Liberal Fallacies

[A'isha]

1. I have demonstrated this

No, you asserted it. There's a pretty substantial difference.

Spousal benefits (access to employer-funded medical care,

Which has nothing to do with taxes.

exemption from inheritance taxes) have a cost . Expanding the class of people eligible for those benefits (a) increases the cost and (b) reduces the class of people paying those costs.

You also failed to demonstrated how this would result in an increase in taxes, why it outweighed the benefits in expanding the number of people in society who can get married, how this overrode your ostensible desire for a decrease in government interference in marriage and an increase in personal liberty, and why you don't oppose interracial or inter-religious marriage on the same grounds.

2. Across this planet and across time most governments are NOT democratic.

Which has precisely zip to do with the governments of the US and other similar nations in the 21st Century, making this a red herring.

Who consented to ObamaCare?

The congressmen and president elected to represent the interests of of the American people. And if those people thought that the congressmen and president that they elected did not actually serve their interests in passing ObamaCare, they would have voted the congressmen and president out of office in favor of candidates who promised to repeal ObamaCare.

The fantasy that rulers are altruistic, wise supermen is most definitely an element of government-worship.

There's that strawman again. The only person making this claim is you, Malcolm.

Parent control works.

You're quoting probably the worst section of the Daily Mail?! Do you actually believe that the Alabamians featured in this article are truly just average people and that homeschooling is preferable because it will let kids start college by 12?

 

[RandFan]

Spousal benefits (access to employer-funded medical care, exemption from inheritance taxes) have a cost .

And those who get those benefits are families. Why should they be exempt from benefits because of their sex? That's bigotry.

source There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents.

In the prop 8 trial, the defense admitted and the judge found as fact that these children would benefit from gay marriage.

Where are your numbers for a cost/benefit analysis? You assert there is a cost. We know now that there are benefits, where is your analysis to declare that the costs outweigh the benefits and justify discriminating against American citizens based on sex?

You've never demonstrated that.

 

[Border Reiver]

1. I have demonstrated this, and advocates have closed their eyes, put their hands over their ears, and chanted "Nyaaah, nyaaaah, I can't hear you" (actually it was "bigot, bigot, bigot" but you get the point). Spousal benefits (access to employer-funded medical care, exemption from inheritance taxes) have a cost . Expanding the class of people eligible for those benefits (a) increases the cost and (b) reduces the class of people paying those costs.
Furthermore, the conclusion "bigot" (your "reasonable conclusion") relies on a narrow selection of evidence (internet policy discussions). Only a shill, paid by the Democratic Party to manipulate public opinion with hostile rhetoric in internet forums, would make such an assertion on such thin evidence. It's the only possible explanation. /SARC

I'm drawing my conclusion re alleged bigotry on your part solely on your internet policy discussions because that is the only data available to us - given that neither of us know each other in real life, or have dealings with each other outside of this site. And based on the data available, the defintion, it would appear accurate.

Not sure how you're concludign that the pool of people paying into spousal benefits of which most of the ones your citing are handled through private insurance, I fail to see how that raises taxes. And if you're going to use a possible exemption from inheritance taxes as a reason to deny marriage (this changing from state to state), then wouldn't a simpler solution be to eliminate that exemption? Rather than denying civil rights to a significant portion of society based on the notion that their continued second class citizenship is needed to ensure that there's a little more in state coffers?

2. Across this planet and across time most governments are NOT democratic.

I wasn't commenting on most governements across time and the planet - I was referring to the US, which has had a democratic government in place since before it achieved independence. I also drew attention to your nation's major allies - all of whom draw from the same political and legal source.

Consent is not an element of the definition of "government".

It is in a representational democracy.

Who consented to ObamaCare?

That would be your elected representatives.

Remember "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it"? NOBODY read the bill before the vote.

Then how did it get on the order paper? What were they debating in congress - what they thought was in the Bill? Last time I checked, if a law is considered onerous, or unpopular it can be repealed - that requires mobilizing your elected officials to do it.

The fantasy that rulers are altruistic, wise supermen is most definitely an element of government-worship.

Lovely strawman. Every civics class I ever had emphasized that in a democracy we have to watch what is done with our consent, etc. and that elected officials are subject to a number of checks and balances on their activities - being voted out of office is a big one, carrying out illegal activities can result in criminal charges, etc.

3. We disagree about "worthless". Finally, this argument isn't (or, shouldn't be) about definitions of words but about the effects of different legal/institutional environments on incentives.

Well, yes we definitely disagree on how we define certain words and terms - and your expansion of certain definitions to encompass far more activities than is generally understood makes most of your arguments less compelling than you may think.

Oddly, I'm not seeing anything in that article that supports your assertion that a publicly funded education system prevents parents from making the best choices for their kids - those parents were certainly able to choose to homeschool their children. Oh and look, for afters they've headed off to an acredited university to get those formal qualifications that employers look for.

4. If you follow the chain of definitions, from "slavery" through "property" and onward, you ultimately bump into "control" (i.e., compulsion). Zeks were slaves. Do a word search for "GULAG, slave" and count the hits. It's standard usage.

Funnily, you need to dig deeper than the common definition to get to control when checking the definition of property. I might posit here that if you need to dig down that deep, that you're stretching your definitions.

It may have been a standard usage, but it was incorrect. Given that most references are also from western sources made during the Cold War, there have have been a concious or subconcious decision to use a far more inflammatory term than "forced labourer" when engaging in criticism of the Soviet system.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I'm drawing my conclusion re alleged bigotry on your part solely on your internet policy discussions because that is the only data available to us - given that neither of us know each other in real life, or have dealings with each other outside of this site. And based on the data available, the defintion, it would appear accurate.

Thanks for that plain statement. Kinda like deducing from the observation that someone's tall that he plays basketball. The elephant is very like a snake. You understand that you have a thin slice of possible evidence and generalize anyway.

Not sure how you're concluding that the pool of people paying into spousal benefits of which most of the ones your citing are handled through private insurance, I fail to see how that raises taxes.

Diagram that sentence if you can.
A tax is a State-mandated surrender of wealth. Money does not have to pass into the government's bank accounts for a redistributive law to impose taxes. State-mandated employer-funded health insurance is a tax. A State-mandated minimum wage is a tax. If your Chief of Police allows crop thieves to drive a grower out of the County, that's a tax. Furthermore, although courts may allow private-sector employers to renegotiate employment contracts (redefinition of marriage is a material change in the contract), I doubt that government agencies will appeal to courts for reconsideration of their employment contracts. Government agencies will face increased health care costs and taxpayers will have to pay or lose services elsewhere.

And if you're going to use a possible exemption from inheritance taxes as a reason to deny marriage (this changing from state to state), then wouldn't a simpler solution be to eliminate that exemption? Rather than denying civil rights to a significant portion of society based on the notion that their continued second class citizenship is needed to ensure that there's a little more in state coffers?

I don't see spousal benefits as a "right". I agree it would be simpler to repeal inheritance and estate taxes. It would be simpler to pay all government employees in cash and let them buy their own health insurance and pension plans. It would be simpler to repeal health insurance mandates on private-sector employers. The legal regime of freedom of association, freedom of contract, and a minimal State would defuse many disputes.

I wasn't commenting on most governements across time and the planet - I was referring to the US, which has had a democratic government in place since before it achieved independence. I also drew attention to your nation's major allies - all of whom draw from the same political and legal source.

Representation is not an element of the abstract definition of "government".

It is in a representational democracy.

Circular.

That would be your elected representatives.

In what sense did any member of Congress "consent" to the mandates of a law s/he never read? We're closing in on our topic here: to what concerns does the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in your locality (i.e., the government) have something useful to contribute? What "should" all 14-year-olds study? What size shoes should all 14-year-olds wear? How many times I should chew this next bite of toast? Let's have a nationwide vote on these vital questions. I mean, if democratic processes are so wonderful.
Eduardo Zambrano
"Formal Models of Authority: Introduction and Political Economy Applications"
Rationality and Society, May 1999

Aside from the important issue of how it is that a ruler may economize on communication, contracting and coercion costs, this leads to an interpretation of the state that cannot be contractarian in nature: citizens would not empower a ruler to solve collective action problems in any of the models discussed, for the ruler would always be redundant and costly. The results support a view of the state that is eminently predatory, (the ? MK.) case in which whether the collective actions problems are solved by the state or not depends on upon whether this is consistent with the objectives and opportunities of those with the (natural) monopoly of violence in society. This conclusion is also reached in a model of a predatory state by Moselle and Polak (1997). How the theory of economic policy changes in light of this interpretation is an important question left for further work.

The fantasy that rulers are altruistic, wise supermen is most definitely an element of government-worship.

Lovely strawman. Every civics class I ever had emphasized that in a democracy we have to watch what is done with our consent, etc. and that elected officials are subject to a number of checks and balances on their activities - being voted out of office is a big one, carrying out illegal activities can result in criminal charges, etc.

It's hardly a strawman. Democratic processes are feedback mechanisms. Markets provide other feedback mechanisms. The systematic elevation of political feedback mechanisms over market feedback mechanisms depends on unrealistic assumptions about government actors.

If you follow the chain of definitions, from "slavery" through "property" and onward, you ultimately bump into "control" (i.e., compulsion).

Funnily, you need to dig deeper than the common definition to get to control when checking the definition of property. I might posit here that if you need to dig down that deep, that you're stretching your definitions.

This isn't at all "deep". Property" (title) implies legally-authorized control.

Zeks were slaves. Do a word search for "GULAG, slave" and count the hits. It's standard usage.

It may have been a standard usage, but it was incorrect. Given that most references are also from western sources made during the Cold War, there have have been a concious or subconcious decision to use a far more inflammatory term than "forced labourer" when engaging in criticism of the Soviet system.

Now who's insisting on a private definition? Three million people were worked to death in the camps of the Kolyma River. They were treated like disposable tissue. They were slaves.

 

[A'isha]

State-mandated employer-funded health insurance is a tax. A State-mandated minimum wage is a tax. If your Chief of Police allows crop thieves to drive a grower out of the County, that's a tax.

Not a single one of those things are taxes, Malcolm, outside of your bizarre redefinition of the term.

I don't see spousal benefits as a "right".

Yes, we know.

Representation is not an element of the abstract definition of "government".

The United States is not governed by an abstract definition of "government". It's governed by the US Constitution, and representation is indeed an element of that.

In what sense did any member of Congress "consent" to the mandates of a law s/he never read?

When they voted for it in enough numbers to pass it.

the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in your locality

Eduardo Zambrano
"Formal Models of Authority: Introduction and Political Economy Applications"
Rationality and Society, May 1999

Gaaah. Stop with the copypasta already! Say something new and original! Make an argument, instead of repeating mantras, because they're irrelevant and pointless.

Markets provide other feedback mechanisms. The systematic elevation of political feedback mechanisms over market feedback mechanisms depends on unrealistic assumptions about government actors.

And the market says "We want educated people and we don't want to do the education ourselves".

 

[Border Reiver]

Thanks for that plain statement. Kinda like deducing from the observation that someone's tall that he plays basketball. The elephant is very like a snake. You understand that you have a thin slice of possible evidence and generalize anyway.

Your analogy falls apart. I based my conclusion on the evidence provided in your written posts over several threads that you hold such opinions and that based on the dictionary definition of bigot, that your ideas fit. Similar to the way I conclude that that tall dude is a basketball player after seeing him practicing lay-ups and free throws on the court.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

... Stop with the copypasta already! Say something new and original! Make an argument, instead of repeating mantras, because they're irrelevant and pointless.

The argument that Zambrano makes relates directly to our topic. That Ant calls it "irrelevant" means s/he has failed to deal with it.

... And the market says "We want educated people and we don't want to do the education ourselves".

Steel companies would like to have tax-subsidized pig iron delivered to the steel foundry. Plate glass manufacturers would like to have tax-subsidized supplies of quartz sand, lime, and energy delivered to the plant. Problem is, we can't all be subsidy recipients. State distribution of subsidies is a negative-sum game (reread that Zambrano quote).

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Your analogy falls apart. I based my conclusion on the evidence provided in your written posts over several threads that you hold such opinions...

"Such opinions" as what?

... and that based on the dictionary definition of bigot, that your ideas fit. Similar to the way I conclude that that tall dude is a basketball player after seeing him practicing lay-ups and free throws on the court.

Okay. Here's the definition Reiver supplied: ...

big·ot/ˈbɪgət/ Show Spelled [big-uht]
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Note that "utterly" and "any". Reiver grants that he has only a limited sample of my behaviors. S/he generalizes on the basis of expressions that the alternative, a consistent aversion to an intrusive State and a mistrust of leaps into the dark, explain just as well, if not better.

If I'm going to be judged on the basis of my expressions in this forum, then here:...
Three of my friends died of AIDS. I changed bedpans for Robert on a visit to the hospital. Very watery diarrhea. I put Steve up for a few days after he lost his apartment, but he lost his moral compass after his bf Leo died and started stealing stuff so I couldn't let him stay and rip off my housemates. Greg just vanished quietly.
Two of my friends are gay rights activists. One of them endorsed my candidacy for Board of Education, the other defended me at a conclave of activists against the "bigotry" accusation that someone leveled after a candidate survey included the information that I oppose the expansion of the definition of "marriage". He said that he told them "I've known him for thirty years and I've never seen any of that (evidence of prejudice)".
I shared for a year the rent on a house with a (male) friend who prefers males as sexual partners.

Tolerant enough for you,
?

But you will reject this because you're so eager to congratulate yourself for your (bogus) moral superiority that you only count evidence that favors your case. Like most of the
people
in this forum.

Similar to the way I conclude that that tall dude is a basketball player after seeing him practicing lay-ups and free throws on the court.

Except that we've never met.

 

[RandFan]

Tolerant enough for you,

Hmmmm......

There were an estimated 300,000 to 500,000 gay and lesbian biological parents in 1976. In 1990, an estimated 6 to 14 million children have gay or lesbian parents.

You calously dismiss children of families that are headed by gays and lesbians. They would directly benefit from gay marriage. Yet you base your decision on an incomplete analysis and refuse to consider findings of fact by experts.

That's pretty intolerant. I've no idea if you are like most bigots and are capable of compassion and empathy of those who are close to you or if you are just making stuff up. But that your actions toward gays and lesbians is bigoted is not controversial. It's not something for anyone to scratch their heads over.

Families of gays and lesbians are, right now, being harmed because they are considered different and inferior and their families don't enjoy the many rights and benefits of other families.

That's just stupid and bigoted.

source Star witnesses for both sides in the recent Proposition 8 trial agreed on one thing: Children of same-sex parents benefit from having two parents who are happily married to each other.

The conclusion was most stunning from David Blankenhorn, an expert witness for the defenders of Proposition 8. “I believe that adopting same-sex marriage would be likely to improve the well-being of gay and lesbian households and their children,” he said, during his testimony as the last person to take the stand during the trial

That's a witness for the defense. You know, the side defending discrimination of gays and lesbians.

 

[A'isha]

Oh, look. The "some of my best friends are X" argument being used to justify holding a bigoted position against X.

How novel and unusual.

 

[RandFan]

Oh, look. The "some of my best friends are X" argument being used to justify holding a bigoted position against X.

How novel and unusual.

It works the same way as adding a diet soda to a Big Mac, Large Fries and apple pie. It magically makes the bad stuff disappear.

A Brief History of the ‘Some of My Best Friends’ Defense

from 1971: “DEAR ABBY, First let me say some of my best friends are homosexual, I have nothing against them, but…”)

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Oh, look. The "some of my best friends are X" argument being used to justify holding a bigoted position against X. How novel and unusual.

It works the same way as adding a diet soda to a Big Mac, Large Fries and apple pie. It magically makes the bad stuff disappear.

Where's the evidence that that's my diet? What constitutes a rebuttal to the description "bigot" or "racist"? Is this a matter of evidence or is it a weapon that intolerant socialists and shills paid to advance the socialist agenda get to use in internet discussions? Here's Reiver's definition of "bigot" again:

big·ot/ˈbɪgət/ Show Spelled [big-uht]
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

Unless you follow me around, your sample of evidence is very limited.
Weren't we talking about the problems with limited sample sizes recently? Apparently you'all didn't really believe that, either. Is that another weapon that socialist retards and shills get to use?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You calously¹ dismiss children of families that are headed by gays and lesbians. They would directly benefit from gay marriage. Yet you base your decision on an incomplete analysis and refuse to consider findings of fact by experts².

That's pretty intolerant. I've no idea if you are like most bigots and are capable of compassion and empathy of those who are close to you or if you are just making stuff up. But that your actions³ toward gays and lesbians is bigoted is not controversial. It's not something for anyone to scratch their heads over.

Families of gays and lesbians are, right now, being harmed⁴ because they are considered⁵ different and inferior and their families don't enjoy the many rights⁶ and benefits of other families.

That's just stupid and bigoted⁷.

1. Presuming the conclusion. Also mindreading at great distance.
2. Sort of true. Lots of people have a hard time analyzing dispassionately. Academics included.
3. What "actions"? All anyone here knows of me is my posts on JREF. Fairly consistently I reject intrusive government. I don't want ADM reaching into my pocket for ethanol subsidies. I don't want people reaching into my pocket for employer-funded retiree benefits or employer-funded spousal health care. I accept the case for hetero spousal benefits on the grounds that they shield children. If you want to discuss how to target that benefit more precisely, we could do that, if you drop the strident ad hominem,
4. Note the passive voice.
5. Note the passive voice.
6. There's no "right" involved. Do I have a "right" to fly on Air Force One? Do I have a "right" to the same pay as the President of Yale?
7. That's just stupid and bigoted. Presuming the conclusion.

 

[RandFan]

Weren't we talking about the problems with limited sample sizes recently?

You are intolerant to the families of lesbians and gays. That's bigotry. End of story.

 

[RandFan]

1. Presuming the conclusion. Also mindreading at great distance.

You would keep the families of gays and lesbians from enjoying the same rights as heterosexuals. That's bigotry.

There's no "right" involved.

Really? Hmm....

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law

The state cannot keep me from marrying whom I love but it can prevent my friend from marrying his love because his love is for another man.

I have a right he does not have.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

You would keep the families of gays and lesbians from enjoying the same rights as heterosexuals. That's bigotry¹.

The state cannot keep me from marrying whom I love² but it can prevent my friend from marrying his love because his love is for another man³.

I have a right he does not have⁴.

1. I have said this often enough that we're just repeating ourselves. The benefits attached to marriage are not "rights". The cost/benefit considerations that (might) make spousal benefits a good idea do not apply with the same force to homosexual marriage as to heterosexual marriage.
2. Is it legal to marry oneself in your State?
3. Tell him to set up house together. Have a ceremony. Invite friends to throw rice. Call yourselves "married" (or "a flock of sparrows"; we have free speech in this country). Just don't dip into my bank balance to do it.
4. So you have written previously. We disagree.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Weren't we talking about the problems with limited sample sizes recently? Apparently you'all didn't really believe that, either. Is that another weapon that socialist retards and shills get to use?

You are intolerant to the families of lesbians and gays. That's bigotry. End of story.

So "bigotry" is just a distraction, like...
...
Look! A squirrel!
...
All that ostentatious delicacy about anecdotal evidence and sample size just went out the window.

 

[Chaos]

So "bigotry" is just a distraction, like...

No, it is not. It is an accurate description of your behavior, rejecting marriage equality for no valid reason at all that you have been able to demonstrate.

Of course, to would help if you, just once or twice, adressed criticism with something other than sophistry, arbitrary redefition of already well-defined terms and transparent attempts to change the topic of discussion.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

No, it is not. It is an accurate description of your behavior¹, rejecting marriage equality for no valid reason² at all that you have been able to demonstrate.

Of course, to would help if you, just once or twice, adressed criticism with something other than sophistry³, arbitrary redefition of already well-defined terms⁴ and transparent attempts to change the topic⁵ of discussion.

1. My "behavior" is almost entirely unobserved by participants to this discussion, who base their characterization "bigot" and "racist" entirely on the positions I take in JREF discussions of public policy. If words are defined by their use, then here on JREF "bigot" and "racist" really mean "someone who disagrees with a strident socialist".
2. Presuming the concluson. Of course we disagree. Redefinition of marriage is a tax increase. Traditions evolve. The cost/benefit consideration that (might) justify heterosexual spousal benefits do not apply with the same force to homosexual unions.
3. Of course, it would help if "criticism" contained something to address other than name-calling.
4. I accept completely Reiver's definition of "bigotry" (the instant case). My definition of "government" is close to Weber's, differing only in precision ("largest dealer" instead of "monopoly") and the elimination of circularity (Weber uses "legitimate" to describe State violence). My definition of "slavery" is exactly that of Walter Williams.
5. That's what personalization of the discussion accomplishes. RandFan introduced "bigot" to the discussion. Ant introduced "racist" to an earlier discussion.
Interesting meditation on the psychology of "more victimized than thou" here.

 

[elbe]

2. Presuming the concluson. Of course we disagree. Redefinition of marriage is a tax increase. Traditions evolve. The cost/benefit consideration that (might) justify heterosexual spousal benefits do not apply with the same force to homosexual unions.

It seems pretty clear that you didn't even do a cost/benefit analysis of same sex marriage, you just assumed costs that others don't necessarily even agree with.