Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[GE Morton]

The Waltons (who own WalMart) amassed their massive wealth by locating their stores on cheap properties on the outskrits of towns. The infrastructure provided by the state was the hidden cost of their venture, for which they did not pay. Without support for the auto industry and massive spending on public roads, WalMart could not have existed. The same is true for most large companies. Could Ford motors exist without government spending on roads?

That is false. Walmart and every other business pays huge local tax bills, which pay for roads (That is why many local jurisdictions offer incentives for such businesses to locate in their communities). The annual local taxes are also a factor determining the value of the property and thus the price a purchaser pays for it.

And, of course, with respect to auto companies you have it exactly backwards --- the cars came first, the roads later. The Ford Motor company's products drove the growth of the Good Roads movement in the 1920s. The demand arose from users of Ford's products, not from the company.

Aren't all of our computer companies beholden to NASA?

That is absurd. NASA played virtually no role in the development of computers. Nor did any other government entity. The microprocessor (the CPU in personal computers) evolved from an early integrated circuit chip developed by Intel, under contract with a Japanese manufacturer of transistor radios, as a controller for a clock radio. The radio company ended up not buying the chip, so Intel put it on the market as Part #4004. Tinkerers discovered the chip, which was programmable and had 4 -bit registers, could be used as 4-bit computer CPU. Within a few months Intel released an 8-bit version, the Intel 8008. That was the world's first microprocessor.

The rich are inevitably the beneficiaries of government services, directly or indirectly, and they should pay more taxes than anyone else (and a higher percentage).

Yes, they should pay in proportion to the benefit they receive from those services. But they have no duty to pay for services benefiting someone else.

[Ecurb]

The government has no business supplying anyone with milk, or any other private good, precisely because it can only do so by taking the money by force from the people who earned it --- i.e., stealing it.

If you can't afford milk for your children you should:

1. Not bring children into the world unless you can support them;

2. Improve your skills so you can start a business or earn a salary that will enable you to support them;

3. Appeal to family, friends, or charities for assistance. If you are seen as deserving someone will help you.

Robbing someone at gunpoint, or having the government do it, is not a morally acceptable solution to your problem.

I don't think the starving children had much say about whether they were "brought into the world". Besides, we're a rich country. There's plenty for everyone. Why make a fuss about doling out some milk to needy kids?

I'm happy to pay my share -- and I'm happy to force you to pay yours! You are able to earn money only because of the laws and infrastructure of the state. So pay your share!

[Ecurb]

Yes, they should pay in proportion to the benefit they receive from those services. But they have no duty to pay for services benefiting someone else.

They have a legal obligation (duty) to pay for whatever services the government decides to spend tax dollars on. I'm surprised you didn't know this. (I'll grant that rich people are pretty good at finding loopholes.)

[Ecurb]

That is false. Walmart and every other business pays huge local tax bills, which pay for roads (That is why many local jurisdictions offer incentives for such businesses to locate in their communities). The annual local taxes are also a factor determining the value of the property and thus the price a purchaser pays for it.

And, of course, with respect to auto companies you have it exactly backwards --- the cars came first, the roads later. The Ford Motor company's products drove the growth of the Good Roads movement in the 1920s. The demand arose from users of Ford's products, not from the company.

That's irrelevant to my point. Tax dollars fund the infrastructure that makes these companies lucrative. The demand for roads from drivers drove the creation of new roads, which fueled car sales (obviously). Even if we want to abide by your ludicrous system of "fairness", we should recognize that it's complicated.

[GE Morton]

I don't think the starving children had much say about whether they were "brought into the world". Besides, we're a rich country. There's plenty for everyone.

The country is not a collective, and whatever wealth may be found in it does not belong to any collective. It belongs to the persons who created it.

I'm happy to pay my share . . .

A "share" is an individual portion of the cost or yield of some collectively owned good. Since personal problems are not collective problems (by definition), no one has any "share" in it except the person whose problem it is.

. . . -- and I'm happy to force you to pay yours!

Well, of course you are, as is every robber, thief and mugger walking the streets.

You are able to earn money only because of the laws and infrastructure of the state. So pay your share!

As I said, I'm happy to pay my share of the costs of government services from which I benefit. I have no "share" in any other endeavors the government may undertake.

[GE Morton]

They have a legal obligation (duty) to pay for whatever services the government decides to spend tax dollars on. I'm surprised you didn't know this. (I'll grant that rich people are pretty good at finding loopholes.)

Oh, of course they have a legal obligation. But this is a debate concerning a moral question, and legal obligations are arbitrary and morally irrelevant.

[Leontiskos]

If you mean everyone pays $20,000, I certainly don't think that's fair.

If you mean everyone pays 20%, that's better.

If you mean everyone pays 20% on everything over the first $20,000, then that's pretty good.

In these cases you are talking about fairness, which is an appeal to justice. Rights are also an appeal to justice. What you don't seem to perceive is that these appeals to justice are different kinds of appeals than your other claims, which are appeals to need or charity.

Everyone agrees that it is fair to pay for what one receives, and thus taxes are fundamentally fair. Arguments about progressive versus flat tax rates are often also arguments over what is fair and just.

But when you say that everyone should get a house you are no longer appealing to fairness or justice. In that case you are instead establishing a principle based on need or charity.

Now, you agreed with me when I said that theories of rights must be putatively normative for all in the society. It is vacuously true that justice claims are more easily argued than charity claims. It is much more obvious that someone should pay for what he receives than that someone should gives houses to others. I think you need to separate these two conceptually different appeals, which you are conflating. Pay attention to when you are appealing to justice and when you are appealing to charity. They aren't the same thing, and classical rights are grounded in justice, not charity. Equivocation between the two has been a big problem in this thread.

[GE Morton]

If you mean everyone pays $20,000, I certainly don't think that's fair.

If you mean everyone pays 20%, that's better.

If you mean everyone pays 20% on everything over the first $20,000, then that's pretty good.

In these cases you are talking about fairness, which is an appeal to justice. Rights are also an appeal to justice. What you don't seem to perceive is that these appeals to justice are different kinds of appeals than your other claims, which are appeals to need or charity.

Everyone agrees that it is fair to pay for what one receives, and thus taxes are fundamentally fair. Arguments about progressive versus flat tax rates are often also arguments over what is fair and just.

But when you say that everyone should get a house you are no longer appealing to fairness or justice. In that case you are instead establishing a principle based on need or charity.

Now, you agreed with me when I said that theories of rights must be putatively normative for all in the society. It is vacuously true that justice claims are more easily argued than charity claims. It is much more obvious that someone should pay for what he receives than that someone should gives houses to others. I think you need to separate these two conceptually different appeals, which you are conflating. Pay attention to when you are appealing to justice and when you are appealing to charity. They aren't the same thing, and classical rights are grounded in justice, not charity. Equivocation between the two has been a big problem in this thread.

Well said, sir.

[mystery]

The government has no business supplying anyone with milk, or any other private good, precisely because it can only do so by taking the money by force from the people who earned it --- i.e., stealing it.

If you can't afford milk for your children you should:

1. Not bring children into the world unless you can support them;

2. Improve your skills so you can start a business or earn a salary that will enable you to support them;

3. Appeal to family, friends, or charities for assistance. If you are seen as deserving someone will help you.

Robbing someone at gunpoint, or having the government do it, is not a morally acceptable solution to your problem.

I don't think the starving children had much say about whether they were "brought into the world". Besides, we're a rich country. There's plenty for everyone. Why make a fuss about doling out some milk to needy kids?

I'm happy to pay my share -- and I'm happy to force you to pay yours! You are able to earn money only because of the laws and infrastructure of the state. So pay your share!

If someone does not agree they should be forced, doesn't sound good ??

This outlines one of the core issues within all issues. Why is it ok for a male and female to go have a good old lust time together and they have no accountability for the children they and only they create? Irresponsibility to the extreme.

But it's ok, we women can force other men that are not involved in any way to pay for this by shaming them; while continuing to have a good old time with the losers.

Why o why would women choose men to procreate with that have no intention and or ability to take care of them. I guess single mothers are increasing in percentage so this issue is accelerating. The more that the state pays for this, the more it will happen.

The answers are well known, but the question is still interesting and very relevant especially when we insert the concept of needy children. Why do we have a needy child is a reasonable question?

Everything cycles back to only a few key issues that we(humans) refuse to address.

[LuckyR]

The government has no business supplying anyone with milk, or any other private good, precisely because it can only do so by taking the money by force from the people who earned it --- i.e., stealing it.

If you can't afford milk for your children you should:

1. Not bring children into the world unless you can support them;

2. Improve your skills so you can start a business or earn a salary that will enable you to support them;

3. Appeal to family, friends, or charities for assistance. If you are seen as deserving someone will help you.

Robbing someone at gunpoint, or having the government do it, is not a morally acceptable solution to your problem.

I don't think the starving children had much say about whether they were "brought into the world". Besides, we're a rich country. There's plenty for everyone. Why make a fuss about doling out some milk to needy kids?

I'm happy to pay my share -- and I'm happy to force you to pay yours! You are able to earn money only because of the laws and infrastructure of the state. So pay your share!

If someone does not agree they should be forced, doesn't sound good ??

This outlines one of the core issues within all issues. Why is it ok for a male and female to go have a good old lust time together and they have no accountability for the children they and only they create? Irresponsibility to the extreme.

But it's ok, we women can force other men that are not involved in any way to pay for this by shaming them; while continuing to have a good old time with the losers.

Why o why would women choose men to procreate with that have no intention and or ability to take care of them. I guess single mothers are increasing in percentage so this issue is accelerating. The more that the state pays for this, the more it will happen.

The answers are well known, but the question is still interesting and very relevant especially when we insert the concept of needy children. Why do we have a needy child is a reasonable question?

Everything cycles back to only a few key issues that we(humans) refuse to address.

I agree with you on the irresponsibility label. Though that label does nothing for the needy child who is already here. It sounded like you were supposing that cutting off support for needy children would be a deterant against future needy children, is that right?

[mystery]

The government has no business supplying anyone with milk, or any other private good, precisely because it can only do so by taking the money by force from the people who earned it --- i.e., stealing it.

If you can't afford milk for your children you should:

1. Not bring children into the world unless you can support them;

2. Improve your skills so you can start a business or earn a salary that will enable you to support them;

3. Appeal to family, friends, or charities for assistance. If you are seen as deserving someone will help you.

Robbing someone at gunpoint, or having the government do it, is not a morally acceptable solution to your problem.

I don't think the starving children had much say about whether they were "brought into the world". Besides, we're a rich country. There's plenty for everyone. Why make a fuss about doling out some milk to needy kids?

I'm happy to pay my share -- and I'm happy to force you to pay yours! You are able to earn money only because of the laws and infrastructure of the state. So pay your share!

If someone does not agree they should be forced, doesn't sound good ??

This outlines one of the core issues within all issues. Why is it ok for a male and female to go have a good old lust time together and they have no accountability for the children they and only they create? Irresponsibility to the extreme.

But it's ok, we women can force other men that are not involved in any way to pay for this by shaming them; while continuing to have a good old time with the losers.

Why o why would women choose men to procreate with that have no intention and or ability to take care of them. I guess single mothers are increasing in percentage so this issue is accelerating. The more that the state pays for this, the more it will happen.

The answers are well known, but the question is still interesting and very relevant especially when we insert the concept of needy children. Why do we have a needy child is a reasonable question?

Everything cycles back to only a few key issues that we(humans) refuse to address.

I agree with you on the irresponsibility label. Though that label does nothing for the needy child who is already here. It sounded like you were supposing that cutting off support for needy children would be a deterrent against future needy children, is that right?

Lucky, glad you asked.

I would like to have full DNA testing of each birth and biological parents held accountable for the expenses of any child. Lots of details that can be churned about in that but the high-level idea is to have BOTH men and women involved with creating a baby be responsible. This is different than most of my opinions. Usually, I default to freedom and law of the jungle, baby is a special case. The key is the DNA testing and proper identification of biological parents. This will solve many many issues in our social fabric, including properly identifying those responsible for any child.

If the biological parents can not or will not, some measures should be taken to ensure they do not have more children. This is again in my opinion a case for castration of the male that is identified by detailed DNA testing. If the male is dead and the female needs help that is a special case for more consideration(widow), if the male is alive he should be responsible and the female should have the same treatment as him about the issue, meaning she shall be punished also for selecting a man that does not take responsibility.

The children shall be taken care of. The next stop for responsibility and funding is the clan or greater family of the DNA-tested father and mother. Not sure the pattern of exact responsibility, but we can construct that from the available clan members. At the core, this is a family issue where proper learning and training do not occur. The clan shall ensure the members do good for this issue. If we have a guy that is going around knocking up women and dumping them he shall be modified so it can not be. If we have a woman allowing such a man she also shall have the same treatment albeit the female version.

Ultimately it will be the state and from common tax. Not very often, however, as usual, the clan has someone with the ability.

It is wrong for a stranger to be held accountable to pay for the irresponsible behavior of a random female that chooses to allow irresponsible men. Ultimately we will for the child, but let's first go much harder against the issue and the cause. Women who allow or encourage men that are irresponsible about this.

"But but.. mystery, the guy is so hot and my status will be increased in the social circle if I let him. Who cares if a needy child is a result."

I don't let the guy off the hook either, castration is a serious result. But we need the DNA testing of every birth. The women that allow and encourage the men are equally guilty in an equal world.

[chewybrian]

Everyone agrees that it is fair to pay for what one receives, and thus taxes are fundamentally fair. Arguments about progressive versus flat tax rates are often also arguments over what is fair and just.

But when you say that everyone should get a house you are no longer appealing to fairness or justice. In that case you are instead establishing a principle based on need or charity.

I don't see that a line is crossed. It's all about deciding what is fair. It seems you have no problem paying taxes to fund a fire station. In a sense, this could be said to be unfair to someone who prefers to keep the tax money and take the risk of losing their house in a fire. But, we decide that the risk of fire is rather random. It could happen to anyone, so we should protect everyone. When a fire occurs, we don't stop to decide if the owner took proper precautions to prevent the fire before deicing to put it out. May I assume you don't believe fire protection is unfair?

When someone is homeless, though, you (evidently) presume that this is a reflection of poor character and that they are a victim of their own laziness. I submit that homelessness could happen to anyone. Just as the fire may be more like based on the actions of the homeowner, so homelessness can be a greater risk based on the choices and behavior of the individual. But either way, trouble can find you. You can be hit with a mental or physical illness or lose your job unexpectedly. Just as we don't stop to judge the actions of the homeowner before putting out the fire, so we should not try to judge the homeless man before acting to end the problem of his being homeless.

I think there are several cognitive biases in play in your assessment of the situation of the homeless man (I don't mean to say that you are somehow weak, by the way; we ALL suffer from many cognitive biases). Using the illusion of objectivity, you assume you can look at their plight and understand it when you clearly can't have all the facts. You don't know how much effort they put forth, or how you might have responded if you had the same opportunities and abilities and faced the same circumstances they faced. With the fundamental attribution error, you assume agency in all their actions. You attribute poor choices to poor character. In fact, though, people of both good and poor character tend to make similar choices when faced with similar circumstances. Finally, the confirmation bias will cause you to tend to accept ideas that confirm your preconceptions about homelessness while ignoring ideas that go against your beliefs.

I know I am drifting around a bit, but this is a complex issue. It is not a simple thing to make the case that it is just or fair to provide housing for people. You have to step back and examine the world from a different perspective to see that it could or should be so. In other words, your logic is sound, but it means nothing unless I accept the implicit assertions that underlie it. If I make a different assertion at the bottom of the pyramid, as I did above, then the logic that stacks on that assertion leads to different conclusions about what is fair.

We have the means, so this is not a wild idea or an undue hardship on the rest of society. We need only see that it could happen to us, just as surely as you can see that your house might be the one to catch fire. Then, it becomes a different issue requiring a different response.

[Belindi]

Let’s say I cannot afford to buy milk for my children; if I leave the supermarket with milk, thanks to the services of a government program, how will I be able to pay taxes in the amount of the milk-service I received? How does the milk program not go broke?

The government has no business supplying anyone with milk, or any other private good, precisely because it can only do so by taking the money by force from the people who earned it --- i.e., stealing it.

If you can't afford milk for your children you should:

1. Not bring children into the world unless you can support them;

2. Improve your skills so you can start a business or earn a salary that will enable you to support them;

3. Appeal to family, friends, or charities for assistance. If you are seen as deserving someone will help you.

Robbing someone at gunpoint, or having the government do it, is not a morally acceptable solution to your problem.

1. Some people have not been taught this. The fault lies with insufficient public education.

2. With best efforts and the best will in the world sometimes the work is not available.

3. Simply untrue!

[Pattern-chaser]

Now, do you think it makes sense for the working man to pay 200 times the rate in taxes as the billionaire? Do you think that is fair?

Taxes pay for government services. A fair tax is one per which each taxpayer pays in accordance with the value of the government services he receives, just as you pay for anything else. If you leave a supermarket with a case of beer, you pay for a case. If you leave with a 6-pack, you pay for a 6-pack. I.e., you get what you pay for and pay for what you get.

So you seem to recommend (?) that only the rich can benefit from government services, because only they can afford to pay for them? Those who could really do with some help and support - 'the poor' - could not get it under the system you describe. This would result in government not offering social or medical services of any kind, because there was no market for them. Add to this that the truly prosperous don't want government services, because they can already afford to buy whatever services they need. It sounds like a recipe for no government services at all?

[AverageBozo]

Let’s say I cannot afford to buy milk for my children; if I leave the supermarket with milk, thanks to the services of a government program, how will I be able to pay taxes in the amount of the milk-service I received? How does the milk program not go broke?

The government has no business supplying anyone with milk, or any other private good, precisely because it can only do so by taking the money by force from the people who earned it --- i.e., stealing it.

If you can't afford milk for your children you should:

1. Not bring children into the world unless you can support them;

2. Improve your skills so you can start a business or earn a salary that will enable you to support them;

3. Appeal to family, friends, or charities for assistance. If you are seen as deserving someone will help you.

Robbing someone at gunpoint, or having the government do it, is not a morally acceptable solution to your problem.

This is your solution??

The government shouldn’t. The individual should. Government is thievery.