyramidal legitimate pyramids, like MLM.

Support this. There is all the difference in the world between SS and marketing and selling a legitimate product. Where's the product with SS?

the references you quoted don't say what you claim they say![/b]

According to whom? According to you? They said it, I referenced them. Your only rebuttal is to stick your fingers in your ears and shout, "It's not! It's not! It's not! WAAAAAH!!!!"

Grow up.

It tells me that a high rate of return is not the fraudulent part,

Thank you for retracting your claim. I now expect you to never make it again.

Think a little, will you? Ponzi scheme is necessarily a fraud because the last generation will necessarily get shafted

And again, as I have pointed out, successive generations drawing SS benefits do get shafted because the retirement age rises and the benefits decrease! Why are you too stubborn to acknowledge that? If they hadn't done that, the whole system would have collapsed long ago, just like a Ponzi scheme!

Read your own quotes. Nowhere do they support your assertion that the organizers' skimming is what makes Ponzi scheme be fradulent. In fact, if nobody took a percentage of proceeds, Ponzi would still be a fraud!

Hardly a big point, since I have stated all along that SS would still be a faud without the skimming. I only brought it up because YOU CLAIMED IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

The only pyramid which are legitimate are the ones that eventually produce a product.

And where's the product with SS?

Really? he could have no way to free his slaves legally? i would love to see you support that.

It's true. If he had freed them, they could have been captured and resold into slavery. Remember that they were operating under British Common Law at the time, which did not permit the freeing of slaves. He did free the slaves born on his property after the formation of the US (and not just the ones he sired, before we go there) because legally they could be considered American citizens.

besides, if he couldn't free his slaves legally, that merely supports my contention -- that the language of Constitution and related documents is not as plain and obvious as you pretend it to be;

THE CONSTITUTION DIDN'T EXIST AT THE TIME JEFFERSON WROTE THE DECLARATION, YOU IDIOT!!!!! :mad:

Geez, you'll do anything to avoid being wrong, won't you?

Victor Danilchenko

7th April 2003, 12:37 PM

shanek

??? No matter how many people there are, it's still one??? What can I say to that, but: :rolleyes:Oh, come on. They all come from a small non-representative slice of the population, that happened at a specific time in a specific non-representative economic environment. Statistically, you have one example here -- one segment of the population; just as, had you done a genetic epidemiological study on the population of the Ivory Coast and discovered a predisposition to sickle-cell anemia, you wouldn't be able to conclude anything about sickle-cell anemia predisposition among humans in general.

How so? There are thousands and thousands of them, that's more than enough for a proper sample size, so what's so special about Galveston County that would mean that privatization would work there but not anywhere else?how about the time when it was done? how about luck? there are countless factors. As long as their SS accounts were privatized and invested in that one homogeneous environment, it's still just one sample.

Yes, Galveston County is most definitely a non-representative sample.

And what, did they get lucky that the one place it was allowed to be tried was the one place in the country it could have succeeded? You're proposing a very incredible coincidence with nothing at all to back it up.Actually, I was thinking more about time when they did it, than the place; although any factor, including the location, could play a role.

You're completely free to research the issue on your own and come up with rebuttal evidence. Why don't you?Why don't you? Surely the burden of proof is as much on your shoulders as it is on mine -- and you are proposing the more incredible claim, that a privatized system would help even those who couldn't afford to invest themselves.

NO YOU DIDN'T!!!! Your ONLY "evidence" was a website that you used under conditions that THE WEBSITE ITSELF said was inaccurate!You fscking moron! You quoted:

Social Security benefits are based on earnings, and the "Quick Calculator" can not access your earnings record. It has only the information you enter. The benefit statement you received from Social Security is much more accurate because it uses your earnings record for ALL past years (not just the current year like the "Quick Calculator"). If you compare the estimated earnings produced by the "Quick Calculator" to your actual earnings, you will probably see many differences.

But if you looked farther, you would see that, after giving you an estimate, the calculator allows you to enter actual earnings!!! get a "quick estimate", then click on "see earnings we used" (sorry, I misremembered the button label earlier), and you can tell the calculator exactly how much you earned in each year!!!

I did reference it! I quoted it above! What are you trying to pull?the statement you quoted gives warnings only about "quick calculator" -- but what i did is follow the link further to exact calculation; as I have said to you a number of times. I didn't use their estimate of my earnings!!!

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... SS fits the very definition of a pyramid scheme, as I have pointed out AND REFERENCED many times. Where are your references?You didn't reference anything that would support your contention that SS is a pyramid scheme. The quote frfom ACFE fraud manual tells you that the distinguisging feature of Ponzi pyramid scheme is that the previous generation is paid by next generation; this is what distinguishes Ponzi from other pyramid schemes; but SS is not a pyramid scheme, and none of your so-called "references" said it is!!!

In net figures, it does, because it's dependent on the people you have to pay off dying in a short amount of time, something that other pyramid schemes don't figure.So does insurance -- it depends on people using little enough funds, or dying faster, or whetever; that doesn't make it a fraud. many legitimate business schemes are base don such statistical estimations.

According to whom? According to you? They said it, I referenced them.Your references didn't say what you thikn they said, dude. Grow up.

Thank you for retracting your claim. I now expect you to never make it again.I never claimed that the high rate of return is the fradulent part, you idiot! I claimed that it's a factor that necessitates that the scheme be a fraud, by necessitating geometric growth of the membership pool; but high rate of return isn't fradulent in and of itself.

Stop lying, you principled libertarian, you.

You however did claim that "It's a fraud because those who run the Ponzi scheme use the money for themselves"; and then you claimed that it would still be fradulent even if no-one skimmed off the top. Will I now hear you officially retract that earlier claim?

And again, as I have pointed out, successive generations drawing SS benefits do get shafted because the retirement age rises and the benefits decrease!OK, let's try to get a hypothetical through to you.

If population aging stopped, any consistent growth -- positive or negative -- would allow for constant SS returns. Under such circumstances, when SS benefits wouldn't be changing, would you still consider it a fraud?

Why are you too stubborn to acknowledge that?I did acknowledge that; but I acknowledge that this is a specific problem of the circumstances and management decisions surrounding our implementation of SS, rather than a problem of SS-type arrangement in general. Why are you too stubborn to realize that?

Hardly a big point, since I have stated all along that SS would still be a faud without the skimming.Well, you started by claiming:

It's a fraud because those who run the Ponzi scheme use the money for themselves, just as Congress repeatedly raids the SS funds to pay for their own favorite boondoggles.

That really sounds like you are claiming that it's the skimming that makes Ponzi be a fraud, and thus by analogy that makes SS be fradulent.

I only brought it up because YOU CLAIMED IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!I never made such a ridiculous claim, you fscking liar. You think otherwise? Quote me.

And where's the product with SS?Oh, how about the interest on SS-backed loans?..

But it's not relevant, you see, because SS is not a pyramid scheme. In fact, if we had negative population growth, SS would have the shape of a "reverse pyramid"; and if we had 0 population growth, it would be a cylinder. SS is not a pyramid scheme.

It's true. If he had freed them, they could have been captured and resold into slavery.Not in USA.

Remember that they were operating under British Common Law at the time, which did not permit the freeing of slaves.Not in USA.

He did free the slaves born on his property after the formation of the US (and not just the ones he sired, before we go there) because legally they could be considered American citizens.but he freed them upon his death, as I recall, not between formation of US and his death; so a number of years elapsed between formation of USA, and Jefferson's death in 1826.

And even then, he freed only a small number of skilled slaves -- most of his plantation slaves (~130, I understand) were simply sold with the estate upon his death. By Jefferson's death in 1826, slaves could most definitely be freed legally...

:rolleyes:

Stop worshipping your pink fluffy ideals, dude.

THE CONSTITUTION DIDN'T EXIST AT THE TIME JEFFERSON WROTE THE DECLARATION, YOU IDIOT!!!!! :mad:but jefferson's intent was made clear in the Declaration, right? I mean, he did write "all men are endowed with the right to ... liberty", and thaere's only one self-evident interpretation of that, nevermind that Jefferson himself didn't follow it. :rolleyes:

shanek

7th April 2003, 02:44 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Oh, come on. They all come from a small non-representative slice of the population, that happened at a specific time in a specific non-representative economic environment.

And again, I ask you what is so statistically different about Galveston County, TX than the rest of the country in this regard? Do they have a completely different economy? Completely different investment schemes? No. The investments made there are the same investments people use nationwide. So I can't see any reason to think that any differences in demographics in Galveston County residents would make any difference. If you work for x number of years at $y/year, you'll get $z a month in returns. I can't see why you'll get <$z just because you live somewhere else in the country.

You're just looking for an excuse to discount the data that's staring you in the face.

just as, had you done a genetic epidemiological study on the population of the Ivory Coast and discovered a predisposition to sickle-cell anemia, you wouldn't be able to conclude anything about sickle-cell anemia predisposition among humans in general.

That's ridiculous! Are you saying there's something genetic in how much money you get from a return? :rolleyes:

how about the time when it was done?

What, 1980-2002? That covers one moderate and one big boom and two big recessions.

how about luck?

Again, there were thousands of people here. Why would they be any luckier than others making the same investments anywhere else?

As long as their SS accounts were privatized and invested in that one homogeneous environment, it's still just one sample.

"Invested in that one homogeneous environment"? What are you blathering about? You don't invest any differently in Galveston County, TX than you do in New York or LA!

Why don't you? Surely the burden of proof is as much on your shoulders as it is on mine

I have provided evidence.

and you are proposing the more incredible claim,

No, I'm not, especially given the fact that even a simple savings account gets you a greater return than through Social Security.

But if you looked farther, you would see that, after giving you an estimate, the calculator allows you to enter actual earnings!!!

But the longer you project your earnings, the more inaccurate it gets!

the statement you quoted gives warnings only about "quick calculator" -- but what i did is follow the link further to exact calculation;

Then why did you link to the quick calculator? Trying to obfuscate again? And there's not a link to the Online Calculator (they don't say "exact") from there; you have to back up to the calculators page and get there.

You also seemed to have missed this little gem on the main calculators page (which you didn't link to; hmmm...):

All [calculators] assume you have enough credits to qualify for benefits, so they produce an estimate even if you do not actually have enough credits.

So you have no way of knowing if your hypothetical people would be disqualified or discounted for not having enough credits, having not worked enough to obtain them.

You didn't reference anything that would support your contention that SS is a pyramid scheme.

Yes, I did. I quoted definitions of pyramid and Ponzi schemes, and SS fits them.

The quote frfom ACFE fraud manual tells you that the distinguisging feature of Ponzi pyramid scheme is that the previous generation is paid by next generation; this is what distinguishes Ponzi from other pyramid schemes;

Man, you are soooo reaching... :rolleyes:

but SS is not a pyramid scheme, and none of your so-called "references" said it is!!!

Okay, you want sources saying it directly? Fine...how about MSN's Money Central?

http://moneycentral.msn.com/articles/tax/capitol/2918.asp

Or Harvard's economic department?

http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/mankiw/columns/april98.html

National Bureau of Economic Research?

http://www.nber.org/papers/w7679

Bellevue's economics department?

http://academic.bellevue.edu/~jpatton/bottomline/socialsecurity.html

Enough for you? Probably not; a plethora of sources would probably not be enough for you. But, it's more than enough to convince the lurker. So go ahead, keep on denying it. Make yourself look even more foolish.

So does insurance -- it depends on people using little enough funds, or dying faster, or whetever;

No, it doesn't. It only depends on people not having to take massive amounts of money out at the same time. Does life insurance depend on people dying faster?

I never claimed that the high rate of return is the fradulent part, you idiot! I claimed that it's a factor that necessitates that the scheme be a fraud,

Oh, yes, such a big difference there... :rolleyes: It's still bogus, for the reasons stated.

You however did claim that "It's a fraud because those who run the Ponzi scheme use the money for themselves"; and then you claimed that it would still be fradulent even if no-one skimmed off the top. Will I now hear you officially retract that earlier claim?

No. The scheme itself is a fraud. Skimming of fthe top is another fraud. But you'll just look for any excuse to dismiss something...

If population aging stopped, any consistent growth -- positive or negative -- would allow for constant SS returns.

And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his @$$ a-hoppin'. But the population does age, so you can't weasel out of it that way.

I did acknowledge that; but I acknowledge that this is a specific problem of the circumstances and management decisions surrounding our implementation of SS, rather than a problem of SS-type arrangement in general. Why are you too stubborn to realize that?

Okay, show how it can be fixed. Using real-world numbers, show how SS can continue without continually reducing benefits and/or increasing the retirement age. Go on. Then apply for a job in Washington, because none of them know how to do it.

That really sounds like you are claiming that it's the skimming that makes Ponzi be a fraud, and thus by analogy that makes SS be fradulent.

Never did I state or imply that that was the only fraudulent aspect of a Ponzi scheme.

I never made such a ridiculous claim, you fscking liar. You think otherwise? Quote me.

Okay:

secondly, Congress doesn't take money -- it borrows money

You still gonna deny it?

Oh, how about the interest on SS-backed loans?

Interest is a product??? :rolleyes: You really excel at making yourself look like a bigger and bigger idiot the more you avoid admitting you were wrong about something...

Again, I point out that Ponzi schemes are considered frauds no matter how much interest they actually do generate for their "investors." If interest isn't a product to a Ponzi scheme, how is it suddenly a product for SS?

But it's not relevant, you see, because SS is not a pyramid scheme.

Uh-huh. Proof that it's a pyramid scheme is irrelevant because it's not a pyramid scheme. Riiiight...

In fact, if we had negative population growth,

And again, if a frog had wings...

Not in USA.

IT WASN'T THE USA AT THAT TIME!!!!

You can't weasel out of the fact that Jefferson meant it when he said "all men are created equal."

Why did you ignore the part from his original draft that I quoted? Could it be because it blows your argument out of the water?

Stop worshipping your pink fluffy ideals, dude.

:rolleyes:

but jefferson's intent was made clear in the Declaration, right?

Yes. You're trying to say that he didn't have the intent just because he wasn't able (for numerous and varying reasons) to follow through with it. That's completely bogus.

Twit.

Victor Danilchenko

7th April 2003, 03:29 PM

shanek

You're just looking for an excuse to discount the data that's staring you in the face.I am giving you perfectly valid statistical objections. Now as i said before, i have no opbjections to the statement that private investments on average return more than SS -- but since you were being an ass, I decided to show you how to do it right.

Remember, oh he of short memory; my point is not that SS on average returns more than private investment, but that SS will support even those who would have been failed by the private investment program. This contention I supported.

That's ridiculous! Are you saying there's something genetic in how much money you get from a return?No, statistically ignorant one, I am giving you an example of how a single biased sample does not tell you much useful about the population as a whole.

What, 1980-2002? That covers one moderate and one big boom and two big recessions.But it was initiated under Reagan-era high interest rates. That gave it th einitial boost. had the SS been privatized at a different time in different economic climate, it may have deflated to nothingness before having a chance to grow. This is why i said that a single local (temporally more than geographically) sample doesn't tell you much.

I have provided evidence.You provided one sample. That's 0 degrees of freedom -- you can't draw any statistically sound conclusions from a single sample.

No, I'm not, especially given the fact that even a simple savings account gets you a greater return than through Social Security.prove it1 Data, please! And make it statistically sound, with references and everything!

hehe...

But the longer you project your earnings, the more inaccurate it gets!You can have th ecalculator project your earnings backwards at a fixed depreciation rate; or you can enter the earnings yourself, in today's dollars. The sole difficulty here lies in preparing the data yourself correctly.

Then why did you link to the quick calculator?Because that was the one i found first; it did what i wanted it to do, and i documented what I was doing. The stink shouldn't have existed, except for your bone-headedness.

Of course, I gave you all the necessary information to find everything; that you didn't, was solely due to your bone-headed refusal to see anything that might contradict you.

Trying to obfuscate again?No, idiot, I simply gave you the link I found. I hadn't expected to be confronted by a head of stone-crushing properties. had you spend a minute simply reading what I said in the first place, you could have gotten everything yourself.

And there's not a link to the Online Calculator (they don't say "exact") from there; you have to back up to the calculators page and get there.No, you don't. i got to it by editing the earnings history from the Quick calculator.

So, will you now admit that you have been whining and bitching for no reason, and that the estimates I provided are in fact sound?..

You also seemed to have missed this little gem on the main calculators page (which you didn't link to; hmmm...):Which was why, in the very beginning, i stated that I start calculations at the minimum of 4 years. You need to work for at least 4 years to be eligible for SS benefits.

Dude, i disclosed everything that needed to be disclosed. the obstacles you erected were solely th eproducts of your fevered imagination.

Yes, I did. I quoted definitions of pyramid and Ponzi schemes, and SS fits them.No, it didn't. it matches some properties of a Ponzi scheme, but not the ones that make it illegal.

You have a dog. Your dog has puppies. Your dog is a mother. the dog is your mother? No; yet she is ours, and a mother.

yes, SS uses money from the next generation to pay the previous generation (if the individual in question overruns their contribution); but it doesn't necessitate geometric growth, and thus it doesn't automatically defraud the last generation.

Okay, you want sources saying it directly? Fine...how about MSN's Money Central?yes, conservative economists. Fine. There are plenty of liberal ones who don't consider SS to be a pyramid scheme. So wha SS is dealing with one specific issue -- the aging of the population; I already said that, and furthermore I said that if the population aging continues unabated, SS will indeed be a pyramid scheme.

So how about my question? Would you consider Ss a fraud if the population wasn't aging, and if the SS returns were thus constant?

No, it doesn't. It only depends on people not having to take massive amounts of money out at the same time. Does life insurance depend on people dying faster?No, life insurance depends on people not dying prematurely. Same thing. the point is that success of many legitimate plans hinges on non-occurence of certain statistically unlikely events.

No. The scheme itself is a fraud. Skimming of fthe top is another fraud. But you'll just look for any excuse to dismiss something...Skimming off the top is fraud regardless of whether it occurs in a Ponzi scheme; that's not what makes Ponzi be a fraud. So how about admitting that your original claim was wrong?

And if a frog had wings, he wouldn't bump his @$$ a-hoppin'. But the population does age, so you can't weasel out of it that way.Wait, let's get a fix on this. So suppose the population wasn't aging, you agree that SS wouln't be a fraud/ Just answer the question, please; it's a pretty normal hypothetical.

Okay, show how it can be fixed.First, it can be fixed by explicitly tying retirement age to the average population age. Secondly, it can become fixed by itself if the population aging stops -- if we run up against a physiological limit to age extension. probably won't happen for a while; but the former fix should inded be implemented, IMO.

Never did I state or imply that that was the only fraudulent aspect of a Ponzi scheme.it's not even a necessary aspect of a Ponzi scheme; it no more makes Ponzi be a fraud, than using a stolen gun makes a muder be fellony. it's completely incidental to the fradulent nature of the Ponzi scheme.

You still gonna deny it?I never denied it in the first place. Don't lie, shane.

Again, I point out that Ponzi schemes are considered frauds no matter how much interest they actually do generate for their "investors."I meant interest on loans backed by SS. This is a legitimate aspect of pretty much any investment plan; and SS isn't a Ponzi scheme.

Uh-huh. Proof that it's a pyramid scheme is irrelevant because it's not a pyramid scheme.but you didn't offer proof that it's a pyramid scheme. Not producing a product isn't a sufficient condition to make something be fradulent.

IT WASN'T THE USA AT THAT TIME!!!!it was USA for decades before Jefferson's death, dude.

You can't weasel out of the fact that Jefferson meant it when he said "all men are created equal."How could he have meant it if he never freed his slaves, not even after USA was formed, and not even in his will?!.

Why did you ignore the part from his original draft that I quoted? Could it be because it blows your argument out of the water?Dude, it simply shows that jefferson acted hypocritically. yes, he disagreed with slavery on paper -- and he owned slaves, and didn't even free most of them when he died.

Yes. You're trying to say that he didn't have the intent just because he wasn't able (for numerous and varying reasons) to follow through with it. That's completely bogus.he had decades to 'follow through with it"; about 4 decades, to be exact -- between formation of USA, and his death. Are you telling me that this isn't enough time to carry out a plan to free the slaves? how can you say with a straight face that he had intent to do so?

Twit.Deluded fanatic...

shanek

8th April 2003, 09:00 AM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
I am giving you perfectly valid statistical objections.

No, you aren't! I pointed you to thousands of people who benefited from privatizing SS, and you haven't even pointed me to one single, actual, real-world person who benefits more from SS than they would from a privatized system.

but since you were being an ass, I decided to show you how to do it right.

Posting hypothetical figures from a site that admits it's inaccurate is "doing it right"?

but that SS will support even those who would have been failed by the private investment program. This contention I supported.

No, you didn't! You can't point to one single,m actual, real-world person!

No, statistically ignorant one, I am giving you an example of how a single biased sample does not tell you much useful about the population as a whole.

How is the sample biased? How do investments vary in rate of return based on the geographical location of their investors? Answer: they don't. Until you can point out some objective reason why Galveston County's experience with a privatized retirement system is unique in all the country, then all you're doing is making excuses.

Answer this straight: How is the sample biased?

But it was initiated under Reagan-era high interest rates.

So? We're talking long-term investments, which even out over the long run.

That gave it th einitial boost. had the SS been privatized at a different time in different economic climate, it may have deflated to nothingness before having a chance to grow.

You're showing your complete ignorance of economics again. Whatever amount you invest won't "deflate to nothingness." If they had invested before the financial crisis in the 1970s, they would actually be getting more money out—because they were basically starting from 0 in the 1980s anyway, and at some point in the initial economic rise it would have met and begun to surpass the initial amount anyway!

Learn how this stuff works for once before spouting off about it, will ya?

You provided one sample.

No, I didn't. I provided thousands. And there are thousands upon thousands more examples of people supplementing their retirement (knowing they can't rely on SS) and getting a far greater rate of return than SS regardless of whether they start investing during a boom or a bust. We're talking about long-term investments, and the boom and busts smooth out over the long term.

Data, please! And make it statistically sound, with references and everything!

Geez, just go to your local bank, you idiot! You can easily get a savings account that gets you a guaranteed 3% rate of return even without going to a Money Market account! SS's return rate is less than 2%, not even enough to keep up with inflation!

You can have th ecalculator project your earnings backwards at a fixed depreciation rate; or you can enter the earnings yourself, in today's dollars. The sole difficulty here lies in preparing the data yourself correctly.

And in the fact that the longer you look at the term the more inaccurate the data is, and the fact that it doesn't count how many credits you have towards qualifying for SS, and those apply to all the calculators! Read the site!

The stink shouldn't have existed, except for your bone-headedness.

Pointing out how THE SITE ITSELF says your numbers cannot be considered accurate is boneheadedness? :rolleyes:

No, idiot, I simply gave you the link I found. I hadn't expected to be confronted by a head of stone-crushing properties.

It's called "skepticism," you moron.

No, you don't. i got to it by editing the earnings history from the Quick calculator.

And then we're back to my initial objection with their QC!

Make up your mind—did you calculate the values using the QC or not?

So, will you now admit that you have been whining and bitching for no reason, and that the estimates I provided are in fact sound?..

No, because they aren't, and my objections are sound and valid, and backed up by the site itself!

What about your boneheadedness to refuse to see WHAT THE SITE ITSELF SAYS???

No, it didn't. it matches some properties of a Ponzi scheme, but not the ones that make it illegal.

I'm tired of this bullsh!t moving the goalposts of yours! I have posted what Ponzi schemes are, why they are illegal, and why SS is a Ponzi scheme. I have posted financial and economic experts who agree with me. And you call ME boneheaded??? :rolleyes:

yes, SS uses money from the next generation to pay the previous generation (if the individual in question overruns their contribution);

No, no if about it. If you even draw one dollar, that dollar comes from the next generation. There's no trust fund, there's no lock box. The money you pay into SS is GONE, and drawing SS means taking money from people who are working today.

yes, conservative economists.

Name-calling. I knew it.

MS-NBC are conservatives? That'll be news to Jedi Knight...

So how about my question?

Your question is irrelevant, because it poses a hypothetical that is impossible in reality. The amount of retirees drawing SS will always be less than the number of workers paying into SS, even if the government has to raise the retirement age to make it so.

No, life insurance depends on people not dying prematurely. Same thing.

Depending on people dying and depending on people not dying is the same thing? :rolleyes:

the point is that success of many legitimate plans hinges on non-occurence of certain statistically unlikely events.

No, not the non-occurence; just that the occurences are going to happen in predictable numbers. This still has zilch to do with SS.

So how about admitting that your original claim was wrong?

Because it isn't.

Wait, let's get a fix on this. So suppose the population wasn't aging,

Population does age. People grow old, people die, new people enter the workforce, older people retire. Stop trying to weasel out of it by something that's just plain impossible!

Just answer the question, please; it's a pretty normal hypothetical.

No, it's not! It's a completely impossible and unreasonable hypothetical which contravenes all the known laws of biology and physics!

I never denied it in the first place. Don't lie, shane.

YES YOU BLOODY WELL DID!!! YOU SAID:

I never made such a ridiculous claim, you fscking liar. You think otherwise? Quote me.

I quoted you, now you're denying that you've denied it! :mad:

I meant interest on loans backed by SS.

WHAT loans backed by SS? There are no loans backed by SS. Congress "borrows" money from SS, but they spend it and never put it back. That's how we got those "surpluses" a few years ago. It's tantamount to counterfieting! All it does is push inflation upward and it doesn't do anything to invest money taken for SS!

but you didn't offer proof that it's a pyramid scheme.

YES I DID!!!! I GAVE YOU DEFINITIONS!!!!! I QUOTED EXPERTS!!!! HOW MUCH MORE BLOODY PROOF DO YOU NEED??????

Not producing a product isn't a sufficient condition to make something be fradulent.

Backpedalling now? You said that pyramids that produce a product aren't frauds. I have shown that claim to be irrelevant.

it was USA for decades before Jefferson's death, dude.

But not when he wrote the Declaration!

Dude, it simply shows that jefferson acted hypocritically.

So what? He still meant what he said, even if for numerous reasons he couldn't or wouldn't actually do it. The words mean what they say. You can stick your head up your @$$ all you want, but they mean what they say.

rikzilla

8th April 2003, 10:45 AM

Libertarian vs Socialist! Film @ 11!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Twit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deluded fanatic... :D :D

Vic...I disagree with your politics. I'm closer to Shane's position because like most libertarians, I feel that we the people should be masters of our own fate. The nanny state as it exists now is too large...and far too intrusive in general IMHO. However, I am not on the loony fringe who believes income tax and SS are unconstitutional. If only common sense could indeed by legislated! :rolleyes: I thank you Vic for your helpful posts to me about the nature of communism and socialism, although I disagree with you strongly I find you to be a well informed and courteous poster.

Shane....well, that's a horse of another color. He is a smart guy but lacks humility and integrity. Like the Brits say; he's too clever by half! He has never admited a mistake (that I know of)...yet has been caught in many errors...and had the gall to defend his errors in the face of contrary evidence... much like AUP. He has called me "A FILTHY LIAR" recently when I pointed this out to him. He is emotional, and arrogant. :mad:

I suggest Vic, that you reconsider continuing your argument with Shane....it's a bit like driving your head into a wall. :) But I do enjoy being a fly on the wall of this thread...it's been very entertaining and informative! ;)

-z

WMT1

8th April 2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla
I thank you Vic for your helpful posts to me about the nature of communism and socialism, although I disagree with you strongly I find you to be a well informed and courteous poster.

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/happy/roflmao.gif

Victor Danilchenko

8th April 2003, 12:00 PM

shanek

No, you aren't! I pointed you to thousands of people who benefited from privatizing SS, and you haven't even pointed me to one single, actual, real-world person who benefits more from SS than they would from a privatized system.Do you understand what "statistical objections" are? i don't need to provide counter-examples, i merely need to point out methodological flaws in your reasoning; just as, if I were to counter your claim that longer nose causes greater math ability, I would simply need to point out that you haven't isolated dependent variables, and thus have insufficient ground to draw conclusions about causation. (nose length is positively correlated with math ability due to age).

So if you are going to be a jerk, at least do it informedly; raise objections which mean something, and preferably ones for which you can dig up long latin names.

Posting hypothetical figures from a site that admits it's inaccurate is "doing it right"?the site admitted to being inaccurate due to criteria which I already accounted for; and tyhose hypothetical figures are completely within reasonable realm -- if you take, say, a representative sample of a thousand retirees, you are sure to have some among them who only worked for, say, 10 years before retirement -- due to late divorce, or a busted 401K, or whatever.

Oh yeah, how does private retirement plan help those whose savings get vaporized due to circumstances beyond their control, such as the Enron employees whose 401Ks got smoked?

No, you didn't! You can't point to one single,m actual, real-world person!i don't have to. The circumstances I described are nowhere near being exceptional, and thus there are guaranteed to be people out there who fall within th erather large range of possibilities I covered.

How is the sample biased? How do investments vary in rate of return based on the geographical location of their investors?I don't know; but that's kinda the point -- we usually don't know a-priori about hidden dependencies, which is why we always want a representative sample, to minimize a chance of running afoul the said unrecognized dependencies. Simple experimental methodology, an invaluable tool for any skeptic. Too bad you don't know what that is...

Answer: they don't. Until you can point out some objective reason why Galveston County's experience with a privatized retirement system is unique in all the country, then all you're doing is making excuses.You have no clue about the proper way to analyze statistical data. Pheh.

Answer this straight: How is the sample biased?Both geographically and temporally. For all I know, it also suffers from selection bias -- did all seniors in Galveston county privative their SS, or was it a self-selected sample, or a sample selected by the third party? We don't know; and thus you can't draw a statistically valid conclusion from the data.

There may be other biases, but these will a-priori invalidate any conclusion you draw from the data at hand.

So? We're talking long-term investments, which even out over the long run.Not necessarily. Stock market as a whole does; but any specific investment portfolio doesn't necessarily.

You're showing your complete ignorance of economics again.Dude, you know as little about economics as I -- that much I have figured out; but I don't pretend to have knowledge I don't possess. I do know math, though.

Whatever amount you invest won't "deflate to nothingness."that depends on the portfolio, doesn't it? Someone who invested heavily in tech stocks in 1999, for example, would have been left with little more than empty hands now. It all depends on the composition of your investment.

Learn how this stuff works for once before spouting off about it, will ya?irony, thy name if shane killian...

Geez, just go to your local bank, you idiot! You can easily get a savings account that gets you a guaranteed 3% rate of return even without going to a Money Market account! SS's return rate is less than 2%, not even enough to keep up with inflation!And it won't help you if you could only work for, say, last 5 years before retirement. Such investment works best when started early, but it won't cover everyone who needs help. Neither will SS, but SS will cover more people than private investment will.

It's called "skepticism," you moron.You weren't skeptical; you didn't even fully check it out at first. that's not skepticism, that's bone-headedness.

Make up your mind—did you calculate the values using the QC or not?QC gives you access to a more detailed calculation from the result page. I said this from the beginning.

What about your boneheadedness to refuse to see WHAT THE SITE ITSELF SAYS???it's not enough to read what the site says, shane; you also have to understand it. You seem to be sadly lacking in the understanding capacity department.

I'm tired of this bullsh!t moving the goalposts of yours! I have posted what Ponzi schemes are,You made erroneous statements about them, and you misinterpreted your own quotes.

why they are illegalOnly one of your quotes answers the question of why Ponzi is illegal, and the reason given there 9that investors get fleeced once Ponzi expansion runs up against the guillible population limit) is exactly what i have been saying about Ponzi.

and why SS is a Ponzi scheme.You didn't understand the quotes you posted. Again.

So tell me, if population wasn't aging, would SS be a pyramid? just answer the question.

No, no if about it. If you even draw one dollar, that dollar comes from the next generation. There's no trust fund, there's no lock box. The money you pay into SS is GONE, and drawing SS means taking money from people who are working today.Where does the money paid into SS vanish? Do tell.

note: I read further down, and realized that you have no clue what I am talking. See further down about "population aging".

Your question is irrelevant, because it poses a hypothetical that is impossible in reality.how is it impossible to have constant population age? Remember, i am not talking about zero population growth, but about zero population aging. The population had not been aging for centuries through many epochs in human history; and it's very possible that the aging will stop soon, once we get all the extra lifespan out of good nutrition and better healthcare.

So tell me, dude -- how are my hypotheticals impossible?

The amount of retirees drawing SS will always be less than the number of workers paying into SS, even if the government has to raise the retirement age to make it so.So? Whether it's less or more doesn't matter; what matters is whether it's growing or shrinking. Your claim is that the benefits are shrinking, and that's why SS is a pyramid; and my answer is that the benefits are shrinking because of the population aging, and that if the population stops aging, the benefit shrinkage will stop, because the ratio of payers to payees (workers to retirees) will stabilize. If the population age is stable, we have only one free variable -- retirement age; and we then control payments to benefits ratio directly by setting the retirement age.

Dude, you are innumerate, at least for a computer professional. What the hell do you do for a living, that you don't understand basic mathematics?

Depending on people dying and depending on people not dying is the same thing? :rolleyes:From statistical POV, yes; in both cases, desired financial outcome is dependent upon certain statistical events not occurring. If SS is a fraud because it depends on retirees dying early enough (as statistics would predict), then life insurance is also a fraud for depending on comparable statistical stability of people's lives.

Innumeracy is a terrible thing...

Because it isn't.Didn't think so. Why do I bother?!. :rolleyes:

You would rather gouge out an eye than admit anything that would contradict your blind faith. Just like a fundy. I knew randroids were fanatical nuts, but I didn't really expect that of the rest of the libertarians...

Population does age. People grow old, people die, new people enter the workforce, older people retire. Stop trying to weasel out of it by something that's just plain impossible!Dude, you are clueless! Do you know what "population aging" means? it means that the average age of the population gets higher -- we have proportionately more and more old people, because people live longer and longer!

Sheesh! how the fsck do you expect to talk abut social policies if you don't know the basics?

No, it's not! It's a completely impossible and unreasonable hypothetical which contravenes all the known laws of biology and physics!You have been educated. Armed with the power of this knowledge now, tell me -- would you still consider SS a fraud if, due to stable population age, it took the cylinder form?

YES YOU BLOODY WELL DID!!! YOU SAID:I deny that I ever claimed that congress doesn't borrow money from SS; I never claimed that congress doesn't borrow -- but i did claim that congress doesn't skim (i.e. take without repayment). You were confused about the difference from the beginning, dude. :rolleyes:

WHAT loans backed by SS? There are no loans backed by SS. Congress "borrows" money from SS, but they spend it and never put it back.Those loans backed by SS, yes. If Congress doesn't put it back, then the US government will for the first time in its history (AFAIK) default on a payment. Until then, US credit is good.

YES I DID!!!! I GAVE YOU DEFINITIONS!!!!! I QUOTED EXPERTS!!!! HOW MUCH MORE BLOODY PROOF DO YOU NEED??????You gave quotes which don't say what you claim they say. it's that simple.

But not when he wrote the Declaration!So, let me get this straight: when Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence in 1776, under british law which didn't permit the freeing of slaves (I still want backing on that claim!), he believed it to be self-evident that all men have right to liberty; but within 11 years, once US Constitution was ratified and jefferson gained legal ability to free his slaves, he changed his mind about all men having the right to liberty, and instead decided to keep his slaves enslaved, and only freed the Hemmings family (which would be, what? ~7% of the slaves he owned?); or he kept believing it, but didn't wish to enact his beliefs and free the slaves. Does that about cover your explanation of Jefferson's actions WRT his slaves and his belief in personal liberty?

So what? He still meant what he said, even if for numerous reasons he couldn't or wouldn't actually do it. The words mean what they say. You can stick your head up your @$$ all you want, but they mean what they say.So Jefferson meant that all men have right to liberty, but didn't see fit to enact his beliefs; which is to say, he acted as a hypocrite, not following the Constitution literally. Well, you know, deeds do speak louder than words...

So a neighbor comes to Nasrudin's house, asking for a donkey. Nasrudin smiles and answers: "My friend, I have no donkey! it has been sold!" Suddenly, there is a loud donkey brayng from the backyard. The visitor looks at Nasrudin, upset: "but I can heear your donkey, right there behind the house!" "Who are you going to believe -- me, or some stupid donkey?" Nasrudin replied.

Victor Danilchenko

8th April 2003, 12:10 PM

rikzilla

Libertarian vs Socialist! Film @ 11!i am not a socialist. I am about half-way between liberal and libertarian, a bit on the liberal side (on Shane's test, I am 10 for personal self-governance, 3 for economic self-governance). I sympathize with libertarian desire to strip the excessive power from the government; but not with the views that inform such a desire.

Vic...I disagree with your politics.Well, if you think I am a socialist, no wonder... just because I corrected you about socialism and communism, doesn't mean that I am a socialist.

I'm closer to Shane's position because like most libertarians, I feel that we the people should be masters of our own fate.So do I. What I disagree with, is Shane's position that his 'self-evident' interpretation of Constitution is the right one. It's the same lunatic infallibilism that brought Rand low.

You may have noticed that I have no problem with agreeing that privatized retirement is on average better than SS (except when shane is being a jerk); but, like you, I disagree that it's unconstitutional.

The nanny state as it exists now is too large...and far too intrusive in general IMHO.I agree.

If only common sense could indeed by legislated!Common sense is neither.

:rolleyes: I thank you Vic for your helpful posts to me about the nature of communism and socialism, although I disagree with you strongly I find you to be a well informed and courteous poster.Courteous? that's a first...

Shane....well, that's a horse of another color. He is a smart guy but lacks humility and integrity. Like the Brits say; he's too clever by half! He has never admited a mistake (that I know of)...yet has been caught in many errors...he admitted a couple of errors to me, but those were minor errors in which he wasnt ideologically invested.

and had the gall to defend his errors in the face of contrary evidence... much like AUP. He has called me "A FILTHY LIAR" recently when I pointed this out to him. He is emotional, and arrogant. :mad:And not all that smart. Being able to reference reams of sources is not a substitute for actual thought.

I suggest Vic, that you reconsider continuing your argument with Shane....it's a bit like driving your head into a wall. :)i am indeed considering that.

Solitaire

8th April 2003, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by shanek
Then learn some basic economics. You can predict overall trends over
a period of years and decades, but not specifics over a period of weeks
or months. Example: No one knows exactly what the stock market will
do today, or this week, or this month; but we do know what it'll do over
years and decades for the purposes of long-term investment.
Then why did you state it in such an absolute manner?

Ah, this clarifies matters a bit. We are indeed discussing different things.

I am correct in stating that as the length of time increases predictions
will become increasingly inaccurate. In other words I can predict the value
of the stock market the next day with very good accuracy within a percent
or two, but extend that to a period over a year and my accuracy will be off
by a factor of two or more.

A trend does not violate this underlying problem of prediction.
An economist might say that over a period of thirty or forty years the
stock market will increase in value of ten percent per year. He must by
nature include an error rate of, perhaps, one percent that will increase
over time giving large a range of final values that fall close to the predicted
ten percent value.

I can always bet against an economist that says, “Dow 36000 by 2030,”
unless he specifies a rather wide error range.

I think this phrase is all we need to completely dismiss the rest of this
as balderdash...

Note To Self: Don't use crass humor on Libertarians as they never get it.

Have you been able to convince Victor that Social Security isn't
an insurance program against old age?
:p

shanek

8th April 2003, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla
However, I am not on the loony fringe who believes income tax and SS are unconstitutional.

As I have never claimed that, I am curious as to why you bring it up.

He has never admited a mistake (that I know of)...

I have admitted many, many mistakes. The most recent one is here:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17011

He has called me "A FILTHY LIAR" recently when I pointed this out to him.

I called you a liar because you LIED ABOUT WHAT I SAID!!! And others on your side had no problem understanding what I said, and even agreed with me! :rolleyes:

He is emotional,

I only get emotional when people lie about what I say. It's the only thing that really gets to me.

shanek

8th April 2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Do you understand what "statistical objections" are? i don't need to provide counter-examples,

Who said anything about counter-examples? I want you to post an example supporting YOUR contention as I have posted examples supporting mine!

the site admitted to being inaccurate due to criteria which I already accounted for;

But you accounted for them based on your own assumptions, and you have submitted no evidence that the SS office would agree with your assumptions.

All you have to do is provide a real-world example, as I have done.

Oh yeah, how does private retirement plan help those whose savings get vaporized due to circumstances beyond their control, such as the Enron employees whose 401Ks got smoked?

Well, there are supposed to be methods of seeking damages from the criminals who stole your money. Unfortunately, the Feds through the SEC have made it so all they get is a slap on the wrist and no one gets reimbursed for damages...

i don't have to.

:rolleyes:

It would be a good way to win the argument...But no, Victor won't do it, because he doesn't "have" to...

I don't know; but that's kinda the point -- we usually don't know a-priori about hidden dependencies, which is why we always want a representative sample,

But what is a representative sample? It is a sample whose variables do not apply to the statistics being measured. In any statistical sample there are bound to be variables. That's why you don't do phone polls only at night; you don't get a sampling of second-shift workers, who generally have a lower income.

But your only problem here is location, and since none of these funds were particular to Galveston County, there's no reason to believe that people in Washington, Montana, or Virginia would not have had exactly the same experiences.

Both geographically and temporally. For all I know, it also suffers from selection bias -- did all seniors in Galveston county privative their SS,

They ALL did. The whole county. Seniors, workers, everyone.

Not necessarily. Stock market as a whole does; but any specific investment portfolio doesn't necessarily.

That's why diversifying is the key. That's why there are all these index funds.

that depends on the portfolio, doesn't it? Someone who invested heavily in tech stocks in 1999, for example, would have been left with little more than empty hands now. It all depends on the composition of your investment.

Some portfolios do better than others, but the money never goes completely away as you pretend it does. And again, if you're diversifying, you have less to worry about.

And it won't help you if you could only work for, say, last 5 years before retirement.

But you probably wouldn't qualify for Social Security either because you haven't been paying into it long enough. Points, man. Points.

You weren't skeptical; you didn't even fully check it out at first. that's not skepticism, that's bone-headedness.

I did so check it out! I POSTED EVIDENCE THAT I CHECKED IT OUT!

You made erroneous statements about them, and you misinterpreted your own quotes.

So you say, but I have yet to see a direct rebuttal from you; I have yet to see you quote any sources backing you up; I have yet to see even a modicum of effort to provide the same evidence I have.

So tell me, if population wasn't aging,

Why do you insist on this ridiculous condition? It's something that can never happen, so the question is entirely moot!

And you call me pigheaded...

So tell me, dude -- how are my hypotheticals impossible?

Impossible? No. So extremely unlikely that no one with an ounce of sense would consider them for even a fraction of a second? Yes.

It's just not going to happen.

So? Whether it's less or more doesn't matter; what matters is whether it's growing or shrinking.

See if you can actually try and understand at least one thing that I say, if it won't hurt your brain too much to do so. The people who pay into SS won't all live to draw it; and some people will live to draw longer than others. This means that you always have a greater number of people paying into it than you do paying out. This is very simple and obvious. Why can't you grasp it?

If SS is a fraud because it depends on retirees dying early enough

Strawman. I never said it.

Why do I bother?!

As near as I can tell, you don't.

You would rather gouge out an eye than admit anything that would contradict your blind faith. Just like a fundy.

:rolleyes:

I've supplied evidence to support my arguments. You haven't. That's just the unescapable nub of it.

You have been educated. Armed with the power of this knowledge now, tell me -- would you still consider SS a fraud if, due to stable population age, it took the cylinder form?

If you could somehow, in some magical, la-la fantasy world call upon Uri Geller to make it happen with his mind, then I don't know if it would be a fraud or not; but it would become completely unsustainable.

I deny that I ever claimed that congress doesn't borrow money from SS; I never claimed that congress doesn't borrow -- but i did claim that congress doesn't skim (i.e. take without repayment). You were confused about the difference from the beginning, dude.

"Borrow" is just a euphemism. The form of the "borrowing" is basically worthless IOUs. Many purveyors of Ponzi schemes call their skimming "borrowing," too. You can't weasel out of it that way.

Those loans backed by SS, yes. If Congress doesn't put it back,

When has Congress ever put it back with anything other than funds gained by more taxation?

but within 11 years, once US Constitution was ratified and jefferson gained legal ability to free his slaves, he changed his mind about all men having the right to liberty,

He didn't change his mind; he was just for many reasons unable to live up to his own ideals. It wouldn't be the first or the last time that has happened. It doesn't mean that the document doesn't mean what it says. You're the one that's being boneheaded. All this is just some long, convoluted, and quite pathetic excuse to avoid the fact that the Constitution means what it says, because a different person who wrote a different document meant what it said but didn't live up to it. Talk about your twisted logic!