As a template for teaching liberals how to successfully argue with “deranged conservatives,” Professor Pinhead chooses estate taxes to illustrate for his fellow travelers the oddball nature of how we think.
Tipster Harbqll says:
I actually feel more stupid having read this goober’s drivel.
My favorite part is where he actually tries to argue that the idea “stealing money benefits the thief” is a valid argument for death taxes.
Wait until you read this fantasy world this moron has concocted.
It’s as if he’s flipped the entire script. He’s accusing conservatives of everything the left is guilty of.
(Emphasis in bold is mine.)
Wapo-
Liberals, in particular, are often astonished at the seeming indifference of their opponents toward facts and toward the likely consequences of political decisions.
A common, though apparently ineffective, response to this frustration is to double down by discussing more facts.
…maybe the issue is not conservatives’ ignorance of facts, but rather a fundamental difference of values.
If good outcomes result from a policy without many negative consequences, then the policy is a good one.
…much conservative normative reasoning is about procedures rather than consequences.
As an example of how these value differences might matter more than facts, consider the example of bequest taxes, labeled “estate taxes” by liberals and “death taxes” by conservatives. A liberal might invoke various empirical facts: Bequests are very unequally distributed (more so than income or even wealth), bequests primarily benefit those who are already rich, the intergenerational correlation of economic status is very high in the United States and partly driven by bequests,
The liberal has stated facts, so we should stop the presses?
Stating the “facts,” which I’m not disputing, no one is, is somehow the prelude to winning the argument?
Rich people have more money to bequeath. And??
You see, to a liberal, stating this fact just won the argument, because no one should have more than another person.
DONTCHA GET IT???? CAN’T YOU SEE THE FACTS, YOU DUMB CONSERVATIVE!!!!!???!!!!
The conservative addressee of these facts might now just shrug her shoulders and say “no thanks.” Our conservative likely believes that everyone has the right to keep the fruits of her labor, and free contracts of exchange between any two parties are nobody else’s business. She will consider someone who has worked hard their whole life, has been frugal and saved their income rather than indulging in consumption, and has raised children to whom he or she intends to pass on the product of his or her achievements. Such a person has lived the model of a moral life. Taxing bequests thus means punishing moral behavior, the exact opposite of what the government should do. And no empirical facts regarding the distribution of bequests or their responsiveness to policy changes affect this assessment in any way.
You haven’t made an argument, you pinhead. Just stating that people with money can bequeath more than poor people is NOT AN ARGUMENT. It is, as you so incontestaby put it, a statement of fact. And my answer to your factual statement is — SO?
Exasperated, the liberal empiricist then bemoans the post-factual state of contemporary political discourse. What else does she possibly need to do beyond a plausible empirical analysis of both the status quo and of the outcomes of relevant policy counterfactuals?
How about making an argument as to why the government is entitled to a private citizen’s previously taxed savings?
How about arguing why someone who has led a debt free life, wishing to provide for their loved ones, should have it taken away in the end? Explain why people in debt should be given the debt-free guy’s money.
Also, tell me again how conservatives don’t think about consequences? Tell me again how your policy of death taxes wouldn’t lead to people acting differently about their money if they knew it would be taken by the government when they die.
Perhaps they would consume it recklessly? Is this the goal?
Tell me again why the kids of deadbeats shouldn’t be held responsible after the deadbeats’ death, but somehow the kids of responsible parents are on the government’s hook?
Yeah, that truth and logic are a real bitch!
It’s always about stealing someone else’s wealth with out concern about where it came from, what it was being used for or if it would be wasted if it was confiscated.
Did They Ever Learn Strategies of Making Money, and The Cyclical Multiplyig Of Money In An Account ? I Doubt it , And That’s Unfortunatly Going to Be How it is Now That They are Adults !!!
I would weigh in on this but it would not be wise. So I’ll do it any way
2 identical twins, brothers with identical backgrounds and athletic skills. One puts his nose to the grindstone. One is compelled toward debauchery, shunning his talents for pleasure.
One makes millions and is sensible enough to squirrel some away for his later years. At some point one lives a decent home. One wallows homeless in a gutter.
Fairness would dictate that bro 1 would give half of his hard earned assets to bro 2.
This illogic goes nowhere.
The single most fundamental failure of statists and collectivists of all kinds is their repudiation of property rights. To them, I don’t own myself, I don’t own my income, I don’t own the things I buy with that income, I don’t own the things I create with my own labor and ingenuity. They don’t even comprehend the meaning of “own.”
Until this changes, there’s no point in attempting to debate them on any topic at all that has to do with the relationship between individuals and the society they live in, and the govt that presumes to wield power over them.
In the liberal world emotions = facts.
And actual facts = “Just shut up, you hater!!! Look everyone, he’s a Nazi hater!!!”
Tax me once, shame on you, tax me twice…FUCK YOU!
Liberals are terrible at arguing because they don’t have any explanation beyond their talking points, and they never really expected to be challenged to begin with.
“How can a woman make 75 cents for every $1 a man makes and the company not get sued?”
“If they do the exact same job, yet the man has 10 years seniority, is that still unfair? Explain.”
(crickets, crying, stomping away in disgust)
Warren Buffet made a large portion of his money buying at a great discount businesses who’s owners had to sell for estate taxes. How is that fair?
Arguing with progtards is basically arguing with a group of morons who were brought up to think they were as smart as Einstein, and who think a “debate” is just group intimidation tactics to ram their opinions down everyone else’s fucking throats.
I actually have a perfect example from today. The Economist wrote an article about the mindnumbingly stupid decision by the UK to ban all gas and diesel vehicles by 2030. They do this even though the following is true, and is likely to not change anytime soon:
1. Electric vehicles rarely have a range over 300 miles.
2. It takes at least 1 to 5 hours to recharge an electric vehicle.
3. There is no evidence, the electrical grid will be ready for even 10% of the cars on the road to be electric, much less 100%.
Just imagine driving cross country with a 300 mile range with 1 to 5 hours to recharge. Most people would fucking kill themselves first.
Of course, the progtards immediately came out telling me how stupid I was, the usual pack attack crap those gutless fucking cunts always engage in. But I kept challenging them to prove the logistics of 10s of millions of people using electric cars using only what technology they knew existed right now. Every one of them based their argument that somehow it is destined that the charging time problem will be solved and that batteries would become cheap and longer lasting… sure havn’t up to now after 30+ years of concerted effort to solve those problems.
Progtards are assholes, and their pursuit of their bullshit utopia is going to fuck things up for everybody. And you just know in 2030, when UK traveling gets completely fucked up by their gas/diesel ban, those fuckers are gonna make a carve-out in the law for the rich and the well connected; so they can use gas and diesel. That is how every fucking progtard deals with the issue when their utopian bullshit runs in to rock hard reality, i.e. just allow themselves to break the fucked up rules they made for everybody else.
Seriously, progtards are a sociopolitical virus, and they will one day need to be eradicated like a fucking virus before they send us all back to the fucking dark ages.
Liberalism.
It is a mental disorder.
Envy is their constant state of being.
It’s all rooted in juvenile jealousy. Somewhere back in their childhood some other kid had a toy they wanted but didn’t have. They spend the rest of their lives trying to even the score. They don’t even understand why they think the way they do. I have pointed this jealousy aspect out to several of them and it raises their ire but never spurs any introspection.
Even the more articulate ones if confronted with logic, will begin raising their voice, and dodge and divert to muddy the subject. It’s feelings not facts.
The only thing I’ll give the good “Perfesser” credit for is being able to raise Stupid to a science and actually making a living at it!