Why arguments are a waste of time

A lot of people I know complain about how difficult it is to change the minds of people who disagree with them, and they can get bogged down in logical arguments, the meaning of truth, moral debates, and what-not.

What I have noticed particularly among Republicans and conservatives is that they tend to forget that there is something much more powerful than any opinion, any logic, any principle (whether moral, legal, or religious), and that is simply economic self interest. To put it bluntly, when people are bought, opinions are irrelevant, and arguments are a total waste of time.

Mitt Romney is now in trouble with the left — nah, that’s an awkward way of putting it, for he is by definition in a constant state of trouble with the left no matter what he does. Nothing unusual or remarkable about it. So what I should say is that the latest reason the left is giving for their anti-Romney rage is a simple observation he made at a fund-raiser in May. The following is the text as edited by Mother Jones:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

[…]

[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

Here (from the supplied so-called “secret” video) is the unedited text of Romney’s remarks:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean the president starts off with 48, 49… he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. So he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich.

I mean, that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about these people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives. What I have to do is convince the five to ten percent in the center that are independents.

Whether it was smart for Romney to say that or not, he was simply remarking the obvious, which is that there is no arguing with people who vote their pocketbook. The tax-eaters can never persuade the taxpayers, and vice versa. Even the Thatcher argument that “eventually you run out of other people’s money” — that is only heard by an ever-dwindling base of the “other people” whose money it is.

The argument is somewhat complicated by the fact that in addition to the non-taxpayers, there are some taxpayers who don’t mind being the “other people” whose taxes fund the near-bankrupt system of entitlements, and they are the various government employees, plus employees who work in government-dependent companies. I don’t just mean the federal government; I also include school teachers, state government workers, public university employees, and an emerging class called home health care workers. Here in Ann Arbor where I live, a large number of people are professors, assistant professors, administrative support staff, custodial workers, etc. They, too, vote their pocketbook, and they are of course going to vote against whoever is perceived as wanting to reduce the amount of money they receive. They might not like higher taxes, but they are a lot more worried by people who want to cut the size of government than people who want to increase it, and if that means maybe raising their taxes, they’re totally OK with that. They are more willing to “give back” some of what they got than the small business types who went out and created their wealth through their own initiative. Even if they do the same work. A small private plumber or electrician is likely to feel very differently about his taxes than a guy who works as a salaried plumber or electrician for the University of Michigan. Hell, I see them on the road and they even drive differently; the private contractors jam on their way to work, while the guys who drive University trucks take their sweet-assed time, and now I’m ranting, and of course I should be made to apologize for what I just said.

Anyway, people just vote what is in their own economic interest, and you can’t get through to them. Don’t expect them to admit it, though. Fortunately for them, there’s a whole host of prepackaged issues they can say they care deeply about, and they’ll even argue over them. But spare me the arguments. Most people are simply out for themselves.

Libertarians like me just want to be left alone. And what could be more selfish than that?

UPDATE: It turns out that the Mother Jones “secret video” (which David Corn described as “complete”) is actually incomplete. One to two minutes of video are missing.

Via Glenn Reynolds, who adds,

Do not trust content from Mother Jones.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

25 responses to “Why arguments are a waste of time”

  1. TheAJ Avatar
    TheAJ

    A large number of those 47% are the retired, the elderly, or students. The rest are mostly low-income people. I know I know, I too dream every day of quitting my job to join the ranks of the non-income tax payers. If only I could have been born poor just for that opportunity to ride that welfare gravy train.

  2. John S. Avatar
    John S.

    Your comment does not speak to the point. The point is not whether the 47% non-taxpayers are bad people or lazy or idle or whatever. The point is that the non-taxpayers have “no skin in the game” when it comes to government spending and the corresponding increased taxation. Why should they? THEY don’t have to pay for it (and yet they still get to vote for more goodies from Uncle Sugar).

    It’s the same reason I like going out to dinner with my mom… I can eat at restaurants I could never afford on my own, and yet I don’t have to pay a dime for it. If I were the one paying, and she asked me where I’d like to go for dinner, I’d probably say “Denny’s,” which is within my budget. But since I DON’T have to pay, if she asked me where I’d like to go, I would instead choose to have cocktails and tapas at Devotay. (Just so I don’t sound like a completely awful person, my parents make literally ten times as much money as I do, and they happily treat me to dinner as often as they can–as a matter of fact, they have adamantly refused every time I have tried to pay. Plus, my mom LOVES going to new and fancy restaurants, so I usually don’t have to make any suggestions whatsoever. But the main argument still obtains.)

    Put simply, when everybody has skin in the game, everybody subsequently has an interest in making sure the government spends their money wisely and thriftily.

  3. TheAJ Avatar
    TheAJ

    John, are we really still here at this point? “Non-taxpayers?” These don’t exist. Everyone pays taxes of some form. It was used to defend Paul Ryan (his dad paid into Social Security, therefore we cannot criticize him for receiving the benefits).

    “Never mind how much his father paid in during his working lifetime.”

    http://classicalvalues.com/2012/08/my-ongoing-struggle-to-respect-idiotic-opinions/

    Your failure to understand that there is more than one tax out there. Your comment on not having skin in the game is a misconception akin to assuming that only stockholders have any vested interested in a company, neglecting bondholders, suppliers, or pensioners.

  4. Neil Avatar
    Neil

    AJ, while Eric perhaps technically misspoke by using the term “non-taxpayers” to refer to people who receive much more from government than they pay for, you are missing the point here.

    Romney didn’t say “non-taxpayer”, he said 47% pay no income tax. This is true. He did say, but it is a fact, that the majority of THOSE people receive enough in Earned-Income Credit refunds (or Social Security/Medicare, AFDC, unemployment, or food stamps) so that their tax bill is zero or negative, even including FICA.

    Romney’s point is that 47% receive enough net money from the government to make the unreachable by a pro-growth platform. That seems to be true.

    Oh, and Eric, I would include attorneys in your list along with government employees. More regulations means more work for them.

  5. TheAJ Avatar
    TheAJ

    Well, the mistake happened twice already, it sounds like some people are trying to get the meme to stick.

    Yes, Romney said the 47% who pay no income tax are the same 47% who think they are victims, entitled. The ironic part is that most evil bureaucrat government workers would not be part of this same 47%, since they do make enough income to pay income taxes. A large number of people who are not paying taxes are the retired, those 60+ and older.

    Romney is KILLING Obama in this demographic. He’s centered his entire campaign on ensuring that the elderly have absolutely NO skin in the deficit reduction game. Everyone single Republican proposal to reduce spending ensures that their target demographics are not harmed by the proposal. Remember, Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan was so awesome, that he ensured that no only would this generation of seniors not have to enroll in it, but neither would the next ten years worth of seniors. Is it any surprise that the most active “libertarians” are geriatrics who have already gotten “their’s” and take no responsibility for any of the governance of the last 30 years? And then they point to the 20 year old sophomore and say “you’re the problem.”

    This all makes Romney’s supposed point laughable.

  6. Sigivald Avatar
    Sigivald

    Note that “entitlement” is also a term of art in the context of benefits and government, and does not mean the same as “entitlement” in the psychological sense, though they are related (especially in that people who get the former tend to have the latter about it, even beyond the legal context).

    An “entitlement” is something one is owed by law.

    (Thus contra all the hysterical screaming I’ve seen in half-baked Facebook image shares for months, Social Security is obviously a damned entitlement, since one is entitled by law to one’s benefits.)

  7. Neil Avatar
    Neil

    AJ, how exactly does it disprove Romney’s point if he acts in a manner to try to peel off at least one segment of the 47%? Except, of course, that he obviously believes there’s at least a chance that they’ll vote for him–but can’t we give a politician just a bit of leeway for hyperbole?

    Personally, I’ve seen very few retired Libertarians. Do you have data to back up your statement? Don’t bring up the Tea Party, either. The entire point of the Tea Party can be summed up with the apparently-paradoxical sign I saw in a video, held by a 60+ year-old woman: “No Socialized Medicine! Hands off My Medicare!”

    Which, if you think about it, makes perfect sense–the idea is that government shouldn’t take on more responsibilities, because that would mean abrogating the fiscal commitments it has already made. Which is true. But it’s hardly libertarian thinking.

    Anyway, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make about libertarians–are you claiming that Romney is insufficiently libertarian, or are you saying that he is excessively libertarian, or are you just saying that anyone who disagrees with you needs to shut up?

  8. Will Avatar
    Will

    “arguments are a total waste of time.”
    But folks go at it tooth and nail anyhow.

  9. Kathy Kinsley Avatar
    Kathy Kinsley

    The more I read stuff like this, the more I want to go re-read Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers.”

  10. […] Stupidity: Again Posted on September 18, 2012 7:30 pm by Bill Quick Classical Values » Why arguments are a waste of time Anyway, people just vote what is in their own economic interest, and you can’t get through to […]

  11. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    You can find AJ’s talking points at http://dailykos.com and at http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/

  12. Bram Avatar
    Bram

    I find it impossible to talk to liberals. Their mindset and basic assumptions are just too different.

    I find it very easy to talk to conservatives and push them down the road towards libertarianism. We have many of the same assumptions, I only need to point out the obvious failings of big government and the lack of any solution offered by “moderate” Republicans.

    I know I’m not making new Gary Johnson voters, but I hope that I can help make the GOP an actual conservative party.

  13. Bobnormal Avatar
    Bobnormal

    I need a job, I’m on food stamps, I’m a Conservatarian, never voted Dem, never will.
    People need to understand guys like me would rather work than be on the Dole, I have NEVER been out of work for 2 years in a row, til next month, 10-11-10 last day I worked,
    🙁
    Bob

  14. Bobnormal Avatar
    Bobnormal

    And I live with my Mother in Law at age 49,
    That’s just fucking sad,
    Bob
    She is 74, I’m 49

  15. Will Avatar
    Will

    At least some of the elderly and working poor caught in the dependency machine are aware of how it works. The more government “gives”, the more the costs grow for what is given, the less grow jobs, wages, and savings, and greater grows the power of the dependency machine.

  16. […] Why arguments are a waste of time […]

  17. chocolatier Avatar
    chocolatier

    Eric – I think you are being overly harsh on the 47% that get moola from the government. That figure includes, for example, veterans of the Iraq war who had their legs blown off by I.E.D.s. Yes, they get monthly checks from the V.A., usually for life, and they believe, as Romney puts it, that ‘the government has a responsibility to care for them’, but I think that nearly everyone in the U.S. feels the same way. Don’t you?

  18. Eric Avatar

    Yes, I think the government has a responsibility to care for veterans of the Iraq war who had their legs blown off by I.E.D.s.

    Did I imply otherwise?

  19. Eric Avatar

    Arguments about who pays how much to whom and how fair any of that is miss my point — which is that people vote their economic interest and that arguments are therefore a waste of time.

  20. Bob Smith Avatar
    Bob Smith

    I should point out that, contrary to a previous poster’s assertion, government employees do not “make enough money to pay taxes” because they do not pay taxes in other than a nominal sense. Getting paid by government and then paying that same money back to government is no more the payment of a tax than the Social Security Trust Fund is the holder of bona fide debt.

  21. TheAJ Avatar
    TheAJ

    Neil: “AJ, how exactly does it disprove Romney’s point if he acts in a manner to try to peel off at least one segment of the 47%? Except, of course, that he obviously believes there’s at least a chance that they’ll vote for him–but can’t we give a politician just a bit of leeway for hyperbole?”

    Peel off the 47%? He lumped them together. I already peeled off the 47%, you ignored it. The 47% is mostly seniors, students and poor people who still go 1/3 for Romney. I earned $1700 working at Macy’s for the summer while in school and didn’t file taxes. I have safely moved up multiple brackets since then. I guess back then I was just safely tucked away, riding the welfare gravy train, waiting for the entitlements to roll in. I don’t care about tax rates but I planned on earning $1,700 forever! No, its not possible that one would move up the ladder with age, schooling and experience!

    Personally, I’ve seen very few retired Libertarians. Do you have data to back up your statement? Don’t bring up the Tea Party, either. The entire point of the Tea Party can be summed up with the apparently-paradoxical sign I saw in a video, held by a 60+ year-old woman: “No Socialized Medicine! Hands off My Medicare!”

    The tea party is the most influential small government movement out there. Now we’re dismissing them, they don’t count?

    “Which, if you think about it, makes perfect sense–the idea is that government shouldn’t take on more responsibilities, because that would mean abrogating the fiscal commitments it has already made. Which is true. But it’s hardly libertarian thinking.”

    Neil, Medicare spending is not a fiscal commitment. Neither is Social Security Benefits cant be adjusted as the government pleases. It doesn’t matter whether you are 66 or 18. Your future benefits are not guaranteed. It is not a securitized bond. I don’t know if its “hardly libertarian thinking” or not but today’s batch of libertarians doesn’t really care much about it. I’ve seen a bunch of them say we should reduce the debt to “save our kids’ futures” but just shoulder shrug at the fact that benefits for these children will be cut, even though they will continue to finance current benefits.

    Anyway, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make about libertarians–are you claiming that Romney is insufficiently libertarian, or are you saying that he is excessively libertarian, or are you just saying that anyone who disagrees with you needs to shut up?

    Its a critique of libertarians, and a critique of Romney’s statements. I don’t remember telling anyone to shut up, was this just a reading comprehension issue?

  22. TheAJ Avatar
    TheAJ

    “I should point out that, contrary to a previous poster’s assertion, government employees do not “make enough money to pay taxes” because they do not pay taxes in other than a nominal sense. Getting paid by government and then paying that same money back to government is no more the payment of a tax than the Social Security Trust Fund is the holder of bona fide debt.”

    Congratulations, you have just managed to place retirees, contractors, employees of construction companies, doctors, the military and just about anyone who has been “paid” by the government into the 47%. Now there’s an election strategy.

  23. Frank Avatar
    Frank

    AJ’s talking point above – “Non-taxpayers?” These don’t exist. Everyone pays taxes of some form. – is an echo from toadies on the left like Andrew Sullivan:
    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/its-not-just-income-taxes-mitt-ctd.html

    All the rest of his criticisms are culled from the same talking points sent out by the Obama campaign that dailykos, huffpost, and Sullivan feed their readers.

    If it quacks like a troll it probably is one.

  24. Bob Smith Avatar
    Bob Smith

    “Congratulations, you have just managed to place … into the 47%.”

    Their economic ignorance is not my fault.