Violence

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Michael, Feb 24, 2012.

  1. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No Michael, you've already said that taxes are ok, now you're just quibbling about the manner in which they are collected.

    We understand your point Michael, you want more REGRESSIVE taxes so you can stick it to the people less able to pay.

    No Michael, your "structural change" of doing away with the major PROGRESSIVE portion of our tax system, the income tax and instead getting the revenue for our roads, police, schools, military, scientific and regulatory needs via Sales, Excise and Use taxes, is highly Regressive.

    Most people think that's less fair, since those who have plenty extra income don't pay a high percent of their income in that tax structure, so Michael, it's only "fair" if you think getting roughly the same percent from the Rich as you do the Poor is fair.


    Yes, I like the fairness inherent in a Progressive tax system

    Different issue, and one no one is suggesting.


    And once again, you always have to go to the logical fallacy of Reductio ad absurdum, to try to make your point, but it's called a "logical fallacy" for a reason Michael.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

    So no Michael, you haven't won the debate.
    You've yet to make a convincing case that, regardless of the tax rate, we should abandon our Progressive system in favor of a much more Regressive system like you propose.

    What is most telling is in your replies you have consistantly ignored this key issue.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Um, I'm sorry Arthur but Reductio ad Absurdum is formal logic and a legitimate argument. It follows the following form: If the premises are assumed to be true it necessarily leads to an absurd (false) conclusion and therefore one or more premises must be false. If you can show I have abused this style of argument in some manner, make the case, because I do not think I've stretched the logic

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Let's try this again.

    Do you agree that the initiation of force against someone is immoral?


    Example #1:
    Jim is a apple farmer. He grows apples and sells them. Jane wants an apple. Jim says he'll trade an apple for a kiss. Jane says no, but, she still wants an apple. Jane gets her brother who tells Jim to give his sister an apple or he's going to kick the shit out of Jim. Jim says no. Jim gets the shit kicked out of him and his apples stolen.

    Was the initiation of force against Jim immoral?
    Was Jim wanting a kiss for an apple immoral?
    Was Jane convincing her brother to kick Jim's ass immoral?


    Example #2:
    Steve makes $100K per year selling 'spiritual advice' he essentially makes up by telling people about their "past lives" and the stars in the sky. He has a disclaimer that says: Anything I tell you could be complete BullShit. The town Steve works in think he's milking people out of their money. They pass a regulation that says anyone selling 'spiritual advice' must give up 30% of their total income to the Town to redistribute back into the community as the Town Committee sees fit. Steve refuses to give any money back. He's put in jail and rots there until the day he dies.

    Was Steve immoral in selling 'spiritual advice'?
    Was Steve's customers immoral in paying him for it?
    Was the Town Committee immoral in initiating a fee against Steve's business?
    Was the Town's people immoral in electing a Town Committee who promises to get 30% of Steve's money out of him.
    Is it Steve's money?
    Is initiating force against Steve immoral?


    Example #3
    Jane lives in a city and makes $250K per year as a doctor caring for cancer patients. She is a renown surgeon and often the ONLY person in the country who is competent to do the surgery. She performs her work at 50% the price normally charged if she discovers the patient has little income. Yet, due to new Federal Law and the fact she makes 250K per year, she is forced to pay 80% of her income in tax. She flatly refuses to do so. The city sends police to her house and she's put in prison. Every year she's in prison, it's estimated 10 cancer patients die from lacking her surgical skills.

    Is Jane's refusal to pay 80% of her income immoral?
    Is the initiation of force against Jane immoral?
    Is the resultant death of 10 patients a year an immoral act?

    Example #4
    Kim works as a prostitute and makes $10 million a year. Which is legal. A new Mayor is elected and She passes a new regulation banning all forms of prostitution. Kim refuses to follow the ban. Kim is put in prison by the police.

    Is Kim immoral?
    Is Kim's work immoral?
    Is the Mayor acting immoral?
    Is the law banning prostitution immoral?
    Is the imitation of force against Kim immoral (putting her in prison)?



    How do we answer these questions? The only way possible and to be consistent is to have a logical framework and life philosophy that outlines what is and is not moral. You can't look at each case and make up shit as you go along. You say: ALL initiation of force is IMMORAL and THEN you go back and look at each case and decide who initiated force against whom.


    Once you understand that, then you can start to think about how competing currencies are of benefit to society. If you can't even get to the point were you understand what is and is not moral, how the hell are you going to form an informed logical rational opinion on something like money?
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2012
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No Michael, I'm not going to debate your absurd story lines as they serve no purpose, life and society aren't encompassed by your reduction of our lives to these overly simplistic examples.

    You conveniently leave out the impact of the societal base that allows any of these stories to play out, and it is that societal base that our taxes fund.

    You also ignore the fact that no one is forced to live in a given society and can choose to leave if they want to. What you want to claim is that one should be able to stay and reap the benefits of a society but only obey those rules/laws one agrees with.

    Finally, you've yet to make a convincing case that, regardless of the tax rate, we should abandon our Progressive system in favor of a much more Regressive system like you propose and what is most telling is in your replies you have consistantly ignored this key issue.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.

Share This Page