Datasets:

Siddish
/

change-my-view-subreddit-cleaned

Dataset card Viewer Files Files and versions Community

Split (1)

train · 1.92k rows

train stringlengths 219 46.1k
### Human: CMV: If you support abortion rights because "It's her body," you should have no problem with a woman smoking or drinking during pregnancy.### Assistant: So let's say a woman gets an abortion. A collection of cells which are not yet an autonomous human being dies. The only individual that endures physical suffering under this circumstance is the woman, who has chosen this path and thus accepted any physical suffering it may incur. Now let us suppose a pregnant woman consumes alcohol and tobacco. In several months time an autonomous human being will be born with a greatly increased risk of health conditions that would cause them harm. Now an individual has been harmed by the decision who did not and could not agree. Hence the woman has directly harmed another human being, thus bringing about the moral issue.### Human: >A collection of cells which are not yet an autonomous human being dies. Poisoning the well. Premise not accepted. >In several months time an autonomous human being will be born This has exactly the same implications as your previous statement, the only difference being that the "collection of cells" is not as far along in it's development.### Assistant: The collection of cells are not anything special, no more so than an unfertilised egg, there is no brain activity. A person has a right to bodily autonomy but if aborted the foetus never is nor will be a person, hence no issues of bodily autonomy arise. If the pregnancy is seen to completion, then there is a person, who will now suffer due to the actions of an individual that they did not agree to. Hence this persons right to bodily autonomy has been violated.### Human: >A person has a right to bodily autonomy but if aborted the foetus never is nor will be a person, hence no issues of bodily autonomy arise But it will be a person, if it's development is not halted by violence. That's the point.### Assistant: Violence?### Human: Crushing a living thing so as to terminate it's life. Violence.
### Human: I think terms like rape culture, gun culture, etc. Are inaccurate and harmful to the very cause they are meant to support. CMV### Assistant: > I feel terms like rape culture, gun culture, etc. unintentionally give the impression the issue is too big to solve. Well, it is a big issue, but I don't see how calling it that implies that its "too big to solve". Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd like to interpret your post as saying you support the underlying cause, but just think the term is counterproductive to said cause. If that's the case, how would you describe the problem that people are addressing when they use a term like "rape culture"? Or is this a "I don't believe rape culture (or whatever you think we should call it) exists" thread?### Human: People have raped, murdered, and pillaged since the dawn of time. What makes you think you can change human nature?### Assistant: You can change culture though.### Human: Rape isn't a culture, it's a fact of life, like murder, war, or hurricanes.### Assistant: > like murder There was a time when it was culturally acceptable to lynch someone even after it was made illegal. The culture changed and that is no longer acceptable. Now lynchings are much less common. See? Changes in culture lead to changes in behavior. Right now there are changes we could make to our culture that would lead to less rape and fewer unintentional rapists.### Human: Theres no such thing as an unintentional rapist. If a rapist can not know they're raping, then its not rape. At the current statistics, we dont live in a rape culture. Itd be more appropriate to call it a heart attack culture, or a psychotic culture, or a robbery culture, than a rape culture. The type of people that say there's a rape culture are the kind that want to make looking at a person the wrong way rape.
### Human: CMV: I think piercing a baby's ears is cruel and unnecessary.### Assistant: I'm not going to question that is it "unnecessary". I think it's pretty clear that ear piercing isn't really necessary for anything and is just a cosmetic procedure. However, I will argue that it is not unduly "cruel" and it shouldn't be made illegal. Ear piercings are not supposed to hurt a lot. Yes, they do hurt for a moment, like getting a shot or being pinched but they typically don't hurt that much afterwards. Technology is more sophisticated and they hurt way less than they did before. Unlike a child, an infant won't know what's going on enough to get anxious about the procedure or be unduly afraid. Yes, ear piercings do hurt for a moment but it hardly hurts enough to classify it as "cruel". I toddler will hurt themselves far more by falling over while learning to toddle. Complications and infections can occur, but they can be easily avoided by sanitation and regular cleaning. I'm surprised that you are surprised it's legal. Parents are normally given a lot of free reign when it comes to their children's lives. I think this is normally a good thing because the government really ought not to be super involved in every little decision a parent makes and child protective services have better things to do than go after normally loving and attentive parents who choose to pierce their children's ears. Unless it's child abuse, parent's are pretty much allowed to do it with their children and I think it should stay that way. Honestly, I don't think ear piercings are a big enough deal to count as "child abuse". Keep in mind, many forms of physical punishment like spanking don't count as child abuse in most jurisdictions either. Ear piercings aren't dangerous or damaging enough for the government to justify banning them. Also, bringing up circumcision was a huge mistake.### Human: Well, I can't say you've changed my view, but you've lightened it at the very least.### Assistant: What /u/thesilvertongue said about it not hurting for very long can be different from person to person. My ears hurt for days and ended up getting infected very badly. It was nothing but hell for weeks and my mom saying " just keep cleaning it/using hydrogen peroxide. It will get better" it didn't. My ear was in pain for months until I finally stopped. It was awful. It never stopped being red or infected or hurting till then no matter what we tried. I wouldn't let that point change your view.### Human: Might I ask how old you were when you had yours done? Mine were hell too, with constant infections well into high school. That was theoretically my mother's main reason for disallowing new piercings. I had mine done when I was 5. I was a constant picker/fidget. I actually got over that (with my ears anyways) when I pierced behind her back while away so I could change them for my 18th (the time she told me she'd reconsider). They healed so well with the amazing care and focus on not touching that I've gone on to heal so many more piercings effortlessly, but I'm a "grown-up" now who understands the responsibility and care required. Infants can't really pick and fidget enough to make a difference and heal way faster than older kids (toddlers to teens).### Assistant: Maybe 8 or 9. I can't remember exactly. The only time I touched them was to clean the infection. Any other touching cause extreme pain. My ear was basically eating away at itself and was always really gross no matter what me or my mom or dad tried. I even went a few days no cleaning because my mom thought it needed to close up a but but it just got worse. Again I barely touched it. I recently re tried and I got similar results. Constant pain, no infection though. I kept then in for a few weeks thinking it would go away but it never did. Just got worse over time.### Human: Bugger. What metal were the piercings? Surgical stainless have always been my only reliables. Sorry to hear of your struggles though. That's tragic that you haven't been able to get them to take.### Assistant: I have tried everything from regular to hypoallergenic to surgical stainless. It all hurts
### Human: Los Angeles Unified School District's new $1 billion iPad program is a colossal waste of resources. CMV### Assistant: To what extent could textbooks, videos and other materials previously purchased in hard copy or standalone format be accessed instead via ipads? This should at least factor into the cost calculus.### Human: [Nope, this argument goes the other way](http://www.salon.com/2013/07/12/steve_jobs_was_not_a_school_teacher/). >As respected education consultant Lee Wilson notes in a report breaking down school expenses, “It will cost a school 552% more to implement iPad textbooks than it does to deploy books.” He notes that while “Apple’s messaging is the idea that at $14.99 an iText is significantly less expensive than a $60 textbook,” the fact remains that “when a school buys a $60 textbook today they use it for an average of 5-7 years (while) an Apple iText it costs them $14.99 per student – per year.” As Lee notes, that translates into iBooks that are 34 percent more expensive than their paper counterparts — and that’s on top of the higher-than-the-retail-store price school districts are paying for iPads.### Assistant: > and that’s on top of the higher-than-the-retail-store price school districts are paying for iPads. Why on earth are the schools paying higher than retail prices for the iPads? Especially if they're buying them by the many thousands?### Human: Someone is too much of a Mac fan boy over at lausd . They could of brought Nexus 7s , created custom roms( without the App Store ) and taught kids android programing for a fraction of the cost .### Assistant: That's entirely and completely besides the point. There's no reason to pay above retail cost for something, nor is there a reason to buy a thousand of something for more than 900 times retail cost. Being a "fanboy" doesn't even factor into it.### Human: Well the rational of a fanboy is different , I guess apple sent a high level sales man to sweat talk some LAUSD officials into thinking they NEED a 1 billion dollar contract . Big waste of money regardless
### Human: There is nothing wrong with the word "retarded" to refer to something one views as pointless or stupid. CMV### Assistant: So you see nothing wrong with using a class of people who have no control over their physical or mental capacity as interchangeable with an insult? Does it really have to be tossed at another human being to be insulting if it makes you the body of the insult? It requires no elaboration; it just uses you as you as the object of the insult. That's not really 'nothing wrong.'### Human: Do you have a problem with people using the word dumb? Used to be a slur for deaf people, an entire class of people as well### Assistant: But it isn't still used as a slur for deaf people, can you see the difference?### Human: And do you want to know why that is? It's because it started to be used as an insult that it changed. For a good while, it was an insult and a condition, just like "retard" is today. It's just later in the cycle.### Assistant: Then the word retard needs to continue along the cycle a bit more then. But right now it offends people when used as an insult. Especially since it is still currently used to refer to these people.### Human: I highly doubt any mentally retarded people are offended by something they can't even comprehend as language. Unless you mean any type of mental disability but that really isn't relevant.### Assistant: Are you suggesting that the word is not offensive? Because [it is.](http://www.r-word.org) And by the way, mentally handicapped people are able to comprehend the English language.
### Human: CMV: All U.S. citizens ought to be entitled to a minimum guaranteed income, or some other similar, effective, form of "social safety net".### Assistant: My argument against it is very simple. If there is no sound reason to punish someone that has done something wrong, why should it be sound to reward someone who has done nothing right? If someone who is able does not work, why should he eat? There are no rights without obligations; your right to part of what I have worked for comes with the obligation to compensate me, directly or indirectly.### Human: Why do you define working as more "right" than not working? Lots of jobs are ultimately pointless and would not be missed, and some are arguably detrimental to society.### Assistant: > Why do you define working as more "right" than not working? Because we cannot survive without some work being done.### Human: How do you think we survived before work was invented? And even if we cannot survive in the present without "some" work being done, why not aim to make that amount as little as possible? That may involve the majority of people in society not working.### Assistant: We still did work even in the distant past. Hunting and gathering is work.### Human: I'm not sure that it is, in any sense that is meaningful to this debate. Isn't gathering just like a primitive, more challenging form of grocery shopping?### Assistant: No, it's more akin to the farming and agriculture industry. Without them there is no food, and no survival. This is why work is intrinsically valuable.### Human: If someone lived as a hunter-gatherer in a modern environment, trapping squirrels and pigeons and dumpster-diving, the rest of society would consider that person an unemployed bum, not a worker.### Assistant: They'd still be working, just not in the conventional sense that we refer to when we speak of jobs.
### Human: CMV: I believe the age requirement for pornography acting should be raised to 21### Assistant: 21, 30 and 50 year olds are idiots too.### Human: I'm more concerned about the high school mentality that the porn industry attracts.### Assistant: Why is it your problem? If someone wants to do porn at the legal age of 18 none of your business.### Human: Because the brain isn't fully developed and they aren't fit to make such a major life changing decision.### Assistant: Nor is it at age 21... At about 25 the frontal lobe is fully developed. And that varies from person to person. Not to mention education, background, and experiences. So who are we to say who is and isn't mature. 18 is just an established age for when we "start our lives," our education and laws revolve around that, and its been working great so far.### Human: I'd argue that it hasn't been working that we'll for society lately.### Assistant: Care to elaborate?### Human: Rising number of young people moving back home and a general idea that "real life" doesn't start for most people until their mid/late twenties. Also the idea that your 20s are for finding yourself and having fun. Also the fact that "adults who can make their own decisions" can't even go drinking, but we trust them to make rational decisions regarding fucking for money.### Assistant: 20's are for "finding yourself" because it's probably the first time that anyone actually gets to live on their own, which often times is a lot of fun. Young people moving back in with their parents, I believe, is more of a symptom of our current economy. Many graduates can't find a job, regardless of what degree they have. To top it all off, the idea that your "real life" doesn't start until their mid/late 20s is really just a way to make ourselves feel better. It's acknowledging that we screwed it up, and that we are focused on moving forward regardless. As for them not being able to go drinking... Well the age barriers are arbitrary. Even still the line needs to be drawn somewhere, and in other places legal drinking age is 18. This logic can be reversed as well, "I can fuck for money, why can't I drink?" Which is similar to, "I can risk my life in the military, why can't I drink?" It's all arbitrary, and pointing it out doesn't really help make anyone's point in this case.
### Human: CMV: Monetary profit motivation (especially capitalism) makes it next to impossible for anything to reach its full potential### Assistant: You need to define "full potential". >Farmers have no incentive to make good tasting, nutritional tomatoes. They go bad quicker and are more difficult to grow. A farmer instead has incentive to make tomatoes that last longer, and can be grown year round. Making more beneficial tomatoes for society is asking farmers to sacrifice profits. Except organic, good tasting tomatoes do exist and are available for purchase in the market. Those people that want this product are able to buy it. Similarly people who care more about getting a cheap tomato instead of the best tasting one will buy tomatoes that are more easily produced and transported. There is still a market for high quality products under capitalism, not everything is a race to the bottom. >The meat industry has no incentive to find more ethically reasonable systems of working. It would be a massive cut in their profits considering their current system is strictly based on efficiency and volume of product. Once again the free range movement exists. People who care about such things buy from suppliers who follow those principles. Same as the tomatoes there is nothing stopping farmers from doing this when their consumer base demands it. That the consumer doesn't want or care about these factors and is more price conscious is not a fault of Capitalism (I'll touch on this again at the end). >Batteries that never die? Tires that never lose tread? Whats the incentive? If you didn't have to buy new batteries, you would only spend your money one time. The cut in profits would be massive. Would it? We can analyze the expected present value of all predicted future cash flows to a company...this is in fact one way we attempt to value companies. If a battery company made such a product they could charge a very high premium for it which might make the one off payments from the sale of this expensive everlasting battery greater than their sales into the future. >The medical industry has a tragic lack of incentive to be as efficient as possible for the reasons already outlined above. This often gets trotted out by people who have no understanding of how difficult it is to synthesize vaccines to prevent illness vs effective treatments. I'd like to see a shred of evidence that shows pharma companies actively ignore "curing" diseases in favor of keeping people sick to sell treatments. I mean it was just in the news that some company was releasing a very effective treatment (billed as a cure) for Hep C with the complaint that the price was too high (so companies are producing effective treatments). >However... all of the movies we get inspired by this source material is "reinvented" and "redesigned"... this is to make them as middle of the road as possible so that grandma, your little sister, your parents and you can all potentially go see the movie. And this is a problem why exactly? A lot of resources and man hours are going to be spent producing a film. Why is it unreasonable to try and make the film enjoyable by the largest number of people? Why do you think a non-capitalist economy would be able to achieve a better outcome? The rest of your post really just sounds like edginess for the sake of edginess. You like MF Doom and someone else like 2 Chainz. You are not superior to them. Radiohead and MF Doom operate in a capitalist economy. They are thriving. I'm not sure how citing them actually enhances your point. Fundamentally you have not explained why you think an alternative economic system would produce the results you want or would, in fact, be superior. Consider Communism, with collective ownership over the means of production. Why do you think the tomatoes will be tastier? It will still cost less to produce average tomatos with long shelf lives. That means people will be able to spend less time growing tomatoes and more time doing whatever else it is they want. We as a society have a need for X number of tomatoes. Are we really going to allocate the necessary man hours to make them all top of the line heritage organic super tomatoes. Or do we really just not give a damn about the tomatoes and will happily allocate our resources elsewhere. The same goes for culture. We collectively own the movie studios. Why is every movie citizen kane? Why would we allocate resources to produce "art" that is not enjoyable by the widest majority of people? Why would the town theater only show art house films instead of the ones that people like? Same goes for radio stations and concert halls.### Human: > I'd like to see a shred of evidence that shows pharma companies actively ignore "curing" diseases in favor of keeping people sick to sell treatments. One could derive circumstantial evidence that this is happening, from the fact that there seems to be 10 new depression meds every year but not nearly the same level of focus on other chronic illnesses. On the flip side, one could also suppose that many more people suffer from depression than (say) diabetes, and so this is just an efficient market doing what an efficient market does best. I'd go at the pharma angle differently, by pointing out that medical care in the US is very much not a free market. It's distorted by third party insurance, tax incentives, etc. For that matter, even if we lived in a libertarian paradise, it would still not be free because there's a massive information asymmetry between a doctor (who knows what he's doing) and a patient (who just kind of has to trust it). tl;dr: US medical system is an extremely bad example of the free market, and should probably just be dropped from this conversation in general### Assistant: Depression medication is very tricky, and for many of them, pharmaceutical companies don't even know WHY they work, they simply know that they do work. Many of these medications work for some people but not others. There are many depression medications because there is no one medication that works for everyone. Diabetes is generally easier to manage medicine-wise.### Human: > Depression medication is very tricky, and for many of them, pharmaceutical companies don't even know WHY they work, they simply know that they do work. I find a delightfully painful irony in how true I find it to be that depression is most often caused by our social disconnection and focus on wealth and productivity.### Assistant: [deleted]### Human: [Please, tell me about it.](http://imgur.com/zLo65Xl)
### Human: CMV: There is absolutely no reason for most bars to play music as loud as they do### Assistant: [There are economic reasons](https://www.thrillist.com/drink/nation/music-in-restaurants-why-they-turn-music-up-in-restaurants) in that it apparently makes you drink more. [The peanut gallery over at Quora says its to make you feel energized](https://www.quora.com/Why-is-bar-music-so-loud) maybe so you don't feel like you are drinking for the wrong reasons or get tired and go home to bed. Social reasons: you won't notice you ran out of things to say if its almost a struggle to talk. My advice? Go to breweries or restaurants. You can usually find the American equivalent of a pub if you know how to look. Find an upscale restaurant with a good bar. Sit at the bar or just get a table. Downsides: they may want you to eat and they will probably close before midnight. But its what I do. There are a handful of places that are not "bars" with loud music that have good drink options.### Human: people tend to buy more drinks the louder you play music [up to a certain decibel level]. I can believe this to some extent-- but what is that decibel level? I suspect that many place regularly and senselessly exceed that level. I'm also curious to what extent other byproducts have been quantified as a result of volume (e.g. level of patron satisfaction, impact on loyalty of customer base, average occupancy rate, types of drinks bought, duration of stay, etc), and how those square with overall profitability.### Assistant: Nicolas Gueguen, a professor of behavioral sciences at the Université de Bretagne-Sud in France, reported in the October 2008 edition of the journal Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research that higher volumes led beer drinkers in a bar to imbibe more. > When the bar's music was 72 decibels, people ordered an average of 2.6 drinks and took 14.5 minutes to finish one. But when the volume was turned up to 88 decibels, customers ordered an average of 3.4 drinks and took 11.5 minutes to finish each one. [source] (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18647281) So upping the volume from typical tv volume level to blender level. (ie loud but able to hold conversation - > too loud to converse easily) allows bars to up their revenue from alcohol by almost 30% as well as increase turnover. That's a huge difference in profit for a business that often runs on thin margins, even if you might lose 10% of your customers. (but it's probable you'll gain more too, youngins like the loud music)### Human: In a literal sense, this comment deserves a delta for countering my argument that there is "absolutely no reason" for bars to play music as loud as they do. Unfortunately, it rebuts it exactly in the way I was hoping it wouldn't-- or perhaps more accurately, exactly the way I feared that it would. This basically says that music is played loud not because patrons actually want/enjoy this (which is the study I'd actually like to see), or because insanely loud music has social benefits, but because it exploits human weakness for management's financial interests. Is this the only argument we have for this? ∆### Assistant: You're living in the US. This is the basis for almost all business related decisions.### Human: Well aware. I'm begging for a reason not to feel cynical about capitalism.### Assistant: Sounds like a great topic for another CMV!
### Human: CMV: The people 'surprised' by Wells Fargo, both the illegal accounts that were opened and the golden parachutes for those involved who are being let go, are incredibly ignorant and the reason its possible for WF and other companies (not limited to banking) can do illegal things like these.### Assistant: I don't think it's a matter of being ignorant or even really being "surprised" that it happened. I think it's a matter of being surprised that it happened "again." We generally assume that after a listeria outbreak, food safety standards will be increased. After an oil well explodes or a mine collapses, safety inspections go up. And despite continual evidence to the contrary, we blithely assume that every time the banking sector screws us over, regulators will do something about it. The problem kicks in that we keep thinking the last issue will be the last issue and that just isn't the case. In a sense, the fire already passed over, scorched the earth, and now we're growing again, and the assumption is made that we took precautions not to build our house with duraflame logs this time. Oh, nope, there's another fire.### Human: Decent approach for the situation however the "oh nope theres another fire" is exactly what I'm attacking. We think we've done something after its happened, then turn a blind eye and ignore it when it just starts to happen again, until it blows up, again. They have the spotlight on them for moments, rather than all the time.### Assistant: Are you proposing a revolution? Other than that there is not much the general public can do except let the government bail out banks with our tax money :(### Human: The obvious answer is to make fines exceed the profits made, as Elizabeth Warren pointed out while grilling Wells' CEO, he personally made more money from the increase in Wells stock price than the entirety of fines levied against Wells corporate for this bad behavior. This is never the case with civilian penalties, if you rob a bank and are caught you WILL owe restitution for any money not recovered in addition to a hefty punishment (any combination of jail time/fines/probation/community service). So long as the punishment doesn't exceed the profit the behavior is bound to continue. If you got to keep 80% of the money you stole in a bank robbery and faced no jail time, what rational person wouldn't rob a bank every other week?### Assistant: I agree. Profit maximization is a function of expected value, risk, and risk tolerance / aversion. When you profit AFTER getting caught imagine the net gain calculation in your head when factoring in the probability of getting caught. If the cost of recall > (probability of accident * avg settlement) then we don't do one.
### Human: I believe it is wrong to teach the Pledge of Allegiance in schools (not for religious reasons). CMV.### Assistant: The pledge of allegiance isn't taught, it's recited. Pledging to a flag absolutely makes sense, it's a symbol that represents the country. Yes, it's pledging allegiance to the country. "under God" I dislike, I'm leaving that bit alone. But "indivisible, with liberty and justice for all:" no, you've got this all backwards. We're not brainwashing children into thinking America, the way it is, delivers on all these principles the best it possibly can. We're indoctrinating our children to associate these concepts as their definition of America. You are absolutely right that in this era America is straining against its principles. And the main strength behind the force driving the US back towards those principles is the people of America who believe in its ideals. Those ideals -- the ones in the pledge. The pledge isn't about what America is. It's about what America is supposed to be. And I for one see plenty of value in that.### Human: When I said "teach" I meant "make them recite it". Good answer though. I get what you mean and where you are coming from. Although I think having the kids recite the same pledge day after day has this effect of making them feel as if the government is some big mysterious thing that cannot be changed. When in fact it is quite the opposite, no? Edit: Double negative.### Assistant: The government isn't some big scary mysterious monster that cannot be changed. It is very much changeable if you know how to go about doing so. It is also not a giant uniform entity. There are many pieces to it and many many differing opinions within the government.### Human: Whoops. Meant to type "is", not "isn't". My bad.### Assistant: Oh haha. That definitely changes things.
### Human: CMV: I believe Justin Bieber should be deported for drug crimes, as he has a green card.### Assistant: It sounds like you don't like Justin Bieber very much. Which would be worse: 1. Justin Bieber becomes a political martyr, painted in the press as an innocent young man specially targeted by the government for deportation, a symbol of everything wrong with the immigration system. 2. Justin Bieber spends the rest of his life looking over his shoulder and hoping DHS doesn't show up at his door while he's getting high.### Human: > It sounds like you don't like Justin Bieber very much. Source? Nothing in the original post supports that. The only thing specific to Justin Bieber in the post were his drug-related offences. > Justin Bieber becomes a political martyr, painted in the press as an innocent young man specially targeted by the government for deportation, a symbol of everything wrong with the immigration system. Would not happen. > Justin Bieber spends the rest of his life looking over his shoulder and hoping DHS doesn't show up at his door while he's getting high. Will not happen. It's already been proven he can get away with it.### Assistant: jesus its only pot who cares fight real crime### Human: Calm down there killer. Whether or not pot should be legal, the justice system should still treat people equally, without regard to fame or fortune.### Assistant: > the justice system should still treat people equally so we should target Justin Bieber? jesus man the hypocrisy### Human: But you're not targeting him. Targeting him would mean having people stake out his house waiting for a crime to be committed. The only thing that is being advocated here is that Bieber be treated the same as any other immigrant with a green card.### Assistant: so if he wasn't famous he would have been deported? what would he be? just a rich guy committing a crime? would he be deported 100%? is there anyway to know this? no it is a hypothetical question with no real answers
### Human: CMV: American democracy is screwed until we have an open minded and well informed citizenry that embraces the value of learning.### Assistant: I don't think I am going to be able to change your view the way that you wanted/expected it to be changed. I don't actually believe that democracy can be "un-screwed", so instead of convincing you that American democracy is fine with uninformed and close-minded voters, I will attempt to convince you that democracy is inherently "screwed". First of all, you are assuming that a citizenry can, or should be, well informed. That sounds really nice, but unfortunately people are actually acting rationally by not following their politicians or participating in the democracy to the extent you wish. This is something commonly referred to as a market failure, or when an individual's rationality does not lead to group rationality. When I make the right decision, the group makes the wrong decision. In this context, the cost of educating myself to the point of being able to make an informed vote greatly outweighs the potential benefit I could expect to gain from voting that way. This is because the chances of my vote affecting an election are extremely, extremely slim, as well as the fact that I would be receiving a very small part of the potential benefit. This addresses only the problems with democracy that your post brought up, specifically the idea of a "well informed citizenry" being the crux of a functioning democracy. I can touch on a few more faults of the system if I got your attention, but here I am only going to address the ones that are relevant to the original post. Also, I don't disagree with you that we should be putting more of an emphasis on the value of learning, and that we should be encouraged to discuss the real issues in society, however I don't believe that democracy is really compatible with these ideals. I'd like to hear your response to my arguments, so please have at it!### Human: If you don't mind, I'd love to hear more. What are some more ways that democracy is inherently screwed up, in your opinion? Also how can we fix those/ what do you think the best system is for America?### Assistant: Not at all! Another major flaw I see in democracy (and government in general) is the fact that we cannot reasonably observe the alternatives. When Obama says that his program will increase X amount of jobs, but it succeeds in only Y jobs, his sympathizers may say "if there was no stimulus at all, then we would be even worse off!" They may very well be correct, but we have no way off determining this. His critics may also say "if Romney was in office he would have handled it much better, and there would be Z jobs!" Again, this could also be true, but we have no way of comparing the Obama admin. of 2012-2014 to the Romney admin. of 2012-2014. Another reason I see democracy as inherently flawed is that market failure is the rule on the "political market", not the exception. In addition to the market failure I described above (the rationality of ignorance in politics), there is also the fact that it makes sense for a politician to make a law that benefits one actor at the expense of another. Many laws that are passed give a very concentrated benefit to a small special interest group, while forcing a large cost on a much more spread out group (taxpayers). The special interest group has a far greater incentive to lobby for that law (they can easily see the benefits they receive), while the taxpayer is sharing the cost with many others, making it is difficult to observe. This is what is called a negative externality, when a cost is forced upon a party who did not choose to incur that cost. Hopefully I explained that somewhat decently, if not please ask me to clarify. Those are the few "practical" flaws I can think of off the top of my head. There are also many ethical issues I have with the system, but I don't think you were asking for that. Now what do I think is the solution to these problems? Well I would argue that a far more favorable system is [anarcho-capitalism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism). Again, if you want me to describe my beliefs about why this is better, I'd love to. But I have to say there are many others who can do so more eloquently and are more educated on the subject. If I at all got you interested I can point you in the right direction.### Human: Would you mind summarizing anarcho-capitalism and how it would work?### Assistant: I wouldn't mind at all. Essentially, I (an anarcho-capitalist) believe that there is nothing that government can provide for us which we can't provide better for ourselves through the market. A few reasons for this are 1) the failures of democracy I described, 2) the fact that competition and the market always produces better results than central planning and bureaucracy, and 3) I believe that government, as a geographical monopoly over the initiation of force, is an inherently immoral thing. Anarcho-capitalism is a philosophy based on non-initiation of force (you can use force to defend yourself, but not for offensive purposes), free markets, and private property. As for how it would work, there is not necessarily one answer for that question. That is kind of the point of anarcho-capitalism, it is the framework for finding solutions that don't involve a gun to your head. If you can think of a way to solve X problem that is better than what anyone else can think of, your idea will succeed on the market. That being said, I don't think it is necessarily fair for someone to point out a problem without supplying ANY better solutions, so I'll provide the common anarcho-capitalist solution for law in a free society. Something we need in society in a system of law for resolving disputes between individuals. I don't think we need government for this. Instead of government holding a monopoly in this market, law could be better provided through a system of private "rights enforcement agencies" and arbitration agencies. Basically, I pay for a firm to protect my rights, and you do the same. If we get into a dispute, our agencies agree to abide by the ruling of an arbitration agency. It is predicted that you end up having a system where every individual has a rights enforcement agency, and every pair of rights enforcement agencies has an arbitration agency. There are countless objections to this, but I'm not going to cover them right now. Take a look at [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o) summary by David Friedman, it is entertaining and informative. It should cover a few questions as well as describe this system better than I did. Hope that is a decent summary of anarcho-capitalism. Let me know if you have any questions, or if you are interested and what more info! Peace.### Human: Thanks so much dude! I love hearing about new ideas. Keep the mind open and it grows, you know? If you don't mind, could I ask another question? These rights agencies that you speak of, these sound like fascinating ideas, but how do they work? Is there a set of laws that they all follow? How do they decide whose rights have been infringed upon? Like what if one rights agency thinks you did nothing wrong, but the other person's does?### Assistant: No problem. Always nice to "meet" someone motivated to hear new ideas! I'll do my best to answer whatever questions you have. > how do they work? Is there a set of laws that they all follow? There is not a set of laws they all follow, that's what makes this market for law so interesting. The law between me and you is a product of the arbitration agency that our rights agencies choose to work under. This makes it so the law between me and you could be very different (it could also be the same/similar) from the law between me and him. This actually occurs even today, when you think about it on the state level. The law between two people in my state is different between the law between two people in your state. The arbitration agencies are the ones actually providing the law, and the "rights enforcement agencies" are sort of middle men. An arbitration agency is really just a private court, another thing that also exists today (look up the American Arbitration Association). > How do they decide whose rights have been infringed upon? They decide who is right and wrong in each individual case based on the law that they provide. You are a customer of whichever rights agency deals with an arbitration agency that caters to the law you would like to see. We don't get perfect law, because some options might not be offered by the current arbitration agencies (though anyone could attempt to create their own, it is just another firm in the market), but it is far better than the system we have today in which everyone is under essentially one legal system. > Like what if one rights agency thinks you did nothing wrong, but the other person's does? This is the purpose of the arbitration agency, or private court. The rights agencies have an incentive to agree to abide by the ruling of the court, whichever way it might rule. The video I linked might explain that better, but I also enjoy writing these things out and attempting at doing it myself. So keep the questions coming if you have more. In addition I can link you plenty of talks or articles describing libertarian/anarcho-capitalist thought.### Human: Any more links you have would be great. Thanks much!### Assistant: As a general place to learn/discuss more, check out /r/Anarcho_Capitalism! In all honesty it is a really cool sub. To learn more on the legal system we were talking about, the video I linked, and pretty much anything from David Friedman is great. This [video](http://www.cato.org/multimedia/events/market-law) goes a bit deeper into it if you are looking for that. A great resource for videos from a libertarian/AnCap perspective is [Learn Liberty](https://www.youtube.com/user/LearnLiberty/videos), they have great basic info to get started with. But most of all I would recommend the subreddit. Most people on there are happy to answer questions if you make a post, and a lot of information is linked in the sidebar. Hope that helps!
### Human: I believe that almost everyone who is arguing in favor of marijuana does so for personal gain, either to facilitate their addiction or to make money from sales. CMV### Assistant: I don't smoke and I certainly don't sell drugs. I'm still very much pro people making their own decisions to as big a degree as possible as long as they're not hurting others. Also the hypocrisy of allowing the much more dangerous drug alcohol, that costs the society unbelievable amounts of money just makes me sick.### Human: Although I agree with you, OP said "almost everyone".### Assistant: I think this comment is too popular for "almost everyone" to apply. It's a statistically significant percentage of the populace. Surely you don't think every member of the libertarian party, every capitalist, every Ron Paul fan, every fan of constitutionally limited government is a pot head or drug dealer?### Human: I think they have a vested interest in legalization- either because they use, or because they want to make money off people who do. I'm sure it's not all stoners and dealers-that there are people who think it will lower crime/make money for the state/save money on arrests, but I also think that the strong proponents have something to gain, and wonder what that is.### Assistant: Drug dealers themselves are against legalization because it would bring profits down.
### Human: CMV: The government should stop recognizing ALL marriages.### Assistant: > The inheritance/hospital visitation issues can be handled though contracts (government can even make it much easier to get/sign those forms.) If you could take time to sign up for the marriage licence, you can just as easily sign some contract papers. That's what marriage is. It's a kind of contract that include a bunch of specific rights. Giving people those rights is still marriage, whether you call it that by name or not. It's like saying "We're not going to give out sandwiches anymore. Instead, we will be serving meat, vegetables and condiments between two slices of bread". It's the same thing. You're just saying we should change the name, but there's really no benefit. Marriage has been a legal institution as long if not longer than it's been a religious ones. Why should the state arbitrarily decide to start calling marriage something else? > Second, this would cut down on bureaucracy. No marriage - no messy divorces. Instant efficiency. If you're going on to keep civil unions, you're going to also have to deal with the dissolution of those unions. No efficiency gain here.### Human: I suppose the OP is indirectly wanting to extend the eligible parties capable of being in this social contract (which is what marriage always has been in the eyes of culture and law) to everyone with everyone (as long as you're consenting adults?) So interesting enough, OP actually believes the opposite of what the title of the CMV says... well that's strange. On another note, > As for the tax benefits: why should married people get tax deductions? Sounds pretty unfair to me. If we, as a society want to encourage child rearing - we can do so directly by giving tax breaks to people who have and rare children, not indirectly through marriage. It's like he doesn't understand... marriage is not only encourage due to the having babies part, it's also the marriage has a better chance of generating a stable configuration for raising children and living, which is very beneficial for all parties involved (part of the objection of certain combinations not being recognized is due to inherent instabilities of the Union, roughly speaking, there's more).### Assistant: Actually OP seems more concerned that marriage allows people to file taxes jointly, and that gives them an unfair advantage. But he's not realizing that filing jointly doesn't create an unfair tax advantage, it just simplifies filing. It is the child tax credit that actually creates a tax advantage for those with children, married or not. He's heard that marriage = tax break, and takes offense to government giving marriage a "tax break", even though that is factually incorrect. He wants to split marriage into a bunch of contracts because you can't contract with the government for a lower tax rate which is what he thinks government recognition of marriage creates, despite the fact that it doesn't.### Human: The OP did not specify who is able to enter into these a la carte contracts that provides special rights, which those that are married possess, but those that arent married do not. He or she then took the from that list of rights and eliminate all tax breaks, because he or she deem them unfair. My point is, because he or she did not specify who can enter into those social contracts, everyone that can enter into contracts with anyone else can enter into those contracts, thus allowing marriage for everyone with everyone. My take on the whole tax break is that, because we're after stable living configurations, and social unions of certain kinds are statistically more prone to generate stable living configurations, thus it should be encouraged, and if should be encouraged, then even if the tax breaks is not fair, it acts as encouragement for individuals to enter into these social unions. On a side note, I fail to understand your point; while it's true that filing as a couple does simplify the filing, it does not only simplify the filing (not that tax filing need to be related to how much you pay), it certainly is a tax break, because the 2 does pay less tax combined then they would if they werent a couple. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the system, please explain if I am.### Assistant: > Married people generally do NOT get any special tax breaks. In fact, in MANY cases a married couple will pay more tax than 2 singles -- sometimes a LOT more. >The filing requirement amount for a Single is $8,750 for 2007. For a married couple filing a joint return it's exactly double that amount -- $17,500. Now look at the tax rate schedules for Singles and joint filers and you'll see that the bracket amounts are exactly double as well. This means that a married couple filing a joint return will pay about the same tax as 2 singles. To the penny in many cases. >But let's consider 2 special cases where a married couple may pay MUCH more tax than 2 singles. The first is a couple collecting Social Security. Contrary to common belief, Social Security benefits ARE taxable if your income is high enough. There's a base amount that enters into t he calculation based upon your filing status. For a Single, it's $25,000. For a married couple filing jointly, it's $32,000. Hmmm... Quite a bit LESS than double! And for a married couple filing separately, it's $0! If 1/2 of your SS benefits plus all other income are greater than your base amount, up to 85% of your SS benefits are taxable. It doesn't take a math major to see that a married couple may pay quite a bit more in taxes than 2 singles, and I know of at least 3 elderly couples who divorced for exactly that reason. They still live together as husband and wife, but save a TON in taxes since their divorces. >Now lets look at 2 single parents, each with 2 children and about $20,000 in income. They each file as Head of Household, giving them a combined non-taxable base income of $22,500 -- quite a bit more than the $17,500 of a married couple. And they each pull down about $4,000 in EIC payments that will disappear if they marry since their combined income is above the EIC ceiling. Their tax hit can be as much as $9,000! TL:DR Basically being married doesn't make you get a tax break, the child tax credit does, and you don't have to be married to get the child tax credit. Filing jointly without the child tax credit doesn't lower your tax rate, it either keeps your rate the same as if you filed separately, or costs you more because your combined income puts you into a higher tax bracket. That is why many couples file separately despite the simplicity of filing jointly. The child tax credit is not based on marriage and thus not even relevant to the debate further than dispelling notions that it is tied to marriage or filing status.
### Human: I think that applications should be judged solely on the person's merits, and should not even ask about racial/gender identifiers. CMV### Assistant: I see misconceptions about Affirmative Action on here all the time, so let me clarify a few: >It is no secret that schools, for example, have a sort of quota for each gender and race that they admit Completely and entirely false. Schools are legally forbidden from having actual quotas. They can consider the diversity of the applicant, based on race, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic background, nationality, life experience, all sorts of things. They can take them into account, but they are legally forbidden from having racial quotas. >There are always check-boxes on applications (schooling, job, etc.) for gender, race, etc. Affirmative action for private employment is entirely different than schools. The government can have it's own policy on how to consider diversity, but that's not how it's dealt with in private employment. Almost all affirmative action policies in the private market are instilled by the leadership of that private company on their own. Why? Because businesses see better leadership, better profits, and wider markets when they have a diverse group of employees that come from different backgrounds, have different values, and have different opinions. Businesses like diversity because it makes businesses stronger, and it's why businesses consider diversity in employment. >Society, as a whole, supports equality for everyone. I think that it is a huge contradiction then to still judge people, or give special benefits to people, of certain races or genders. Studies have shown that if you put a racially ethnic name on a resume application, it's significantly less likely to get called for an interview than a more main-stream culture name (like John or Ben). It's the same resume, different names, different racial perceptions, different outcomes. The reality is that society doesn't have equality of opportunity. It's very well documented that people have an "in-group and out-group" social process. We tend to like people that are our "in-group" (like us) over people in the "out-group" (not like us). So, if you consider that most businesses and organizations are led by middle-aged white men, then you can also see why most middle-managers are also middle-aged white men. It's also why middle-aged white men are more likely to respond to resumes that have white men names than other names. It's not their conscious fault, they're not making a decision to discriminate, it's an internal process where we just automatically like people of our in-group more than our out-group. So affirmative action in schools has two goals: 1) the diversity of the students (which is an important end, in order to help educate the student body about different aspects of society, it's important to have different kinds of people), and 2) helping to support marginalized groups (such as the fact that minorities are much more likely to be in poverty, a history of legal suppression has caused generational poverty issues, the resume issue I talked about earlier). It's narrowly tailored to allow schools to consider race, but they're forbidden from having quotas of any kind.### Human: >Businesses like diversity because it makes businesses stronger, and it's why businesses consider diversity in employment. If that were true you wouldn't need laws enforcing diversity. >Studies have shown that if you put a racially ethnic name on a resume application, it's significantly less likely to get called for an interview than a more main-stream culture name Why is that? You already claimed businesses want diversity. >the diversity of the students (which is an important end, No, it isn't. It's a superficial physical characteristic. Do you support diversity based on height and weight? Why not?### Assistant: >If that were true you wouldn't need laws enforcing diversity. Can you cite a single law that "enforces" diversity? The only laws that exist prevent businesses from refusing to hire based on race. They don't make businesses hire based on race. There's a difference between making businesses color-blind and making them hire diverse people. You're simply wrong. >Why is that? You already claimed businesses want diversity. Not all businesses do so. It's self-motivated so some businesses do and some don't. Proving that laws don't force businesses to hire diverse applicants. >No, it isn't. It's a superficial physical characteristic. Do you support diversity based on height and weight? Why not? If you think someone's race doesn't impact their life in a meaningful way, that's simply being naive. Society isn't colorblind and it doesn't make sense to act like it is.### Human: >Can you cite a single law that "enforces" diversity? The only laws that exist prevent businesses from refusing to hire based on race. How is that not enforcing racial diversity? Suppose there's a law prohibiting you from buying a second car the same color as your existing car. That law would effectively force you to have different color cars. >Not all businesses do so. That's not what you wrote: >>Because businesses see better leadership, better profits, and wider markets when they have a diverse group of employees that come from different backgrounds, have different values, and have different opinions. Now the above claim becomes much, much weaker since it's only some businesses. Can you support the weaker version with some evidence other than your feelings? >If you think someone's race doesn't impact their life in a meaningful way, that's simply being naive. As do height and weight. [Do you deny that people who are obese are discriminated against in the workplace?](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/obesity-discrimination_n_1939385.html) [Do you deny that taller people have an unfair advantage in the workplace?](http://news.ufl.edu/2003/10/16/heightsalary/) A person's height and weight does indeed "impact their life in a meaningful way" (your words), so why don't you support diversity for height and weight as you do for race?### Assistant: >How is that not enforcing racial diversity? There's a huge difference between a law that says: "You must hire black people." and "You're not allowed to hire/fire people based on race." If you have two applicants, and you like one more than the other, hire the one you think is better- regardless of race. You're not allowed to deny one only because of their race. There's a big difference in between. Denying outright discrimination is not mandating diversity. >Suppose there's a law prohibiting you from buying a second car the same color as your existing car. That's not an accurate metaphor. The law would read: "You're not allowed to base your car decision on the color." Not: "You must get a second car with a different color." Huge difference. >Now the above claim becomes much, much weaker since it's only some businesses. Can you support the weaker version with some evidence other than your feelings? You need to start reading more carefully what I'm writing. The businesses that choose to seek out diverse applicants do so willingly because it supports their business. Not all businesses do this. The businesses that don't do this will end up unintentionally discriminating due to in-group out-group processes. >Now the above claim becomes much, much weaker since it's only some businesses. Can you support the weaker version with some evidence other than your feelings? Here ya go: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/focus_on_law_studies_home/publiced_focus_spr98work.html But I appreciate the thinly-veiled sense of superiority. The other scholarly articles I have access to are accessible duet to the University network, which means if I post them you won't be able to see them. If you happen to have research, I'd love to see it. >A person's height and weight does indeed "impact their life in a meaningful way" (your words), so why don't you support diversity for height and weight as you do for race? Height and weight aren't correlative to diversity. Affirmative action is not only about correcting for negative societal forces, but is also meant to support the community it's established in by ensuring some degree of diversity among that community. Height and weight don't correlate to any kind of cultural diversity.
### Human: CMV: Basic Income doesn't work because rent will always absorb that money.### Assistant: The big question here is really quite simple: "Why is shelter an exception?" Clearly, the same pricing system is in place for all of those things. So, you're arguing that the market somehow works differently when land is involved. Why? How? No, the reasons why the price of housing is increasing is really simple. The population is increasing in a handful of areas. Where there is higher population growth there is higher demand for housing. It takes a couple years for a planned apartment complex to actually be built. It takes a couple of weeks for people to move when the mood takes them. So, housing prices often increase because demand for housing expands faster than the supply. But, housing supply does increase, and prices fall rapidly where more people are leaving than arriving. So you can't say that housing prices go up forever. I'm sure we've all learned a painful lesson in that. But, you are right about one thing. A Basic Income isn't a magic money machine. You don't create wealth by using a Basic Income. All you are doing is moving that money around. The big advantage to a Basic Income is that it would be faster, cheaper, and without moralistic restrictions on what to spend the money on when compared to current Social Security or Food Stamps. Although, we'd probably do a lot better with a Negative Income Tax that directly funds itself and uses the exact same system we use for current taxes/tax refunds. The existing Earned Income Tax Credit is a wonderful proof of concept. I mean, how many people are saved every year when that Tax Refund Check arrives? There's already a whole industry built around getting those people the big purchases they need but can't otherwise afford when the refund checks roll in. Just dial that up to eleven and let other welfare systems atrophy away.### Human: >. So, you're arguing that the market somehow works differently when land is involved. Why? How? Because zoning laws and regulation means the market can't react quickly. Want to turn that empty lot into an apartment building? Sorry that is zoned for single family home.### Assistant: So you accept the premise that the entire US tax system can be overhauled for basic income, but somehow we would forgo updating building and zoning codes to reflect a more socially mobile society?### Human: > So you accept the premise that the entire US tax system can be overhauled for basic income No. Even if housing wasn't an issue how do we decide what basic needs are?### Assistant: So you reject the entire premise of basic income?### Human: Yes. I prefer negative income tax.### Assistant: That gives everyone an incentive to be poor and gives the wealthy a good reason to emigrate. Do you think the top 1% would stay in the US very long if the govt started using them as a no limit debit card to fund the bottom 40% of people? Do you think people will go out of their way to increase their tax bracket when it will decrease their net income?### Human: >That gives everyone an incentive to be poor and gives the wealthy a good reason to emigrate. How does it give people an incentive to be poor? I prefer negative income tax to most current safety net programs. >Do you think the top 1% would stay in the US very long if the govt started using them as a no limit debit card to fund the bottom 40% of people? With a universal basic income? Yes. With a negative income tax as a replacement for current safety nets? No. >Do you think people will go out of their way to increase their tax bracket when it will decrease their net income? I believe negative income tax would be set up in a way that you are always better off making more money.### Assistant: >How does it give people an incentive to be poor? Because it is mathematically impossible to construct a negative tax bracket system that doesn't have a break point where increasing your income by $1 will net you a more than $1 loss because you will switch from receiving money to spending it. >>Do you think the top 1% would stay in the US very long if the govt started using them as a no limit debit card to fund the bottom 40% of people? >With a universal basic income? Yes. With a negative income tax as a replacement for current safety nets? No. Elaborate. Why would a negative tax cause less of a burden than UBI? You can't just say one is better with no support. >I believe negative income tax would be set up in a way that you are always better off making more money. That's impossible. If I increase my tax bracket from getting money from the govt, to paying money to the govt I will always be losing out. There is a strong incentive to stay on the negative side of the tax bracket.### Human: >Because it is mathematically impossible to construct a negative tax bracket system that doesn't have a break point where increasing your income by $1 will net you a more than $1 loss because you will switch from receiving money to spending it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax This is just the first example I found. Take a look at specific models. >Elaborate. Why would a negative tax cause less of a burden than UBI? You can't just say one is better with no support. Because if UBI is going to cover basic living expenses it would be impossible to administer and would be stupid expensive. I don't think Negative income tax should cover all living costs. It would only replace some safety net programs. >That's impossible. If I increase my tax bracket from getting money from the govt, to paying money to the govt I will always be losing out. There is a strong incentive to stay on the negative side of the tax bracket. How do you think progressive income taxes work?### Assistant: Sorry but a Wikipedia article describing what a negative tax is doesn't invalidate any of my claims. You are literally asking me to do research for you to support your point. >Why would a negative tax cause less of a burden than UBI? The rich are also receiving UBI that's what makes it universal. how does a negative income tax place less of a burden on the rich over a system that uses them as cash reserves? >How do you think progressive income taxes work? I don't think progressive income taxes work very well and am greatly in favor of a fair tax. But that aside progressive taxes do not have a break point where increasing your gross income results in a loss of net income like all negative tax structures do by definition.### Human: >Sorry but a Wikipedia article describing what a negative tax is doesn't invalidate any of my claims. >You are literally asking me to do research for you to support your point Would you prefer I paste the 2 paragraphs? >The rich are also receiving UBI that's what makes it universal. how does a negative income tax place less of a burden on the rich over a system that uses them as cash reserves? >The rich are also receiving UBI that's what makes it universal. how does a negative income tax place less of a burden on the rich over a system that uses them as cash reserves? Because even if they receive money they are going to pay much more in taxes to support a basic income. >I don't think progressive income taxes work very well and am greatly in favor of a fair tax. But that aside progressive taxes do not have a break point where increasing your gross income results in a loss of net income like all negative tax structures do by definition. Read the Wikipedia article### Assistant: >Read the Wikipedia article Sorry I have no obligation to support your point for you. If you want to use the Wikipedia article to support your point you are going to have to pull out the relevant sections and detail why they pertain to your point. Anything less is the equivalent of saying "it's not my job to educate you" which is not a valid rebuttal. ***** >Because even if they receive money they are going to pay much more in taxes to support a basic income. Basic income will not take any more taxes than the current structure. Arguing otherwise is evidence you don't understand UBI. Additionally in most of the proposals i support an automated workforce offloads a lot of the cost. Negative income tax does not have either of these features.### Human: Example: * The income tax rate is 50%. * The tax exemption is $30,000. * The subsidy rate is 50% and equal to the income tax rate. Under this scheme: * A person earning $0 would receive $15,000 from the government. * A person earning $25,000 would receive $2,500 from the government. * A person earning $30,000 would neither receive any money nor pay any tax. * A person earning $50,000 would pay a tax of $10,000. * A person earning $100,000 would pay a tax of $35,000. >Basic income will not take any more taxes than the current structure. Arguing otherwise is evidence you don't understand UBI. Not possible. Explain to me why it would be cheaper. >Additionally in most of the proposals i support an automated workforce offloads a lot of the cost. What?### Assistant: >Example: >* The income tax rate is 50%. >* The tax exemption is $30,000. >* The subsidy rate is 50% and equal to the income tax rate. >Under this scheme: * A person earning $0 would receive $15,000 from the government. >* A person earning $25,000 would receive $2,500 from the government. >* A person earning $30,000 would neither receive any money nor pay any tax. >* A person earning $50,000 would pay a tax of $10,000. >* A person earning $100,000 would pay a tax of $35,000. Unfortunately when implementing taxes we have to use tax brackets because it is not realistically possible to calculate each individual income. I'm going to use the values you listed above as tax brackets to demonstrate why NIT can never work, the values may differ depending on how you set the brackets, but the principal of what I'm demonstrating will hold true for all NIT. If I'm in the 0-24999 bracket I'm getting 15,000 from the govt, so my net income with taxes is 15,000-39,999. However if I get a raise from 24,999 to 25,000 I jump up a tax bracket, dropping my benefits from 15,000 to 2,500, so my net income with taxes has gone from 39,999 a year to 27,500 a year because I got a $1 raise. That's a loss of 12,499 in income because of a raise. If you can't see why that provides an incentive to stay poor under NIT, nothing will convince you. >Not possible. Explain to me why it would be cheaper. UBI is not a tax scheme. It's a scheme for distributing the taxes the government already collects. There would be no change to the existing tax structure, just the removal of existing welfare systems. >>Additionally in most of the proposals i support an automated workforce offloads a lot of the cost. >What? Most proposals for UBI that I approve of center around the idea that inevitably robots will replace humans as the primary source of labor, so rather than taxing the rich it becomes possible to tax the money made from robotic labor (as the robots aren't going to complain about minimum wage or human rights violations) to support the rest of the economy on UBI.### Human: >If you can't see why that provides an incentive to stay poor under NIT, nothing will convince you. You literally have no idea how tax brackets or NIT work. Study the example I posted. >There would be no change to the existing tax structure, just the removal of existing welfare systems. Taxes would have to be increased dramatically if you would want to cover basic needs(rent, food, etc.), which I think is what people want. >Most proposals for UBI that I approve of center around the idea that inevitably robots will replace humans as the primary source of labor, so rather than taxing the rich it becomes possible to tax the money made from robotic labor (as the robots aren't going to complain about minimum wage or human rights violations) to support the rest of the economy on UBI. Who do you think owns the robots?### Assistant: >You literally have no idea how tax brackets or NIT work. Study the example I posted. Thanks for the well thought out rebuttal. Very high effort, Really convincing. How do you think tax brackets work? Please feel free to describe or define them as desired, and I will show you that the counter example I gave holds true for any NIT. >Taxes would have to be increased dramatically if you would want to cover basic needs(rent, food, etc.), which I think is what people want. Arguing against what you think BI is rather than the definition presented to you is not very convincing. >Who do you think owns the robots? Large publicly traded corporations or the government. Not rich individuals.### Human: >Thanks for the well thought out rebuttal. Very high effort, Really convincing. Look at the example I posted. The subsidy only affects money not earned under 30,000 and taxes only affects money earned after 30,000. Based on the numbers given there you get: * You make 29,999.00 After taxes you make 29,999.50 * Since you made 1 dollar under the tax exemption you get 50% of difference * You make 30,000.00 After taxes you make 30,000.00 * Since you made the tax exemption you don't pay taxes and you get no money back * You make 30,001.00 After taxes you make 30,000.50 * Since you made 1 dollar over the tax exemption you pay 50% of the difference in taxes. >Arguing against what you think BI is rather than the definition presented to you is not very convincing. Tell me what it is because everyone has a different definition >Large publicly traded corporations or the government. Not rich individuals. Individuals own companies. Individuals own stock in private companies. Unless robots controls the companies in which case why couldn't someone build robots to build everybody houses and make food for everyone?### Assistant: >* Since you made 1 dollar over the tax exemption you pay 50% of the difference in taxes. It is not feasible to have tax brackets break at individual dollar amounts. Hence the term brackets. Wherever you set the brackets you get the case I described above. A lack of understanding your example is not my issue. >>Arguing against what you think BI is rather than the definition presented to you is not very convincing. > Tell me what it is because everyone has a different definition In this case it's the replacement of welfare with a UBI. Doesn't effect taxes. Taxes are still handled separately. >Large publicly traded corporations or the government. Not rich individuals. >Individuals own companies. Individuals own stock in private companies. So? The current system doesn't eat the rich, why would UBI need to? > in which case why couldn't someone build robots to build everybody houses and make food for everyone? That's kinda the goal.### Human: >It is not feasible to have tax brackets break at individual dollar amounts. Hence the term brackets. Its a percent. http://www.thesimpledollar.com/dont-fear-the-higher-tax-bracket-or-why-a-reader-needs-more-cowbell/ Can you explain to me what you expect UBI to cover? I don't think we are on the same page.### Assistant: Ok. Let's look at my same counterpoint talking about percentages instead. Someone at the 30k line makes 30k and pays 0 in taxes, 0% of their wage. Someone at 130k makes 80k and pays 50k in taxes, 38% of their wage. For comparison the article you linked Caps out at 35% for those making 331k or more a year. That same person making 330k under your system only makes 180k and pays 150k in taxes. That's 45% (!) of their income. No country I've ever heard of has a 45% tax rate. It's unlivable. So at 130k I'm only making 100k less per year than someone with almost triple my salary, and only 50k more than someone with less than half. Not to mention this increases the tax load as now those below 30k are being paid. So people who otherwise wouldn't work now have a 30k per year salary to live on. With a salary like that for being unemployed there is a much smaller incentive to ever get a job. But doesn't UBI have this same problem you ask? No, because regardless of what kind of job you work it will never reduce the benefits you are receiving from the govt, where a NIT does scale negatively with money earned. This is an incentive to not make more money. As for the purpose of UBI it's to replace the current welfare system with one free of the current bureaucracy. Let the individuals decide in what manner the welfare helps them most.