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

[Ecurb]

Huh? They're not forced? Threats of fines or imprisonment are not force? Since when are "contractual agreements" entered into under duress --- threats of fines or imprisonment --- valid and binding on anyone?

And of course, no one needs anyone else's permission, or is obliged to satisfy any conditions dictated by third parties, to participate in an economy. You have an economy wherever you have 2 or more people willing to exchange goods or services. The only permission anyone needs is that of the person with whom you propose to trade.

You're ignoring the arguments above and grasping at ephemeral straws.

Well, you can put forth your "no third party" theories, but they are incorrect in every country ion the world. All employers and employees in the mainstream economic system are required to pay taxes, social security, etc. So any employee who works within the system knows ahead of time that he is contractually obligated to pay taxes, and (o0f course) his legal, contractual obligations are enforced by the authority and power of the state. You may object (indeed, you do object), but this "force" is equally in play for taxes of spent in ways of which you approve, and other taxes. Why should you decide how the money gets spent? And if the force is the same for collecting money for the military and for the indigent, why deplore one and not the other?

I'm not "grasping" at anything. I have a firm hold on my position -- unlike you.

[Ecurb]

you needn't answer my above questions. I know why you deplore one and not the other. However, I think your argument that taxes spent in ways of which you disaprove are "robbery", and those spent in ways of which you approve are not hangs on a shaky thread. The pacifist could make the same argument about military spending. The mandatory and enforced nature of taxation is the same for both.

[GE Morton]

Well, you can put forth your "no third party" theories, but they are incorrect in every country ion the world.

Huh? You're equating "not accepted" with "incorrect"?

All employers and employees in the mainstream economic system are required to pay taxes, social security, etc. So any employee who works within the system knows ahead of time that he is contractually obligated to pay taxes, and (o0f course) his legal, contractual obligations are enforced by the authority and power of the state.

Just ignoring my point that "contracts" entered into under duress are invalid (under common law) and not morally binding, eh?

You may object (indeed, you do object), but this "force" is equally in play for taxes of spent in ways of which you approve, and other taxes.

Er, no. The criterion for a justifiable tax is not whether I (or anyone) "approves" of it. It is whether the tax benefits the taxpayer. Ignoring that distinction also, eh?

*Sigh*.

Your "arguments" amount to nothing more than "might makes right" --- what has passed for morality for every gangster, plunderer, and warlord in history.

[Sculptor1]

It is logically impossible for God to have created people with omnipotence because there can only be one omnipotent being (lest you run into the immovable object/irresistible force paradox).

However, there isn’t anything illogical about making other omnibenevolent or omniscient beings.

Why did God not make humans omniscient and omnibenevolent to avoid the instantiation of evil and suffering? Why not make angels that way too (to avoid Satan existing as a deceiver)?

A few things to consider.

1) Evil is not removed by making a person, even all persons, omnibenevolent and omniscient. Cancer takes no prisoners.
2) If god is omnibenevolent and omnipresent then evil cannot exist. Maybe god is a fallacy. Just a thought.
3) If god is omniscient and omnipotent then he must have know from the beginning of time who would be evil and who would be good. And would have created them in that knowledge: who would die a sinner and who a saint. Evil has to be part of that design and god has chosen who will be damned. Free will also has to be illusory.
4) All these problems are answered easily enough with one thought.

[Good_Egg]

The criterion for a justifiable tax is not whether I (or anyone) "approves" of it. It is whether the tax benefits the taxpayer.

The way I read it, a justifiable tax is one where individual choice (to pay for a service) is infeasible. In other words to fund that which is inescapably a public good (in the economic sense - not just something that you approve of).

If individuals can feasibly choose whether to pay for more or less, or higher-quality or lower-quality, of a service, they should be free to do so, rather than compelled to pay for whatever quantity & quality the government thinks they ought to have or ought to want.

[GE Morton]

The criterion for a justifiable tax is not whether I (or anyone) "approves" of it. It is whether the tax benefits the taxpayer.

The way I read it, a justifiable tax is one where individual choice (to pay for a service) is infeasible. In other words to fund that which is inescapably a public good (in the economic sense - not just something that you approve of).

In economics a "public good" is one which is 1) non-rivalrous (it's use by one person doesn't preclude its use by another), and 2) non-excludable (there is no no practical way to exclude non-payers from using it).

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/public-good.asp

You have to avoid interpreting that phrase to mean, "Good for the public." "The public" is not a moral agent who can be benefited or harmed; it is simply a collective term for a number of individuals. Whether a tax imposed upon a given individual is justifiable depends upon whether that individual derives any benefit from the good or service that tax buys. For many public goods (as above defined) --- e.g., public sidewalks, a criminal justice system (police, prosecutors, courts), national defense --- it is impractical to charge each user for them at time of use. You can only pay for them via taxes. Also keep in mind that people can benefit from various public goods even if they don't personally use them. E.g., people benefit from an effective criminal justice system even if they never become victims of crimes or have any occasion to summon police --- because their risks of becoming a victim of crime are reduced.

[LuckyR]

Well, you can put forth your "no third party" theories, but they are incorrect in every country ion the world.

Huh? You're equating "not accepted" with "incorrect"?

All employers and employees in the mainstream economic system are required to pay taxes, social security, etc. So any employee who works within the system knows ahead of time that he is contractually obligated to pay taxes, and (o0f course) his legal, contractual obligations are enforced by the authority and power of the state.

Just ignoring my point that "contracts" entered into under duress are invalid (under common law) and not morally binding, eh?

You may object (indeed, you do object), but this "force" is equally in play for taxes of spent in ways of which you approve, and other taxes.

Er, no. The criterion for a justifiable tax is not whether I (or anyone) "approves" of it. It is whether the tax benefits the taxpayer. Ignoring that distinction also, eh?

*Sigh*.

Your "arguments" amount to nothing more than "might makes right" --- what has passed for morality for every gangster, plunderer, and warlord in history.

Please define "benefits".

[GE Morton]

Please define "benefits".

I assume the usual dictionary definition:

"Benefit (noun):

"1a: something that produces good or helpful results or effects or that promotes well-being : ADVANTAGE"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/benefit

You do, however, have to keep in mind that what constitutes "well-being" is subjective and idiosyncratic, varying from person to person. But assuming you know what a given person values, whether he has received a benefit is objective.

[Ecurb]

Er, no. The criterion for a justifiable tax is not whether I (or anyone) "approves" of it. It is whether the tax benefits the taxpayer. Ignoring that distinction also, eh?

*Sigh*.

Your "arguments" amount to nothing more than "might makes right" --- what has passed for morality for every gangster, plunderer, and warlord in history.

As ususal, GE, you are merely repeating yourself rather than arguing for your position. Of course if anyone agrees that:

If: "The criterion for a justifiable tax is not whether I (or anyone) "approves" of it. It is whether the tax benefits the taxpayer."

Then: taxes that fail in this regard are unjustifiable.

However, just repeating your idiotic position hardly constitutes an argument in its favor. I (and almost everyone else) do not agree with your criterion. Therefore, simply repeating it is not a reasonable argument as to why safety net taxes are unjustifiable. This is so obvious that it amazes me to see you contuing to adopt such puerile rhetorical tactics.

[GE Morton]

As ususal, GE, you are merely repeating yourself rather than arguing for your position. Of course if anyone agrees that:

If: "The criterion for a justifiable tax is not whether I (or anyone) "approves" of it. It is whether the tax benefits the taxpayer."

Then: taxes that fail in this regard are unjustifiable.

However, just repeating your idiotic position hardly constitutes an argument in its favor.

That comment was not intended or presented as an argument for that criterion for whether a tax was justified. I've given that argument many times before (and it really doesn't require much argument; it is self-evident). The statement you quoted above was a response to your mis-characterization of that criterion, namely, your statement, "You may object (indeed, you do object), but this "force" is equally in play for taxes of spent in ways of which you approve, and other taxes," where you assert my "approval" of the tax was the criterion.

The actual argument for the benefit criterion is obvious: it follows directly from the definitions of "injustice" and "steal":

"Injustice (noun):

"1: absence of justice : violation of right or of the rights of another : UNFAIRNESS"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/injustice

And "Steal":

1a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
b: to take away by force or unjust means
c: to take surreptitiously or without permission

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal

Suppose you receive a bill for $1000 from Behemoth Corp. for a Deluxe Super-widget. You have never ordered nor received any sort of widget from Behemoth Corp. You refuse to pay, and they threaten you with legal action. Would you submit to their threats, or tell them to go to Hell?

And, no, governments are not exempt from those ordinary moral constraints, and they cannot be overridden by fallacious ad populum arguments ("majority rule").

[Pattern-chaser]

"The public" is not a moral agent who can be benefited or harmed; it is simply a collective term for a number of individuals...

...who can be, considered as a group, collectively harmed, I think?

[Ecurb]

That comment was not intended or presented as an argument for that criterion for whether a tax was justified. I've given that argument many times before (and it really doesn't require much argument; it is self-evident). The statement you quoted above was a response to your mis-characterization of that criterion, namely, your statement, "You may object (indeed, you do object), but this "force" is equally in play for taxes of spent in ways of which you approve, and other taxes," where you assert my "approval" of the tax was the criterion.

The actual argument for the benefit criterion is obvious: it follows directly from the definitions of "injustice" and "steal":

"Injustice (noun):

"1: absence of justice : violation of right or of the rights of another : UNFAIRNESS"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/injustice

And "Steal":

1a: to take or appropriate without right or leave and with intent to keep or make use of wrongfully
b: to take away by force or unjust means
c: to take surreptitiously or without permission

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal

Suppose you receive a bill for $1000 from Behemoth Corp. for a Deluxe Super-widget. You have never ordered nor received any sort of widget from Behemoth Corp. You refuse to pay, and they threaten you with legal action. Would you submit to their threats, or tell them to go to Hell?

And, no, governments are not exempt from those ordinary moral constraints, and they cannot be overridden by fallacious ad populum arguments ("majority rule").

In my working career I used to hire sales people. "I'd be great at this job," they'd tell me in the interview. "I believe in your product, and I believe in my self! That's the key to being a good seller!"

Perhaps that sounds good, but it always made me nervous. I'd think, "Hmmm. I can think of other people who believe in their products and in themselves. There's the hack poet. He keeps sending his poems to poetry journal, and they keep rejecting them. But he won't stop because he believes in himself. There's the laetril pusher. He thinks laetril cures cancer. The doctors tell him it doesn't. The research doesn't support his opinion. But he believes in his product and in himself! Then there's the man in the insane asylum who thinks he's Napoleon. His family tells himn he's not Napoleon. His doctor tells him he's not Napoleon. But he believes in himself!"

GE is like Napoleon. He believes in his product (his philosophy) and in his ability to promote it. He thinks he can determine the reality of "justice" and "wrongfully" through the superstructure of his (sterile) philosophy. Then (like the Napoleon who won't listen to his family or doctors) GE deplores "fallacious ad populum arguments". After all, what do the doctors know? What do other philosophers know? GE has unshakeable faith in his product and himself.

But perhaps we can all learn something from other people (that darned "populum"). If every reasonable person thinks the world is round, maybe it is round. Maybe it's silly for flat earthers to call belief in its roundness a "fallacious ad populum argument". Maybe -- just maybe -- the populum is right and GE is wrong. It's worth considering, at least. If you're the only person in the world who thinks the earth is flat, maybe you should listen to others, instead of believing in yourself and your theory. Just an idea.

[GE Morton]

But perhaps we can all learn something from other people (that darned "populum"). If every reasonable person thinks the world is round, maybe it is round. Maybe it's silly for flat earthers to call belief in its roundness a "fallacious ad populum argument". Maybe -- just maybe -- the populum is right and GE is wrong. It's worth considering, at least. If you're the only person in the world who thinks the earth is flat, maybe you should listen to others, instead of believing in yourself and your theory. Just an idea.

That's it? No answer to the question, no rebuttals to the arguments, just a lengthy ad hominem and a defense of ad populum arguments?

[GE Morton]

"The public" is not a moral agent who can be benefited or harmed; it is simply a collective term for a number of individuals...

...who can be, considered as a group, collectively harmed, I think?

No, they can't be "collectively" harmed. Any harms will affect particular individuals. It is possible, of course, that some particular harm can befall all the members of some group, but the larger the group, the less likely that becomes. In groups larger than a few hundred people any public policy will benefit some, harm others, and leave others unaffected.

[Ecurb]

That's it? No answer to the question, no rebuttals to the arguments, just a lengthy ad hominem and a defense of ad populum arguments?

The only reasonable excuse for using the Latin ad hominem is to expose a fallacious argument. Since -- as you correctly point out -- I was writing a short essay instead of making an argument, the Latin is silly.

Yes, I did defend ad populum arguments. The extent to which internet philosophers obsess about "logical fallacies" is ridiculous. It is quite true that nothing is logically proven with an ad populum argument. But that doesn't mean that public opinion should be dismissed. The insane person who thinks he is Napoleon would do well to consider the fact that nobody else agrees with him. Same with the hack poet. Same with you.

You can only prove with logic what you already know without logic. That's because logical proofs are mere restatements of the postulates. When you (for example) restate silly postulates to claim that taxation is theft, your logic may be valid, but your conclusions are silly. That's why the vast majority of the "populum" disagrees with you. Instead of thinking (as you constantly say you do) that others don't understand YOU (mighty you), perhaps you should try to understand them. If you are adept at logic and language, you might even succeed. Instead, like Napoleon, the poet, and the quack, you simply double down and restate your position.