What do you like and/or dislike about Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum?

[commonsenselako]

I don’t know why my post came out weird. I switched false to true and pressed enter. One thing was quoted, but all the others weren’t. Sorry.

[John_James]

You need to use the quote tags. If you want to quote something, you need to copy the quote tags and put them around it…

“This is commonsenselako, this is my quote” ----> replace the first quotation mark with [ quote user=“commonsenselako” ] and at the end, [ /quote ] without the spaces before and after the brackets.

@commonsenselako

Taken to this extreme we have no basis on which to support a candidate.

Hey, I was using available evidence to support my claim. You were the one who demanded “irrefutable”.

The was in the context of people not agreeing to the removal of social programs and that I feel that the negative income tax would be the best compromise. I was agreeing that the negative income tax is wrong, but that the people want social programs.

This still doesn’t seem to have anything to do with “looking at the road ahead”.

If you have a way to remove social programs and prevent them from ever returning, I will gladly listen. I’m not stuck in my ways, but I haven’t heard a better solution.

Obviously there’s no automatic panacea, but I can tell you the way to get rid of something is usually not by arguing in favor of it.

I’m not asking a moral question. We can say the State is illegitimate, but lets say it is not going anywhere for a while. So therefore can the State attack a foriegn country to prevent them from attacking us, if there is no other way of prevention. Is this only if they are going to attack us, or lets say there is the human equivalent to the talking puppies, as far as helplessnes, what then? Is this only if the threat is imminent, or whenever a treat arises? and how far can we take bridge destruction equivalents in real life?

I believe I addressed this. You even quoted it. It would seem as though you read the first sentence of the response and then proceded as if “the state shouldn’t be doing anything” is all I said. What say you to the rest of my response?

@commonsenselako

I’m not because in welfare people lose their benefits when they get a job. In a negative income tax they still have the safety net.

Forgive me for being redundant, but…Right. Just like I said. So how in the world is guaranteeing them welfare a motivator to get a job? You just said yourself it wasn’t (contradicting yourself from your last post).

(Not to mention, this is virtually no different from the scheme you are denouncing in favor of this one. Under a negative income tax, you are guaranteed a certain amount of money no matter what you do. As in, you don’t have a lift a finger and money is paid to you. If you earn any money for yourself, some of that free money is taken away. As in…insofar as you earn money, your free payment from government is taken away…insofar as you don’t bother to do anything, more money is paid to you.)

Again, I don’t see how you can argue this is different, at least on a fundamental level. Because, on that level, it isn’t. It is still free money and all your basic needs met if you sit around and do nothing (as in, you don’t have to do a damn thing ever in your life) and as you do do something productive and get paid for it, your free money is taken away.

This is the opposite of the motivating you are claiming would take place. The incentive is to not do anything.

I find it interesting (though, not very surprising) that you would continue to focus on this meaningless “oh but in welfare they lose everything, but in this tax scheme they still get free stuff even after they get a job”, while ignoring the fundamental point I made. Scheme it and dress it up any way you want. The bottom line is you are guaranteeing them all their basic needs, (as in guaranteeing them they do not have to do anything, ever in their lives) and you somehow think that motivates the exact opposite (i.e. to do something).

Please do some more reading:

Fallacies of the Negative Income Tax

Friedman’s Mistake

The Conquest of Poverty (p. 116)

Negative Income Tax Is Back

Because I feel we would have to offer a replacement, or the majority wouldn’t go along with it.

Then why not propose something other than more of the same? Why not propose something actually in the right direction? Hell, why not persuade them of the truth? You’re wasting much effort basically pushing people laterally…not changing fundamental belief at all.

You’re a Ron Paul guy, right? Why in the world do you think Paul never talks about instituting more government programs like you do? He talks about the only way you can actually improve anything is by people changing their ideas of what the role of government ought to be. He doesn’t go around trying to convince people “hey this welfare scheme is better than that welfare scheme.”

Again, please see these:

Ron Paul is a Voluntarist

Where do Ron Paul’s ideas come from?

Im not saying more, I’m saying less. The negative income tax would be a replacement.

You’re arguing to replace one socialist program with another one. Please see the links on negative income tax above.

@commonsenselako

I didn’t say the others are to be freely trampled on, I said violence can be trampled on.

Right, but you specifically ignored any other act. You basically argued that whatever the majority wants, should be done, because right or wrong, “it’s what the people want”. So I took your statement to its logical conclusion on the topic of slavery, and you responded with essentially “well, uh, domestic violence is different.”

So I asked you about everything else…including non-domestic violence, since you made it a point to specify. Now you’re telling me you’re not suggesting that other rights should be able to be infringed just because it’s what the majority wants. So now my question becomes…what was the point of saying “wrong yes, but it’s what the majority wants”? Do you believe majority should rule or not?

Personally I believe that the government could take people within their borders to trial, so the government has no power in non-domestic violence. In my prior question I am looking for exceptions to the rule.

You’re going to have to explain this.

If your giving me the alternate that no one becomes a slave, I would take that of course, but if that option is not available I would save as many as I could.

It’s not about saving anyone. It’s about what you think is just. Your statements lead one to believe you are of the persuasion that “majority rules” is the best recipe for order in the world. I’m merely trying to get you to see the flaw in that line of thinking. But evidently you either believe far too strongly in that tyrannical idea, or you are far too flexible on principles.

[Wheylous]

How to go about decreasing government power:

1. Teach people about economics and liberty

2. Deregulate in a smart way. While taken in large doses aspirin can kill you, deregulation may hurt in small doses. If a sector has privileges from government AND regulations, removing the regulations will leave only the privileges, which will allow some companies to take advantage of others. Deregulation has to happen alongside de-subsidizing and de-privilegizing (new word!).

Really, the best way forward I see is

1. Reaching out to Republican youths who have not yet given in to the neocon propaganda

2. Reaching out to progressives by emphasizing the anti-war, anti-drug-war stance of libertarians and pointing out that the market we have today is not a free market but one dominated by corporate privilege. If we can expose the bad big businesses, the left will join us to remove these privileges. The economy will improve and this correlation will form a positive image of free markets in people’s minds.

Sadly, there might be some initial shocks.

[John_James]

@Wheylous

Really, the best way forward I see is

1. Reaching out to Republican youths who have not yet given in to the neocon propaganda

The problem is it does absolutely no good (and can actually be counter-productive) to be “reaching out” to these people with flaw-ridden and ultimately harmful “solutions”, recommendations, and arguments.

That is what commonsenselako is doing, and what I am trying to get him to realize.

[commonsenselako]

@John James

Hey, I was using available evidence to support my claim. You were the one who demanded “irrefutable”.

Im not saying you were wrong in the way you supported your position. I should have elaborated. It is important to note he is a flip flopper and that can be used, but I should have asked for evidence that would be irrefutable to Romney and his supporters, as I am looking at his supporters as potential converts. They would not refute his stance on China or Iran and I was wondering if you know of any other irrefutable evidence like these.

@John James

I believe I addressed this. You even quoted it. It would seem as though you read the first sentence of the response and then proceded as if “the state shouldn’t be doing anything” is all I said. What say you to the rest of my response?

I didn’t stop at the first sentence, but the way you worded it made it seem like you are basing your words on morals and that you were talking about the individual not the the State, so I didn’t want to put words in your mouth. (It could have just be I misinterpreted it though) You do seem to say that it is a gray area and that preventive action and prevention of genocide could be allowable if congress permits it. I would agree that it would have to be looked at on an individual basis and that there are exceptions to non interventionism. Again congress would have to approve it. If I am interpreting your words correctly I would like to close to the door on this issue and thank you for discussing it with me.

@commonsenselako

Again, I don’t see how you can argue this is different, at least on a fundamental level. Because, on that level, it isn’t. It is still free money and all your basic needs met if you sit around and do nothing (as in, you don’t have to do a damn thing ever in your life) and as you do do something productive and get paid for it, your free money is taken away.

This is the opposite of the motivating you are claiming would take place. The incentive is to not do anything.

Thank you for sharing the articles and Hazlitt brings up some great points on the flaws of NIT. Nonetheless on average unemployment pays about 300 dollars a week and welfare pay about 250 dollars a week. With NIT people would be getting a maximum of say 70 dollars a week. Hazlett brings up flaws when people are making under 70 dollars a week, but just like all programs you would have to apply for NIT. I’m just making up the rules as I go along but for now well say children and dependants would not be eligible and lets say before you could apply NIT you would of had to have been with your last employer more then a year and would need to have worked a specific amount of hours. Also the reason you left your last job would be taken into account.

NIT would be a step in the right direction. I will be redundant and say again it gives more incentive then welfare and unemployment because you couldn’t afford anymore then food and most people want more out of liffe, but it is wrong in principle and it gives less incentive then nothing. I do not see this as lateral though, but as a downward slope. Ron Paul is for the gradual reduction of social programs. This could be the interim and if NIT was our biggest problem, then we would be going in the right direction. I do not see it as a waste of time promoting NIT because at the same time I would be arguing against social programs in general, but then giving what I would call a flawed solution. You heal much faster without a bandage, but I think most people will want the bandage.

@John James

So I asked you about everything else…including non-domestic violence, since you made it a point to specify. Now you’re telling me you’re not suggesting that other rights should be able to be infringed just because it’s what the majority wants. So now my question becomes…what was the point of saying “wrong yes, but it’s what the majority wants”? Do you believe majority should rule or not?

I believe in my principles, which I believe are quite similiar to yours. I do not believe that what the majorities rules will always line up with my principles, but I recognize the majority does in fact rule. I argue for what I see as the best possible option that is on the table. If I were to see a better option, I would take that one, even if it is much more difficult to achieve, but I do have to be convinced it is possible. If I have to single handedly eat Mount Everest to get the job done, then I will take a more realistic alternative. I’m willing to be viewed as a moderate, or as someone willing to easily compromise in yours and others eyes, if the other option is not to have any compromise at all. I believe the process to change must be methodical, I believe it will take alot of work, but I believe with clear goals, flexibility and determination it is possible.

@John James

You’re going to have to explain this.

I’d love to, but your going to have to be more specific.

I agree with all of Wheylous’s last post and think he brings a nice change of pace. if your willing to share, I would like to hear your solution and your plan. Not necessarily a plan that is feasible to you now, but that would be the best route to bring your solution. Also if there is anything you want to continue to talk about in regards to our old topics, I’m still open and would love to hear it. (especially if you have more Romney dirt)