Justifications

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ned


Huh? Person A is taxed at 10%. Person B is taxed at 50%. How are they not be treated differently?

Both are taxed, first of all, and both have the right to vote to elect people who promise when in power to change the tax code, which is the only equality that matters.

You almost sound socialist: given current tax law, it is the rich that in general pay less of their income in taxes, and this means ALL taxes, including fees, levies, sales taxes, and payroll taxes, NOT only income, oh, and some of them get to incorporate themselves, and thus deduct their expenses pre-tax, if they can afford good lawyers. That ain't equal either.

So when do you join the communist party?

[David Floyd]

So when do you join the communist party?

Obviously when the communist party comes out in favor of a flat tax

[GePap]

They do, no tax=flat tax set at 0.

h, and how come conservatives on;ly want a flat tax on income? I say, flat payroll tax as well!

[David Floyd]

They do, no tax=flat tax set at 0.

That's a new one on me. I wasn't aware that "mainstream" communism equaled Ramo-esque Anarchism Lite.

[GePap]

In the end state of communism there can be no taxes (since there is no state), so yup, rate at 0 accross the board.

The rich can afford better lawyers to find loopholes: no one who is in the top income bracket goes broke from taxes, unless they happen to try to stiff the IRS what is owed and get caught years later. So when a poor slob can afford johnny cochran to come get them pout of a jam speak to me about the poor rich paying more income tax..... and since that will never happen, no need to listen for the impossible!

[David Floyd]

The rich can afford better lawyers to find loopholes: no one who is in the top income bracket goes broke from taxes, unless they happen to try to stiff the IRS what is owed and get caught years later. So when a poor slob can afford johnny cochran to come get them pout of a jam speak to me about the poor rich paying more income tax..... and since that will never happen, no need to listen for the impossible!

Fortunately I too support a 0% tax rate, so this argument is of limited value. I'm not going to argue too loudly in favor of a system I oppose

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap


Both are taxed, first of all, and both have the right to vote to elect people who promise when in power to change the tax code, which is the only equality that matters.

You almost sound socialist: given current tax law, it is the rich that in general pay less of their income in taxes, and this means ALL taxes, including fees, levies, sales taxes, and payroll taxes, NOT only income, oh, and some of them get to incorporate themselves, and thus deduct their expenses pre-tax, if they can afford good lawyers. That ain't equal either.

So when do you join the communist party?

The people who end up paying the most taxes are the middle class. They rich have their shelters. The poor no taxes and all sorts of benefits. The middle class pay - and vote Democrat thinking, somehow, that that benefits them. Idiots.

Just because we live in a system where the majority can rape the minority does make rape right. I would prefer to pass a constitutional amendment banning progressive taxation and estate taxes.

[Elok]

Originally posted by GePap
How can there be an infinite number of falsehoods without an infinite number of truths as well? If things are either or, how can there be a large number oif lies? One choice is correct, one false. If you begin to state that there are many flase, what justifies saying there is only one true?

Simple, really. This sort of claim is made all the time, in the form of, say, the people who say all religions are a load of crap and there is no god. Which is to say: No God=true, Jesus=false, Shiva=false, Allah=false, Great Monkey King Wokkawukka=false...for every correct statement, there are legion ways you can either say something just slightly inaccurate, interpret the facts incorrectly or make invalid assumptions, or just wilfully seek ignorance and state the exact opposite, or, or, or, or, or-even the number of ways you can screw up isn't really limited to a set list. Either/or is definition on the terms of presumed truth as opposed to something else, in terms of critical thinking style.

[lord of the mark]

how about good ole kant.

I want to steal bread to feed a starving child.

Can i will it to be a universal law. What if everyone stole from the rich when they saw a starving child? Could they achieve their intentions? Probably. Now what if everyone stole whenver they wanted to satisfy ANY desire (eg sweet tooth) could THAT be achieved? I doubt it, since then the person who stole, would have the item immediately stolen back, in a perpetual war of all against all. And so would fail to satisfy his sweet tooth. Ergo the person who steals to satisfy a whim, is implicity arbitrarily privileging himself, saying my END justifies MY means, even though I know that i will achieve my end ONLY if everyone else refrains from acting as I do. While the person who steals bread for the starving child does not do so.

Now there may be pragmatic and other reasons not to steal bread for starving children, but a moral distinction can be drawn with other thefts.

[Ned]

One of the revolutions brought about by Jesus Christ was the concept that rich people owed a duty of charity to poor people to see that they had basic essentials. Catholic charities have existed since, haven't they? There is no need for the poor to steal to feed their kids. So the premise of need is false. All the theft does is damage the baker and his family while not advancing any societal benefit.

I have no idea what was going on in King John's England to justify Robin Hood. However, the principle that theft is moral when the theft is of the rich for the poor is false. It is used to justify much of the liberal agenda.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned
One of the revolutions brought about by Jesus Christ was the concept that rich people owed a duty of charity to poor people to see that they had basic essentials. Catholic charities have existed since, haven't they? There is no need for the poor to steal to feed their kids. So the premise of need is false. All the theft does is damage the baker and his family while not advancing any societal benefit.

Yup, Associated Catholic Charities, a United Way Agency.

I took it as the basis of the question that there WERE starving children, ie in some particular situation charity was not working. Thus that this was a philisophical question, not public policy one.

From a public policy point of view one might ask if the net number of starving children goes down when govt programs replace or supplement private charity. Or related impacts for other programs. But I think the starting question of ends justifying the means was more basic then that.

By the way, i would point out that for several hundred years of the common era, the rich stole from the poor, and lots of poor people starved, despite attempts by the catholic church to encourage charity. Across time and space the RC church varied from being seriously a voice for the poor to a happy member of the landed establishment. So the notion of poor people starving is by no means an academic one, in the history of Catholic europe.

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark



Yup, Associated Catholic Charities, a United Way Agency.

I took it as the basis of the question that there WERE starving children, ie in some particular situation charity was not working. Thus that this was a philisophical question, not public policy one.

From a public policy point of view one might ask if the net number of starving children goes down when govt programs replace or supplement private charity. Or related impacts for other programs. But I think the starting question of ends justifying the means was more basic then that.

By the way, i would point out that for several hundred years of the common era, the rich stole from the poor, and lots of poor people starved, despite attempts by the catholic church to encourage charity. Across time and space the RC church varied from being seriously a voice for the poor to a happy member of the landed establishment. So the notion of poor people starving is by no means an academic one, in the history of Catholic europe.

Yes, the Catholic Church did get too much involved in politics and the more they did the more they strayed from their original message that championed the poor and promoted equality because all men were "created equal" in the view of the Lord.

We should be forever grateful that the basic principles of Jesus Christ were enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and in the basic concept of human rights. I can hardly imagine what the world would be like without JC.

However, his message seems to have been perverted in a subtle way by the left. Christ spoke of charity. The left speaks of theft. There is a difference.

[tanelorn]

If theft is the appropriation of property, I think that the term property calls for some contemplation first. For example, what makes my loaf of bread mine? Suppose I stole it, is another person justified if he steals it from me (or in fact if he actually steals it back from me) for whatever reason. What makes something mine?

Example:

In an article I read recently, a Bosnian pimp demanded compensation when the police disbanded his business and released the girls he owned. He, as a businessman had made an investment and paid for them, so in his view he owned the girls (worforce) and the profits from their labor, because the initial capital was his. The police who had up to then been in his payroll (and so had to protect the "system") stole his loaf of bread and he rightfully wanted his money back...

It is a matter of semantics aswell. Just change pimp for loaf owner, girls for loaf, police for loaf thief, children for families, society etc.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ned


Christ spoke of charity. The left speaks of theft. There is a difference.

do we know what Christ spoke of? Caritas is latin. The hebrew word normally translated as charity is Tzedakah, which also means justice or righteousness. There is an implication that its not only an obligation on the part of the giver, but almost a right on the part of the receiver. Look at laws in the hebrew bible on the poor. The poor are entitled to the gleanings of the field. If a poor person enters a field to glean, without asking for permission, are they theives? Apparently not.
And the jubilee year requires the cancellation of all debts - as an obligation, not as a voluntary act of love. Biblical judaism at least has the seeds of a more "leftist" social outlook. Dont know to what extent JC actually shared that, dont even know what language he actually used, do we?

[Ned]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


do we know what Christ spoke of? Caritas is latin. The hebrew word normally translated as charity is Tzedakah, which also means justice or righteousness. There is an implication that its not only an obligation on the part of the giver, but almost a right on the part of the receiver. Look at laws in the hebrew bible on the poor. The poor are entitled to the gleanings of the field. If a poor person enters a field to glean, without asking for permission, are they theives? Apparently not.
And the jubilee year requires the cancellation of all debts - as an obligation, not as a voluntary act of love. Biblical judaism at least has the seeds of a more "leftist" social outlook. Dont know to what extent JC actually shared that, dont even know what language he actually used, do we?

No we don't, but we think it was Aramaic. It will be interesting to hear this language (and Latin) actually spoken when Gibson's film about JC is released.

There is no doubt that the world owes much to Judaism as well as to Jesus Christ. And, I would agree that it is not theft if a poor person is exercising his rights under law to leavings of the field or of the bakery for that matter.

As to the cancellation of debts, well perhaps that was necessary in those times where the failure to pay made you a slave.

As to the example of women slaves - I think prospect of the liberation of slaves WITHOUT compensation was a major contributing factor in the South's secession.

BTW, on this issue, did anyone notice that Bush spent a significant portion of his speech today at the UN on this issue. It was amazing. Simply amazing. Bush's call for an end to slavery in the world could only come from a Republican, IMHO, in the great tradition of the party of Lincoln.