From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR PAYCHECK DAMMIT!!!
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 18:52:51 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.174710.20465@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.191758.24936@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug10.171033.24637@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>>>You assume these are the only two choices.  How about: the rich get
>>>rich at a slower rate while everyone else gets rich at a faster rate?
>>
>>I agree that there are several possible things, but I'm only interested
>>in the "correct" choice between two of them.  That's why I asked my
>>question, the question that's been ducked.
>
>Ducked?  Nonsense.  Have you stopped beating your wife yet?  No, you
>can't say that you don't beat your wife, that isn't one of the
>choices.  Logical fallacies DESERVE to be 'ducked'.

"Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is a reasonable question in
some circumstances, even though McCall wants to reject it because it
is unreasonable in others.  Unless McCall is going to present evidence
that alternatives I excluded are ALWAYS possible, there's nothing
"logically" unreasonable about my question.

As to whether or not it's reasonable in this situation, feel free to
present evidence showing that the excluded alternatives are possible
in this situation.

>When you try to manipulate the results by being selective with the
>question, the appropriate response is to answer "bad question" rather
>than respond to the choices offered.

I'm not trying to manipulate the results.  I'm trying to figure out if
Democrats are more interested in inequality or in absolute wealth
levels for the poor.  The relevant question is one that gives them a
choice.

Some people have ranked the two goals.  Others have objected to the
idea that the two goals can ever be in conflict.  That position
requires evidence.  Meanwhile, others have raised "logical" arguments
against the question that aren't logical.

>>Reality doesn't always give us a choice between "good" and "bad";
>>sometimes we have to choose between two "bad" things.
>
>Reality is not subject to two-value Aristotelean logic.  This has been
>recognized for hundreds of years.  Not black and white, but shades of
>grey. 

Not so fast.  I'm perfectly willing to acknowledge the possibility
that the decision between the two may be made using other factors,
but you don't get to claim that we can always choose a free lunch.

>Your question doesn't even answer the question you claim to be trying
>to answer.  To answer that question, you would have to ask whether it
>is better for the rich to get richer, the poor to get richer, and the
>gap increase; or is it better for the rich to get poorer, the poor to
>get richer, and the gap to decrease.

No wonder McCall is having problems; he doesn't understand the
question.  Inequality is a relative measure.  It can change even
though no one becomes poorer on an absolute basis.  That's why my only
reference to the wealth of the rich was relative.  McCall's question
introduces a third factor, the absolute wealth level of the rich.  If
he's interested in that question, he can ask it; I didn't because I'm
not.

>Your question is phrased to yield either that the Republicans are
>'right' or that the old canard about 'we can all be poor together' is
>desirable.  Either way, it's a silly question to even address.

If the question points out that an emphasis on inequality over other
factors is "silly", it isn't the questioner's fault.  If Democrats
don't like the consequences of that emphasis, they can refuse to make
that emphasis.  Is that really an unreasonable burden?

I'm not pushing "Republicanism"; I'm asking Democrats about their
priorities.  (Unlike many people, I don't think that "proving" the
Democrats/Republicans "bad" or "wrong" makes the other party "good" or
"right".)  This election cycle they're talking about making the tough
choices; I'm asking what they'd do if faced with a particular one, one
that includes an issue that they talk about quite a bit.

>>We know that we can increase the gap and increase the wealth of the
>>poor.  
>
>How do we know this?

We've done it over long periods of time.  The average poor person
today has far more wealth than those a few decades ago, and the gap
has increased during that time.  (Whether or not we've done so in the
past 12 years is irrelevant to the claim.)
>>I'm willing to assume that we can decrease the gap while we
>>hose the poor.
>
>Why are you willing to assume this, but not other things?

Well, we have examples.

>>If you've got a "proof" that we can always
>>both decrease the gap AND increase the wealth of the poor, then my
>>question is artificial (which doesn't mean that it is irrelevant), but
>>if you don't ....
>
>Consider it proven by history.

"Once" (or even "many times") doesn't prove "always".  "Every time
we've tried" would be a good start, but then we'd get into an argument
over what constitutes trying.  (For example, feel free to argue that
the Repubs haven't tried, even though they've failed.)

>>Why is it so hard for Democrats to choose between
>>evils, to either agree or say "we'd rather increase equality than help
>>the poor absolutely"?
>
>It's not hard.  It's pointless.  There's quite a bit of difference
>there. 

It's pointless?  Democrats live in a world where there's no reason to
make choices?  Are there no choices between evils in that world, or is
there something else special about that world?

-andy
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu