Re: Sleeping in Light
- From: dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Andre Lieven)
- Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 17:14:54 +0000 (UTC)
"Carl" (cengman7@xxxxxxxxxxx) writes:
> "Andre Lieven" <dg411@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dlm7f9$n83$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> Ultimately the problem is that the definition of "Fair" is always
>>>>>>>> arbitrary.
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> Good laws cannot be made on arbitrary definitions.
>>>>
>>>> <laughs> Now, you've added another purely *subjective* term as a
>>>> distraction away from the failed claims of " objective fairness " in
>>>> buying books on the Internet...
>>>
>>> Actually, I was speaking more generally and wasn't even thinking of
>>> buying books on the internet (which I do often).
>>
>> Well, this whole debate started from Mox insisting that the prices
>> on an out of print B5 paperback novel were " unfair "...
>
> Hmmm. Unfair to Mox.
Irrelevent. Hes NOT a party to any such transaction.
Is it " unfair " that there is only one original Mona Lisa, while its
highly likely that theres more than one rich person coveting it ?
> Ok. Not unfair to the two parties involved I assume.
If it were, as Amy well pointed out earlier, then the party viewing
the transaction as such, would NOT be willing to enter ito it.
> Opinions obviously vary. Not having the entire thread
> to review, was Mox suggesting any particular course of action because
> of this perceived unfairness?
Well, he whined about government policies that he felt ought to create
more " fairness " in the marketplace. Sans any specifics.
>> Several of us pointed out that when the demand for an out of print book
>> is higher than the supply, the price will go up.
>>
>> And, that " rarity " is fluid, in the following manner:
>
> <snip>
>
> That's pretty much the case for the principle of "Supply and demand."
Which is precisely the point that many people, myself included, made to
him, and which he, again and again, railed against.
> <snip>
>
>>>>> Would it be "Fair" to say every citizen has the same dollar amount in
>>>>> tax burden every year? Yes,
>>>>
>>>> No, because the ASSumption behind that judgement would be that everyone
>>>> also made/had around the same amount of money *and* income. Since thats
>>>> clearly untrue, any suggestion made on it's basis is equally untrue.
>>>
>>> No...it would be fair (note, I'm not saying correct) because such a
>>> system would make no assumption whatsoever.
>>
>> Incorrect. That system *would* make an assumption, that all have equal
>> resources and incomes. As facts show that such an assumption is absurdly
>> wrong, it then logically follows that any structure built on such a
>> fallacious base, must also fail.
>
> Not at all. It wouldn't assume equal incomes any more than a grocery store
> assumes equal income when it charges the same price for Doritos.
Its considered as a cornerstone of modern western political philosophy
that, whatever private business does, that the public sphere should hew
to the medical oath of " first, do no harm ". So, its not relevent to a
gas station how much income you, V/ Bill Gates, make, as they'll sell you
both a gallon for the same price.
But, the public sphere does carry a *higher* moral obligation, because, if
you find gas prices too dear, you can choose not to buy. Ditch the car,
walk, take a bus, use a bicycle, whatever.
But, as the public sphere *does NOT allow you to avoid paying taxes*,
then it logically follows that tax policy MUST consider ability to pay,
in a manner that a private seller needen't do.
> Clearly in the case of taxes you couldn't make the poor pay the same
> amount, but that doesn't make it "fair" to make some people a lot more,
No, it does. Since in this case, " fairness " is satisfied by a policy
that, while it takes more from those who have more, it leaves all above
the poverty line, if they were anywhere above it in the first place.
> often to pay for
> services that they will never utilize while others pay nothing.
Non sequitur. In a mass society, this happens all the time. Should non car
owners, for example, be allowed to not pay into highway tax funds ? But,
they don't drive a car on the roads themselves, the trucks that bring
goods to market that they do but, DO...
> I would have called
> it "Just" but having been corrected, I will simply call it compassionate
> that society does take care of the poor.
I, and Pierre Trudeau, would use both terms. See " The Just Society ".
> At the same time, rather than a single percentage, the rich
> pay a disproportionate (and therefore arbitrary or punitive) tax rate.
Why not ? The already possess a *disproportunate ( And, therefore,
arbitrary and punitive ) amount of wealth*.
Is it " fair " that CEOs can set not only their employees pay scale, but
*their own*, too ? Whats *that* worth ?
>>>>> everyone would be treated equally, and therefore fairly.
>>>> Only if " equally " were a synonym of " fairly "...
>>>
>>> So a fair referee in a sports event is free to be biased against either
>>> team team?
>>
>> Different situation. Application of the rules evenly, while meeting a
>> test of fair, does NOT demand that both teams recieve equal amounts of
>> penalties, *if their penalisable behavior is unequal*.
>
> Application of the rules evenly is the key.
Indeed. And, requiring everyone to pay X% on the first $50,000, and X%+Y%
on the next $50,000 is even application of the rules. QED.
> Or is greater income to beconsidered "penalizable behavior?"
No.
>>> Or is the contention that laws need not be fair?
>>
>> Ask yourself this: Are you for equal opportunity or equal results ? Both
>> cannot co-exist, among populations of people who vary as much as humans
>> do.
>>
>> For instance, " fairness " would demand that we not bar blind people from
>> driving cars, and bar short people from playing in the NBA...
>
> Or, "fairness" might demand that everyone on an NBA team be exactly the
> same height.
And, that form of " fairness " DENIES human variations in existance and in
choices.
> Perfect example of how the concept of "fair" should not be used
> to create policy.
Thats the exact argument *against* your flat tax scheme...
>>> It is precisely when you start treating people differently in the
>>> interest
>>> of fairness that you get into trouble...everyone has a different idea of
>>> what's fair (which usually involves the notion that someone else has
>>> to give up something) and then (coming full circle to where I entered)
>>> things get arbitrary.
>>
>> Thats why you treat people as equals in matters of in front of the law,
>> while allowing for differences when it comes to matters like
>> percentages of incomes taken in taxes, as there, people are not equal.
>
> I've never suggested that people that make more should not pay more
> (my example was simply a discussion of the nature of the word "fair")
In this area, " fair " is satisfied by setting up taxes such that no
added dollar earned will cost you an added/more than an added dollar in
taxes.
> however...I would prefer that there not be a point (any point) where
> the tax codes says "you've made more than we like, so we're going to
> tax you disproportionatly."
Please prove that the Tax Code says this...
No proof offered ? ASSuming false claim fails.
Andre
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Sleeping in Light
- From: Carl
- Re: Sleeping in Light
- References:
- Re: Sleeping in Light
- From: Carl
- Re: Sleeping in Light
- Prev by Date: Re: how big?
- Next by Date: Re: Sleeping in Light
- Previous by thread: Re: Sleeping in Light
- Next by thread: Re: Sleeping in Light
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
