A Civil Debate

I have a friend I know through work. He is a talented artisan, a veterinarian, a Texan and a conservative. We like each other a lot and enjoy our debates about politics. We agree on a few things but for the most part, we are head to head! His name is Chris also, which makes this a little confusing.

Point is, that though it may be impossible to talk to most members of the opposition, it’s beneficial to know someone I can talk with who doesn’t agree with me. I think these conversations help keep me authentic, sharp and informed about the other’s views.

So, after Trumps tax bill passed, I posted on Facebook: 

“Class warfare anyone?”

Chris was right on it…

Chris, your comments about the tax bill were as expected, but have you studied the actual provisions much? I honestly cannot see where anyone other than those paying more than $10,000 a year in state and local taxes would pay more. Even Democrats admit that a lower corporate tax rate will help the economy and boost job growth. There is no doubt that the 70% of Americans that don't itemize their deductions will pay less tax. I really want to understand where the problems are for you. Please educate me on the left-wing objections. All I am hearing sounds like the same line of "attack on the middle class" that I always hear. Honestly that stuff is like water to a duck's back to the American people. They have heard it so often that it is meaningless.

I replied:

I don't think you and I can reconcile the idea that tax breaks are good for the economy (vs. government spending is good for the economy). There is evidence that both are true. Keynesian economics has guided us through some of our most prosperous periods. But who benefits when the economy is humming? Trickle down theories are downright empty.

There is, of course, a philosophical divide about the role of government. Some believe the government should primarily serve to open and support the influence of entrepreneurs (sometimes regardless of their size). They want hands off of business so that the "wealth expanding magic" of free enterprise can do its work. On the other hand, many count on government to represent the majority of citizens who do not have the financial means to directly influence the direction our world is headed in. The people, via its (hopefully) democratically elected government, needs social, regulatory and infrastructure programs to balance against the inequalities that capitalism thrives on. These tax breaks will bankrupt those programs. Education, the environment, public health and much more are left to the whims of the market, the unreliable generosity of the rich and few fleeting openings of opportunity. Capitalism is reliant on a working class that fights with itself instead of its own interests and is desperate enough to accept the low wages that ensure a generous return to stockholders. Turning the working class's well-being and prosperity over to the private sector, which more and more exists outside the influence of democratic institutions that would curtail or harness it for the well-being of the lower classes, is asking the private sector (and corporations in particular) to operate against their own self-interest -which is chiefly to generate profit. So you see, for many of us lunatic pinkos, this tax bill looks like robbery.

And Chris replied:

Ok, Chris, I think you are correct. We won't be able to reconcile your view of a few people in government knowing better how to spend people's money than those that earn it, with mine, which is exactly the opposite. I know you see it differently, but to me it is totalitarianism (your view) vs freedom (my view).

Here’s what I said:

I will concede this, Chris. My view, which is based on the ideal of greater equality and freedom from the threat of poverty, looks like freedom ONLY if our democratic institutions are very strong. I think you agree that our elections are too much influenced by special interests (lobbyists, unions etc) but especially be PACs and corporations. It is well documented that most Canadians and Europeans do not experience public health programs as 'totalitarianism' despite the higher tax rates that pay for it.

Chris from Texas said:

Any form of taking hard earned money from one person, and arbitrarily giving it to someone else is totalitarianism. We need some taxes. We need a federal government. We just don't need a few individuals deciding who has the right to be rich, and who is poor. If you think you can do away with income inequality - that is not reality. We are all not equal. We are very different.

And I wrapped up with:

I agree about equality. I just want to do away with the extremes of lack and excess. Oh and by the way, you wacko right winger, I totally appreciate your open questioning, your tone, your intelligence and your passion. It's a pleasure debating you and I might even be learning something! Have a very Merry Christmas, my friend, I can't wait to see you in Anaheim!