Him:So you honestly think that if we payed to use each road separately it would amount to less than 35 cents? That’s impossible seeing as how the minimum charge would be 1 cent (and that would never happen in a modern society), and for trips of over several miles almost always involve using more than 35 roads as opposed to the sponsored ones and occasional highway fee…
(Well, this is humbuggery at its finest. First, you have failed to qualify the statement that a one cent charge would “never happen in a modern society”. I mean, what does that even mean? Hell, if I owned a road and you said that to me, I’d drop my price to one cent just to spite you, my business be damned. I have given you an example of this happening in a modern society. As far as 35 cents…Let us assume that your math is correct, and every American citizen is paying no more than 35 cents a week, or a month, or what have you for public roads. That’s wonderful. Nice and cheap. But the thing is, you get what you pay for. On top failures of the highway system to reroute efficiently in such expected problems as construction, there’s also no one keeping the roads clean, no one with a vested interest in keeping the roads up to date, or doing research to improve the road system itself. We are stuck with our highways, with patches of road that will be in terrible condition for entire decades without being touched, while you wonder at construction projects in areas where the roads are quite fine. Meanwhile, businessmen with a keen eye for progress have parking lots that are self heating, taking away any worries of ever hitting a patch of ice. Maybe public road systems are cheaper, but you can get a broken Xbox for ten dollars and it won’t do you much good. Besides, how do we even know that the price of a public road is worth what we get out of it? Is there some competition to the highways that gives a choice in the matter, so we can determine whether or not people would actually use these roads if they had an alternative? I venture that there is not.)
Him:Competition does not offer lower prices because taxation is what allows the government to provide goods to EVERYONE at LOWER UNIT PRICES. I’m not saying that competition should be removed entirely and that all products should be monopolized. I’m saying things everyone requires can be better provided by means of taxation.
(This is a real chump-change argument. If this were true, we would all be eating steaks. Constantly. Or, rather than that, we would be eating whatever steak equivalent the guiding father-hand of government decides to dole out. Hey, they get to make that decision for us. The government is, after all, the one doing all the rigorous work of deciding what we need. The first problem with this argument is the nonsense nature of the first sentence. Even if government could provide things cheaper through taxation, how does that qualify the statement that competition doesn’t bring prices down? And what exactly does government provide cheaply? They have to subsidize it. By making product X cheaper by subsidizing the price through tax dollars, all it is doing is making something more accessible to the poor at the cost of the sum wealth of the nation. This means that people who made more money also had more money seized for these subsidies. Those with more money, being the job providers of the nation, have less than what they had before, and this translates into less jobs, less technological progress, and less expansion of business. Now, it may not be very visible to the naked eye, but what is suggested is that this across-the-board transfer of wealth isn’t happening, when it most certainly is. The argument breaks down completely once it is realized that this idea of lower unit prices is only saying that things are cheaper because we paid to make them cheaper. The broken argument is completely dissolved when it is seen that this lower unit price comes at a loss to anyone who does not purchase the unit, or want it if they are forced to purchase it.)
Him: So the market can effectively lead a country? Or maybe we should allow the market to deal with foreign relations? Let’s have the market decide which countries to declare war on…
Be careful with your word choice. Plus, it’s not robbery. I’ll define robbery for you later because you clearly don’t understand its meaning.
(Let’s answer these questions. Yes, the market effectively leads the country, because the government can’t function without a market. It can’t even exist. It has nowhere to draw wealth from. Furthermore, is it not industry that moves a nation into any and all of its progressions? Even the bad ones, for what war is waged with no one to manufacture guns? Why not ask this simple question: To what end does a nation have to be “lead”? Can a nation not simply exist and prosper? Where does it have to “go” that it needs a guiding hand? If you take it at its face, what does it mean to ask if we should let a market deal with foreign relations? Does that mean to let the market decide what to do about our policies towards foreign nations? The market already does that. We trade with other nations, because the market deems it valuable to do so. It is the best foreign policy to do things that are mutually beneficial, and what could be more mutually beneficial than exchange something less wanted for something more wanted on both sides of a trade? It is certainly not beneficial that the people of a nation pay more for a product simply because the leaders of that nation feel the prices of other nations are too low, and should match their own, less efficiently produced product’s prices. And where is there a market that goes to war to gain something that could be traded for? Why is it, we need that fatherly hand again, to decide how we should treat other nations, when businessmen whom we trust enough to exchange our money for goods and services effectively deal with such powerful men on a day to day basis in other nations? A market never decides to go to war with anyone. Nor does the worker in his home, who worries about feeding a family and having a job, about keeping his house and having gas for his car, ever decide to go to war with another nation. Leaders of nations may go to war with such people, but it is never the other way around. The only wars declared by the people of the nation are declared against that nation’s leaders. Are those words chosen carefully enough, do you think? I can’t wait to see your definition of theft.)
Him:"“It’s a basic rule of economics that when bought in bulk from the same provider, the unit rate is cheaper.”
(Yes, we can take this as true, if you’re talking about buying wholesale from a provider in a competitive market that has proved his or her mettle by providing the best product at the lowest price. That is when you buy in bulk, and then sell at a higher price that takes into account things like distribution, to get that product to as many people as might like to have it, and earn your own profits by doing so. I really wish I knew how this was meant as an argument against anything. Who buys from the government in bulk? We don’t go to the government and throw dollar bills in there face and say, “Give me road use!” Well, maybe someone does, but I would not undertake to trace his reasoning to the source.)
Him:I am sure that what I said earlier is correct, and that you cannot combat that. There is no argument against the fact that when you buy things in bulk, the unit price decreases. This is what taxation allows for. End of story.
(Certainty provides the most hilarious content imaginable on Youtube. “Yeah, this bike trick is going to work great!” How does the government buying things in bulk change the economic situation of what is suggested? At this point, what is being suggested? Do you suggest that, since the government can contract for large portions of road, it is cheaper, and therefore it is more sound, economically, to do so? Huge, huge problem. You should watch out for that rail, because it might be slick, and the BMX of your logic has a bad alignment. You are correct that it is cheaper for the government to purchase the foundations and the construction of these roads. However, they are doing it with your money and with mine, and everyone else’s. Some of us might not drive. Some of us might not use the highways. Some of us might not think it is a good investment. In the private sector, when somebody wants to undertake a project, they are doing so at their own expense, and you and I, and everyone else, still have our money to spend on those investments we see fit. Who the hell takes themself seriously when using the term “end of story” in a debate?)
Him:“” I fail to see this as theft."
(This is going to be a hoot, isn’t it?)
Him: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft
(The definition:
the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
an instance of this.
Archaic. something stolen.)
When the government “steals” your money, it is returned to you in the form of public services such as teachers, police, etc.
(See No. 1, 2, and 3. A thief might purloin from you a precious ruby, and sell it on the black market for its exact worth. If he comes to your barber shop, and spends all of his profit from that sale, did he really steal from you? By your logic, sir, no. He did not. In fact, we should assume that no one steals from us, because in one way or another, that theft might come back to us and improve our lot. It will be doubly good for us if he happened to smash a window when he broke in.)
To suspend all taxes and then have to pay for these separately would end up having the individual pay more because less is being bought by each person and therefore higher unit prices must be enforced. Therefore this is not theft, nor is it inefficient.
(The only argument that can be gotten out of this is that it isn’t theft because it is efficient. Something is being taken that I do not want taken from me. This fits the definition of theft cited by you, sir. Let us assume you to be correct in saying that unit prices are higher if we suspend all taxes–and believe me, I am being very generous here. But benefit of the doubt, kind of thing, right? Let’s assume it will cost me more for all the wonders bestowed upon me by my government. The first problem is that you assume I want all of those things, and that I would not spend my money on other things. Perhaps I would like a larger apartment. If my income was not being hindered by taxation, I could get that apartment, to the benefit of my satisfaction and the profit of the landlord. This also frees up the apartment I once had to someone who can’t or chooses not to have an apartment as large as mine. The second problem is that I am forced to pay the sum of all those services the government decides I need by the seizure of my earnings. If I am not taxed, and that money is mine to invest, and all I wanted was perhaps that larger apartment, and I choose not to buy into any of those services previously offered to me cheaply by my government, then can you still justify saying that it was in my interest? That I was somehow saving money, even though it was being spent on that which I did not want? The implication that the father-hand of government makes good choices for individuals might be well-warranted as an opinion, but it is only that. You cannot say otherwise without suggesting your own omniscience.)
Him:" the reason I am a PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT (not socialist), is because I understand economics enough to see how goods can be brought to more Americans at smaller prices."
(What about the goods that Americans actually want? What are these goods? And furthermore, how can you seriously say cheaply when it is taken from income? If you take money from someone’s income, you are taking it every time they are paid. If there is to be any logic at all behind what you say, then it must be that government has to decide what someone needs first, and then take the necessary funding to accomplish the goal. So the government decides everyone needs a pair of shoes. They estimate the cost of getting these shoes made and delivering them to the people. Then, they tax everyone’s income appropriately for the price it would cost them each, were they to make the purchase themselves. But this hardly works, because not everyone is employed, perhaps, or maybe someone only made thirty dollars during this pay period, so he will lose his entire check, because the overall cost per individual is thirty one dollars. Well, that means that the rich have their shoes and are still okay monetarily, but the poor just have shoes and a lousy paycheck. Not good enough. Instead, we will take a percentage, and the higher percentage of taxes from the rich will offset the low income of the poor, and BAM! Shoes for everyone. However, there is a tiny problem…
…You see, you are JD. You make JD shoes. The guiding father-hand of government has decreed that everyone should be able to get their shoes, and get them cheaply, and they have chosen you as the bastion of hope in a shoeless world. Yes, it is you, raised above all others to deliver mankind from the threat of bare feet. So you look into production, and lo, to meet this tremendous quota you will need new machines and more workers, and a bigger factory, not to mention a larger warehouse. The government buys the contract, and you begin work, having bought the latest and greatest and most advanced shoe manufacturing plant in the world. You are running off of profit before you have even sold a pair, but that just means you are better equipped. You hire workers by the score, paying them with money collected by taxation. They are taxed on even that pay! For the good of the shoe! And your competitors…oh, are they jealous! If only they, too, could be JD shoes! But it was not meant for them. They can’t even stand against you. Before your might they go out of business, for you have bought the best machines and are producing faster and faster, and they cannot match your prices, for the taxpayers have generously helped to lower your production costs. You are soon the only shoe manufacturer, and the shoes just fly off the shelf. It’s a good thing, too, because all those people working for other shoe companies are out of jobs, and could use the cheap footing more than ever. You are a hero, are you not, JD? And here I am, moving out of my large apartment into a smaller one, because the government takes from me two extra dollars each pay, for the good of a shoe-wearing nation. There is my neighbor, eating the off-brand of his favorite cereal, because he is two dollars the poorer for the sake of his cheap shoes. There is the maker of his favorite cereal, laying of two employees, three employees, five employees, for his cereal is most popular with the lower-income wage-earner, but they cannot afford that extra two dollars for his brand at this time. Thank heavens, though, that we all have our shoes! Thank heavens the guiding hand of government has kept our feet warm! Oh, to be in this dank apartment and eat my gritty crispies with cold feet! Yet here I sit and wonder…How much longer will I have to live in this cheaper apartment, eating this cheaper cereal in this cheaper pair of shoes. Have we not all gotten our shoes? Indeed, did JD not close up his shop and start a new business, for we are all without want of shoes? Does that mean they will stop taxing me every payday? Can I move into that more expensive apartment, and eat the better food, and maybe even save for a better pair of shoes, when and if the shoe market ever returns? Why do they still take my money, and what do they do with it? I suspect that money might not be going to shoes anymore…)
Him:“” Seeing as how most economic logic and theory sides with me,"
(What? That things are cheaper because we pay a monthly fee for them against our will? You haven’t actually pointed out any theory or logic. You just mumble some rhetoric and don’t illustrate a thing.)
Him: You’ve debunked nothing, if something is debunked there is no arguing against it whereas arguing against your statements is no more difficult for me than carrying on a casual conversation. If you refuse to accept the fact and proof that prices per unit are reduced when amount bought increases, that is no longer my position to make you see this.
(Pff. You can argue against even that which is debunked. You just won’t make very good arguments. That isn’t the problem. The problem is that you are using the idea of buying in bulk or in wholesale as an argument for something that is totally unrelated. The market provides us with more of what we want, efficiently and in greater quantities (I’ll be danged…that means it’s cheaper!), whereas government seizes our earnings and reduces our opportunities to invest, but justifies it by giving us what government decides is in our interest, as if they can read our minds. Not even that, actually. It’s as if they read their own mind, and juxtaposed their view of the world on everyone else. Actually, it’s not as if. That’s what they do.)
Him:“” prove that the mathematical effects of taxation are in fact counter-intuitive against the principles I’ve mentioned."
(Okay. Since you didn’t really cite any sort of principle, I’ll just wing this part. Let’s say we go from a quarter of a nation working in government to three quarters of a nation working for government. By anyone’s logic, it is obvious that government employees are paid with tax money. It is also obvious that those employed must necessarily make more than they are taxed, or at the most be taxed their entire income. Taxes must surely increase to handle such an upsurge in spending. However, since the amount being spent on government employees will always be equal to or more than they are taxed, it stands to reason that only the twenty five percent of workers, assuming full employment, outside of government, are managing to make enough money to keep the government afloat. Taxes would be outrageous on such a people, unless we assume that the twenty five percent outside of government are reclining in chairs of solid gold and earning enough cash for a fleet of yachts. Either the nation is running out of money, or the private sector is filthy rich. If they are filthy rich, the public sector must necessarily be making far less to be supported. The workers in the public sector, realizing that they could be reclining in golden chairs, would leave their government positions to improve their lot. So, you see, the government buying its labor in bulk, cheaply, with taxpayer money was not as efficient at providing the best conditions for the nation as the market.
Him: Maths is not a word, and math and logic are closely tied. Math is the essence of proof, because it quantifies data into a form that cannot be argued against. If the data and calculations are correct, there is no arguing against it, thus math is the most definitive form of proof
(Logic is the essence of proof, for without it, there is no math. Also, you used “quantifies” as a synonym for “converts”. You have suggested magic. What is actually happening is this: I think for is a good number. Two plus two equals four, so two plus two must also be a good number. There is a complete logical disconnect as to what my opinion of a situation has to do WITH AN EFFING SUMMATION. Math is not the most definitive form of proof, because proof is an absolute. It doesn’t deal in “mosts”. If there is proof, it is true, if there is not proof, it is up in the air. You can prove that the sum of three angles is 180 degrees. You cannot prove that those angles are connected to form a triangle. It’s two separate proofs. You must know that angle OPQ is connected from O to P, P to Q, Q to O. Proving that things are cheaper in bulk doesn’t prove that taxes will save mankind from hardship.)