Obama / Jobs

[raekuul]

[raekuul]

Seriously, you two. Stop using Unjust where Unfair is the correct word. As it stands, you've been bickering back and forth about things that are inherently unfair, but you're so secure in your superiority that you think it's Unjust that things don't work the way you think they should.

Besides, how is me having an innate talent for flute-playing or a genetic disposition towards being overweight unjust? It's certainly unfair under given circumstances, but I see no legal reasons as to why justice should be meted out to me because of those things.

[Pablo]

It's not that easy to follow this debate closely. But as I understand it:

We are talking about forcibly taking from someone who earns and giving it to someone who is in dire need.

The debate centers around the relative morality of taking from person A vs the morality of not helping person B. In any case, we seem to be assuming that the taking from person A will have one and only one consequence, that being giving necessary help to person B.

This is, in itself, an interesting debate. However, I would propose that in the real world, there are other potential consequences to the taxation of person A and subsequent giving to person B, and perhaps for this debate to be more meaningful, those unintended consequences should be considered. One of those consequences is that the system results in more "person B's" than would otherwise exist. Further, there is the very real possibility that in flawed human societies, taking from person A will actually NOT lead to the consequence of helping person B.

This complicates it even further. I thought I'd throw this in, just in case we were otherwise approaching convergence.
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.

[raekuul]

They're still using the wrong word. Fairness is one thing, but they're both trying to impose their own worldview (probably unconsciously, but still) by calling what they see to be unfair as unjust. Justice is backed by the law, not just by one person's opinions on how society should work.

[Pablo]

Justice should be based on fairness, so I'm not sure I see a benefit to that distinction. In any case, this debate is complex enough. Why make it more so?
_________________
All religions are the same - Guilt....just with different holidays.

[Zag]

As raekuul points out, the concept of fairness is highly subjective. Many men in the world think that it is both "just" and "fair" to kill their sisters if those sisters bring shame on the family (by, say, getting raped). Personally, I'd be inclined to disagree with either characterization, but I recognize that this is my own cultural bias.

So, while we'd like our laws (i.e. the definition of "just") to approach the consensus of what most of us consider "fair," there will always be a distinction in any individual's eyes.

[extropalopakettle]

I think the point is that in casinopete's arguments, you can replace the word 'just' with 'fair' and they carry no less weight. Obviously, if the law is the barometer, there's no disputing the justice of taxation in its currently legal form.

[Silverfire]

Let me unwisely add my two cents to this discussion.

No matter how noble one's aims, no one has a right to take property away from innocents without their consent because they feel that property would be better served elsewhere.

However, as humans who desire to help our fellow human beings, we tend to form governments to perform tasks that would be difficult to do as individuals. Governments, of course, derive their right to tax from the consent of the governed. We consent to have a portion of our property taken from us to fund such activities as national defense and reducing poverty.

In my humble opinion, this situation becomes unjust when a single government rules over so many people that no particular person can be said to have a meaningful role in choosing how their government will operate. Therefore, any form of taxation is more unjust the larger the governing body, and less unjust the smaller the governing body.

If you can't tell from this rant, I think the main reason current systems of taxation are unjust is that people do not have any meaningful choice whether to participate in the system or not. A main reason is that they belong to political units so massive that they have no real say in the operation of their government. It seems to me that this problem is caused by power-hungry politicians who find it unthinkable that other people should be able to organize their society in a way outside of their control.

Here are the main objections, I think, to my argument.
The first is that the rich will gravitate to areas where they don't have to give away so much of their money, and the poor will be the only ones left in areas with significant redistribution.

Well, firstly, given the current political state of the world, that seems unlikely. Most people support at least some sort of government-enforced "safety net." So people will be forced to put their money where their mouths are. I think that's a good thing.

Second is that smaller political units will lead to more war.

Large political units and war are both methods of a more powerful group (or at least a group that believes themselves to be more powerful) attempting to force their will onto a less powerful group. Less of both, and more respect for the right to self-government, would be preferable.

[casinopete]