What Are Liberal Values?

[Martin Hash]

Foreign Policy: avoid foreign entanglements, targeted strikes
Government: truly socialize 5 essential services: protection (military, police, safety), healthcare, contracts (judicial system), social-safetynet & environment - otherwise private enterprise, oversight
Economics: Keynesianism, inheritance taxes, progressive tax brackets
Legal System: democratic process, Rule-of-Law, decriminalize drugs
Social: live & let live, embrace science & technology
Illegal Immigrants: path to citizenship (added 6/18/12)

Here are my personal detailed liberal values:
My Personal Values

[Stephen mosier]

Martin,

I followed your link to your detailed liberal values and found many that we agree on, at least on the surface. But, as Ross Perot was fond of saying, “The devil is in the details.”.

Of the groupings you have above, I think I understand what you mean in most cases. But I am interested in why you hold these as values. For instance, I would like to know why you support progressive tax brackets, particularly in light of a “classless society” being a value on your detailed list. Do you not see a conflict of ideas in those two values? By assigning some individuals into one group of taxpayers and others into other groups, have we not forced a division of classes upon society?

[Martin Hash]

Progressive Taxation:
Since most people understand economics even less than genetics, I trot out something they DO know...
Every kid played Monopoly until they learned that somebody always got everything and they always got nothing. (Unless you were the winner - then you ALWAYS wanted to play - like me!) Real life economics is JUST LIKE MONOPOLY - if you don't redistribute the money - game over. It's NOT a matter of liberty, or fairness, or principle, or class, or any philosophical babble - as a CPA I simply see it as ACCOUNTING.

And here's my take on inheritance taxes:
Inheritance Taxes

[Stephen mosier]

Real life economics is not just like Monopoly. Monopoly is a game of chance. Real life economics is not. In Monopoly, there is no possibility to create new property nor to adjust the value of the property that does exist, nor to adjust the rents received. In fact, Monopoly is a better model of a centrally planned economy (with no economic growth) than a free-market-economy.

Moreover, the game was designed for one player to win and for everyone else to loose. As a CPA you know that economics is a science. It does not care about winners or losers. Those who learn the science and work hard achieve more than those who do not. That is the natural order of things and socialists interfering to level the playing field ultimately makes it more difficult for those who do not know how to achieve than it hampers those who do. As Abraham Lincoln said, you don’t help the poor man by hampering the rich man. (Not exact quote.)

Finally, your simply declaring that progressive taxation is not a matter of liberty does not make it the case. It is an infringement of liberty for the government to take what you have lawfully earned and give it to me simply because you are in a different economic class than I am. In doing so they have created a distinction between your class and my class. It is also a matter of principle. The principle is simple—they have it—we need it—let’s take it.

[Martin Hash]

The fact that you're arguing economics with me implies that you know what you're talking about? If that is not true, let's stop now but if you wish to discuss the subject, I have provided some links below to get the debate started:

Monetarism:
Monetarism
Milton Friedman
Supply-Side Economics Requiem

Economics:
Economics

And a link I have provided before but is worth reiteration:
Stimulus Spending

And please don't compare a government's economics with balancing a home budget - it's embarassing.

[Stephen mosier]

Martin, As I said before, I am not an economist, but I do have some commonsense.

May I call your attention to Monopoly game you compared to real live economics in another post? If at the beginning of the game, the Bank (analogous in this case to the Government) had no money to give out to the players, then the game could never get started. So it is with Government, except that in real life the Government really does-have-NO-money to give out to get the economy started. It has to take money in the form of taxes from all the players first--then give the money back to the players in the form of stimulus. Except that government does not give the money back to the same people that it took the money from. Therefore, what has actually occurred in the transaction is not economic stimulus but wealth redistribution. If you want to make an argument that wealth redistribution is good and necessary then do so. But don’t try to sell it as “economic stimulus” which it isn’t.

And why can we not compare government budgeting to family budgeting? The head of every family is responsible for the best interests of everybody in the family, just as you say the Government is responsible for everybody’s best interests.

Do you really think the Government is looking out for Mitt Romney’s best interest in forcing him to pay more than $8200 in Federal Income tax each and every day of the year? I don’t. I think the politicians are looking out for their own best interest in using Romney’s money to buy votes for themselves. Or is it just that they don’t have to look out for Romney’s best interests because he is in a different class than other Americans? But then isn’t that creating a class-based society? I think so.

[Martin Hash]

Stephen, if the major difference between you as a Conservative and me as a Liberal is our respective understandings of economics, it would be unproductive to continue this particular economic debate until you are more versed in the subject. (I know this from experience.)

[Stephen mosier]

I will respond to your post of April 24, 2012 2:07 AM. , where you wrote, “The fact that you're arguing economics with me implies that you know what you're talking about? If that is not true, let's stop now but if you wish to discuss the subject, I have provided some links below to get the debate started:”

Please notice that your first sentence reads like a statement but ends with a question mark. Was that a typo or did you mean it as a question? Then your second sentence says , “If that is not true…”. If what is not true? That I don’t know what I am talking about? If it is not true that I don’t know what I am talking about—then by implication I do know what I am talking about, so, why should we stop the discussion now? And if I do want to continue the discussion why must I jump to five different editorials to determine how to continue the discussion? Can you not just address the points I have raised here, directly, on this thread where everybody can readily follow the discussion?

The fact is, that we are not arguing economics—we are arguing tax policy. Progressive taxation to be specific, and its relationship to the creation (or evolutionary development) of a social class system. And I need not be an economist to understand the effect of various forms of taxation upon not just the economy but society in general as well. You still have not given an explanation of your views on that.

Next, the fact that I said I am not an economist does not mean that I know nothing about economics. According to the credentials you have mentioned you are an accountant. Which is not the same as an economist. Accountants (and I do know some very good ones) deal with account records, spreadsheets, numerical balances and so forth but are not necessarily experts on the economy or on economic policy. Some don’t even know the difference between socialism and fascism let alone Keynesianism from the Austrian school. By your stated preference for Keynesianism I assume that you do. If not, then let me know and I can provide you with some very good study material to bring up to speed.

In the meantime, I would still like know where you think the government gets the stimulus money from before the government uses that money to stimulate the economy. Please let me know whether you prefer to respond to that question here or if I should go back to the editorial on Stimulus Spending to find it.

[Martin Hash]

Stephen, you have rejected my "Monopoly" analogy, and you have rejected my explanation of stimulus spending, and you have rejected Keynesian interpretation of Government spending as a loan that must be repaid, and you have rejected the economic impact of huge Trade Deficits, and you implied CPAs were glorified bookkeepers, and that "common sense" and squishy Con Law were all you needed for a robust economic debate - then you compared Government spending to Home budgets...

Frankly, from my experience with this kind of exchange, there's no place to go from here. You will say "uh,uh" and I'll say "uh, huh" back and forth forever.

[Stephen mosier]

I understand what you are saying Martin, but I had hoped that this discussion might go beyond each of us merely stating our views and the other saying, “Oh, I see.” I and hoped that we might actually challenge each other to defend the reasons we hold certain views and values. As I have said earlier, I would like to understand not only what you believe but why you believe it. I believe the best format for that kind of exchange to occur is for each of us challenge the other and to both respectfully answer the challenges. You, on-the-other-hand, seem content to just make assertions without any supporting arguments, and then dismiss my challenges as me being argumentative. If that was all you intended then my response to your laundry list of issues that you are important should have not gone beyond the point in my first response where I wrote, “Nice List.” And the discussion might as well have ended there.

Now, at the risk of seeming argumentative, I have to ask—How do you know, “You will say "uh,uh" and I'll say "uh, huh" back and forth forever.”? I believe you said elsewhere that Liberals don’t believe anyone can predict the future. (Just kidding—you don’t have to answer that.)