Liberal Fallacies

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

He doesn't like most of the constructs of government. If I am recalling his posts correctly, he doesn't like any form of state-mandated marriage. I think the argument is that manifest injustice is not a sufficient reason to extend the benefits of marriage to anyone else.

Thanks. That's pretty close. A lot of the air would go out of this argument if there were less at stake financially (on both sides). If governments paid their employees in cash (no health care plans, no pension, no retiree health plan) and left the terms of private-sector employment contracts to the parties involved (no State-mandated minimum or maximum compensation, no State-mandated pension, no State-mandated health care, etc), and if there were no estate or inheritance taxes or Social Security (survivor benefits), government recognition of marriage would not matter much.

That's not the world that we currently occupy. I'm not so confident of my position as to assert that traditional marriage is a bad idea. It's an evolved custom. Maybe the factors that generated it no longer maintain, but maybe they do.

"Only God cultural evolution can make a tree functional tradition." Humans cannot yet assemble something as simple as a bacterium from pure elements, yet lawyers pretend that they can operate on societies like real psychic surgeons, grafting their inventions onto the internal organs of passers-by.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

If he was consistent, he would extend this same line of reasoning to every other item for which people receive a tax rebate or any other kind of tax benefit (which magically become "tax increases" for some reason). Basically, it would mean no more children, no more marriage, no more home ownership, and no more businesses. Of course he could argue for ending tax benefits for those things, but he isn't. The "tax increase" argument is only used to argue against gay marriage. I wonder why?

Because that's our topic. It's also on legislative agendas.

If there's a thread "How should governments obtain revenue" I'll happily add my $0.02. It would include: repeal estate and inheritance taxes. Replace the current income tax structure with either a sales tax or a flat rate tax on personal income (repeal corporate income taxes and capital gains taxes). Oh, and end the home mortgage deduction and subsidy program. Consistent enough?

 

[RandFan]

Nations highest in HDI, GDP, Economic Freedom etc., have progressive taxation and provide social services. There is a reason why. We are an evolved social species endowed with compassion and empathy. Nations that balance the needs of individuals with the needs of society are by far the healthiest, wealthiest, most robust.

• There is a negative correlation between dysfunctional societies and social services.
• There is a negative correlation between high functioning societies and lack of social services.
• There is a robust scientific model that predicts and explains this correlation.

 

[jimbob]

Thanks. That's pretty close. A lot of the air would go out of this argument if there were less at stake financially (on both sides). If governments paid their employees in cash (no health care plans, no pension, no retiree health plan) and left the terms of private-sector employment contracts to the parties involved (no State-mandated minimum or maximum compensation, no State-mandated pension, no State-mandated health care, etc), and if there were no estate or inheritance taxes or Social Security (survivor benefits), government recognition of marriage would not matter much.

That's not the world that we currently occupy. I'm not so confident of my position as to assert that traditional marriage is a bad idea. It's an evolved custom. Maybe the factors that generated it no longer maintain, but maybe they do.

But that makes little sense in this case. The costs are as near as dammnit neutral.


The situation of employee benefits is separate, and are part of the employment contract - they can benefit all parties involved. Employers are able to negotiate bulk deals which benefit the employers (meaning that they can reduce the wage bill); the employees (benefits that would cost a lot more); and the suppliers (a guaranteed source of income from a large pool of people).

I seem to recall you not objecting to companies paying wages in company script, so non-monetary benefits can't be objectionable to you. This is all that corporate welfare packages are.

I work in the private sector and my employer provides more than the minimum mandatory pension contribution because of this reason. They also offer other benefits that I don't take up because I see no need (private health insurance, for example).

 

[RandFan]

RandFan's challenge. Make two lists of 10 nations each. You choose the nations and which list to put them in. In one list put those nations that are highest in any index you choose. HDI, GDP, Economic Freedom, etc. In the other list put those that are high in social services, offer progressive taxation but are low in your index.

Demonstrate that smaller govts with less taxation and less social services are more successful on average than the reverse.

 

[jimbob]

"Only God cultural evolution can make a tree functional tradition." Humans cannot yet assemble something as simple as a bacterium from pure elements, yet lawyers pretend that they can operate on societies like real psychic surgeons, grafting their inventions onto the internal organs of passers-by.

What is the point of this bit?

I'd argue the question is whether it is the right thing to do to correct an injustice. If it is then you need to think how to fund it. The funding question should only come afterwards.

In this case cursory arithmetic shows that the effect on the state finances would be negligible, so funding is irrelevant. More detailed arithmetic suggests that it would have a marginal positive effect.

Arguing that we don't know that the effect would be positive is beside the point in this situation because we do know that the effect is going to be bloody small whatever the direction.

If you say that we can't predict the effect on societies (which I'd dispute for many situations) then the only course action is to aim for justice.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...As the saying goes: "When someone says 'It's not the money, it's the principle', it's the money."

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, when you have to invent fake quotes to characterize your opponent's argument, it's a pretty good sign you're probably arguing against a strawman version of your opponent.

"Invent", huh? Thanks for that demonstration. Here.

We're not saying "It's not the money; it's the principle." We're saying that the question of monetary harm or benefit to a state (or the federal government) doesn't settle the question of the constitutionality of these laws.

People in this thread repeatedly appeal to "equal treatment" or "equality". To principle, in a word.

 

[RandFan]

Still no evidence for your claims Malcolm. You still have not addressed the premises of my argument (their exists expert testimony given in open court that marriage equality would be beneficial to gays and lesbian families and society). You still have not addressed equal protection under the law. There are gay and lesbian families that exist right now that are not afforded equal protection. Do you have an argument for why they should not be afforded equal protection?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Still no evidence for your claims Malcolm. You still have not addressed the premises of my argument (their exists expert testimony given in open court that marriage equality would be beneficial to gays and lesbian families and society)....

I don't argue that the same-sex advocates argue in their inteest.

You still have not addressed equal protection under the law.

Flat false.

There are gay and lesbian families that exist right now that are not afforded equal protection. Do you have an argument for why they should not be afforded equal protection?

Ambulance drivers get to run red lights. Cops get to exceed speed limits. I'm not making a Federal case out of the blatant inequality that carves exceptions to traffic laws for them and not for me.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

In this case cursory arithmetic shows that the effect on the state finances would be negligible, so funding is irrelevant.

That's what policy salesmen said about unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Obamacare.

 

[jimbob]

That's what policy salesmen said about unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Obamacare.

Did anyone actually say that - or just that it was worth the cost?

In the case of gay marriage, only be a small proportion of the state employees who will be affected, so any negative cost could only be small.

 

[RandFan]

I don't argue that the same-sex advocates argue in their inteest.

Disingenuous. These were deemed experts in their field by the court. You are engaging in a dishonest ad hominem poisoning of the well. Funny thing is that the defense witness agreed with the plantiffs expert witnesses as to the benefit to the families of gays and lesbians.

Flat false.

Which post?

Ambulance drivers get to run red lights. Cops get to exceed speed limits. I'm not making a Federal case out of the blatant inequality that carves exceptions to traffic laws for them and not for me.

In order to discriminate there must be a compelling interest on the part of the state. There is a compelling interest for the state to allow emergency vehicles exceptions to some laws.

I'm sorry, what is the compelling interest of the state to discriminate against gays and lesbians and deny them equal protection? I won't bother to ask you for evidence of any of your claims because you and I both know you don't have any.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...You still have not addressed the premises of my argument (their exists expert testimony given in open court that marriage equality would be beneficial to gays and lesbian families and society).

I don't argue that the same-sex advocates argue in their inteest.

Disingenuous. These were deemed experts in their field by the court. You are engaging in a dishonest ad hominem poisoning of the well. Funny thing is that the defense witness agreed with the plantiffs expert witnesses as to the benefit to the families of gays and lesbians.

Reading comprehension problems again? That's not in dispute. I freely grant that proponents of same-sex marriage have identified their self-interest.
I don't identify their interest with mine or society's.
Plus, how is this "disingenuous" or "ad hominem"? Habla Englais?

 

[A'isha]

That's not in dispute. I freely grant that proponents of same-sex marriage have identified their self-interest.

What "self-interest" do the many, many straight proponents of same-sex marriage have in same-sex marriage?

 

[RandFan]

I freely grant that proponents of same-sex marriage have identified their self-interest.

Again dishonest. These are experts in their field and not simply "proponents" of same sex marriage. That is entirely irrelevant to the facts. These witnesses testified based on their expertise not their personal bias.

I don't identify their interest with mine or society's.

Either they are correct or they are not correct. What you "identify" with is entirely beside the point.

Plus, how is this "disingenuous" or "ad hominem"? Habla Englais?

Because it's not relevant to anything. Whether or not they are proponents is irrelevant. What you "identify" with is irrelevant.

Evidence has been provided in an open court that marriage equality for gays and lesbians would improve the lives of the families of gays and lesbians, society and the economy.

AND THE DEFENSE STIPULATED TO THAT.

What you "identify" with our whether or not these witnesses were proponents is entirely irrelevant.

 

[Cleon]

I freely grant that proponents of same-sex marriage have identified their self-interest.
I don't identify their interest with mine or society's.

Erm, I'm straight, and 100% in favor of same-sex marriage. Kindly explain to me what my "self-interest" might be, other than "it's the right thing to do."

 

[bruto]

Malcolm, you claim with some vigor that you addressed the issue of equal protection, but along with Randfan, I seem to have missed it. I have specifically missed your response to the question of whether or not the children of gay parents should be denied the equal protection that some courts, at least, have determined is the case if their parents are denied the equal protection of marriage or a civil equivalent.

I keep seeing theoretical arguments about what might happen without much reference to what has already happened.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

What "self-interest" do the many, many straight proponents of same-sex marriage have in same-sex marriage?

They seek to avoid being calumnated as bigots by intolerant morons.

 

[A'isha]

They seek to avoid being calumnated as bigots by intolerant morons.

Nope.

Try again.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Malcolm, you claim with some vigor that you addressed the issue of equal protection, but along with Randfan, I seem to have missed it...

288.
388.
400.