Arguments for and Against a Flat Tax

[Cow Poke]

No.

Of course it is. What you think is fair is not necessarily fair to me.

[Cow Poke]

Because you treat an absolute as if it were subjective. It implies you don't understand the idea of fairness.

Fairness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

[Cow Poke]

No. Being "fair" is an attribute of the overall system, it's not relative to anything.

Because you treat an absolute as if it were subjective. It implies you don't understand the idea of fairness.

Let's cut to the chase, Star -- the REASON I ASK the question - not making an accusation or allegation - is, as I said -- diagnostic.

I ASK because I want to know if the person who made the statement understands that fairness is not "all about me". I deal with lots of minorities and disadvantaged - many times, when they complain about something ('the system') not being fair, it's simply an excuse not to try to excel. It's a conversation starter.

I'm asking, in effect, if they are wanting the system to be "fair" to them - which usually means favorable to them - as opposed to being fair "all around".

And, many times, the system is NOT "fair" - but that's no reason to give up.

[carpedm9587]

No.

Seems generally desirable.

Seems a strange misuse of the word.

No. Being "fair" is an attribute of the overall system, it's not relative to anything.

Because you treat an absolute as if it were subjective. It implies you don't understand the idea of fairness.

So I find this a strange sort of absolute. That caused me to go looking up the word. As a noun, a thing is said to be fair if it is "in accordance with the rules or standards." That strikes me as an odd definition. Who's rules? What standards?

Take eminent domain as an example. The state wishes to build a road and your house is sitting in the middle of the path. The state can seize your house to build their road. They claim it is "fair" if they pay you the market rate for your house. But your house is not just a market commodity. It is the home where you raised your children. The door frames have their height marks from age 1 to 18. You built that addition with your own two hands. Your last two dogs are buried under the tree you planted in the back yard. It is history. It is memory. You have no desire to sell - and would not accept any offer from any potential buyer. So is the state forcing a assessor-derived "market rate" fair? What "absolute" standard are you appealing to so as to declare this situation "fair" or "unfair?"

Trump talks about the trade imbalance as "not fair." What absolute standard are you appealing to so as to establish the fairness or lack of fairness of the trade imbalance?

This is the problem with "fair." It is measured against how a person thinks a thing "ought" to be - and when it's not what it "ought to be" it's "not fair." But we do not all agree on how things "ought to be," ergo the problem of subjectivity and relativity.

In my experience, "it's not fair" is most commonly the rant of the emotionally/socially stunted - who needs things to be only the way they envision it and anything that is not that way is "unfair."

Mr. Trump is certainly a good case in point. "It's not fair" is a fairly regular mantra of his.

[Starlight]

Let's cut to the chase, Star -- the REASON I ASK the question - not making an accusation or allegation - is, as I said -- diagnostic.

Your fondness for asking this nonsensical question reminds me of an Indian coworker I once had, who, whenever someone said "good luck" would reply "I don't believe in luck". He didn't mean it in the "you make your own luck through hard work" sense, but in the "I, unlike many people from my country, do not believe in Luck as a cosmic force", and I had to sit him down and explain to him that when people said "good luck" in the West they were just indicating general goodwill, and not stating any belief in Luck as supernatural entity nor trying to ward off Bad Luck nor invoking Good Luck.

Your "fair to who?" strikes me as the same kind of complete misunderstanding on your part. Fairness is an attribute of an overall system, like justice. It's the same as someone saying "that's not just" and you saying "just to whom?" If Justice is done, it's not "just" toward any particular person, it's "just" in general. Same with fairness. If you don't understand that basic idea then you don't understand the core concept.

I ASK because I want to know if the person who made the statement understands that fairness is not "all about me".

It's possible that what you think you're trying to get at is a valid concept, I'm simply noting that the way you're phrasing the "fair to whom?" question reads as nonsensical to me. I think it's totally reasonable to say to someone that "the world isn't all about you", for example, reminding them of their small place in the greater scheme of things in society. That said, of course, from their point of view it is all about them, because they are inherently themselves and exist as themselves and thus their whole life is indeed all about them and can never not be.

I deal with lots of minorities and disadvantaged - many times, when they complain about something ('the system') not being fair

And a very large number of very smart people would agree that the system in the US is very much not fair to minorities and the disadvantaged, and that this is a major problem in your country, far more so than most other Western countries.

it's simply an excuse not to try to excel.

Sigh... Why am I not surprised at your complete ignorance of the problems minorities in the US face, even though you work with them and even though they tell you them? No one is as blind as he who refuses to see. Try turning on your empathy braincell and actually try to see things from their point of view and take them seriously when they talk with you about the problems they face.

I'm asking, in effect, if they are wanting the system to be "fair" to them - which usually means favorable to them - as opposed to being fair "all around".

Then ask that question, rather than ask the nonsensical "to whom?" as if fairness were subjective.

And, many times, the system is NOT "fair" - but that's no reason to give up.

Indeed, it's a good reason to be motivated to change the system so that it is fair. It's a reason to seek political office and tell the people about the problem and why it isn't fair and get them to elect you to change it to be fair, as politicians do here, as the US author of the previously cited book was surprised to see happens regularly here. No one here is interested in politicians offering "freedom", because everyone is free and we rank among the freest countries of the world, what people are interested in is seeing injustices rectified so that everyone is given a fair start in life and receives an equal opportunity to thrive and pursue happiness.

[Cow Poke]

So I find this a strange sort of absolute. That caused me to go looking up the word. As a noun, a thing is said to be fair if it is "in accordance with the rules or standards." That strikes me as an odd definition. Who's rules? What standards?

Take eminent domain as an example. The state wishes to build a road and your house is sitting in the middle of the path. The state can seize your house to build their road. They claim it is "fair" if they pay you the market rate for your house. But your house is not just a market commodity. It is the home where you raised your children. The door frames have their height marks from age 1 to 18. You built that addition with your own two hands. Your last two dogs are buried under the tree you planted in the back yard. It is history. It is memory. You have no desire to sell - and would not accept any offer from any potential buyer. So is the state forcing a assessor-derived "market rate" fair? What "absolute" standard are you appealing to so as to declare this situation "fair" or "unfair?...

EGGzacly.... Fair to whom?

Starlight is full of Starfart gas.

[Starlight]

So I find this a strange sort of absolute. That caused me to go looking up the word. As a noun, a thing is said to be fair if it is "in accordance with the rules or standards." That strikes me as an odd definition. Who's rules? What standards?

Without getting into too much philosophy, perhaps it would be easiest if you thought of it similar to how you like to think of morality: As inter-subjective. Fairness is then a concept that our society muddles towards a shared vision of through discussion and debate, perhaps in a similar way to what America does with the question of "What is Freedom? And what does that really mean for our society?"

I tend to lean a little further than you toward the general view that these sorts of things are really objective rather than inter-subjective, but I don't mind if you think of them as being inter-subjective. To me it's like thinking about Distance - it's a real thing that objectively exists but people talk about it in all sorts of inter-subjective ways and measure it with various degrees of accuracy in kilometers, inches, miles, feet, or talk about it in terms of time (e.g. "it's 2 hours away") depending on whatever happens to be most useful to them. Morality and Fairness to me are in a similar category to Distance - people will talk about them in many and various different ways as suits their needs and all have different measurements and ways of talking about it and characterizing it, and that's fine, but there's still an underlying reality despite the wild differences in ways people describe and use it.

[carpedm9587]

EGGzacly.... Fair to whom?

Starlight is full of Starfart gas.

Your civility is slipping...

[Cow Poke]

Your civility is slipping...

Sorry, turd*, I'll try to do better.






*because somebody will try to use this as an example of me calling names, let it be known that it is a friendly poke at Carpe who "started this" (insert smiley face here)

[carpedm9587]

Without getting into too much philosophy, perhaps it would be easiest if you thought of it similar to how you like to think of morality: As inter-subjective. Fairness is then a concept that our society muddles towards a shared vision of through discussion and debate, perhaps in a similar way to what America does with the question of "What is Freedom? And what does that really mean for our society?"

I tend to lean a little further than you toward the general view that these sorts of things are really objective rather than inter-subjective, but I don't mind if you think of them as being inter-subjective. To me it's like thinking about Distance - it's a real thing that objectively exists but people talk about it in all sorts of inter-subjective ways and measure it with various degrees of accuracy in kilometers, inches, miles, feet, or talk about it in terms of time (e.g. "it's 2 hours away") depending on whatever happens to be most useful to them. Morality and Fairness to me are in a similar category to Distance - people will talk about them in many and various different ways as suits their needs and all have different measurements and ways of talking about it and characterizing it, and that's fine, but there's still an underlying reality despite the wild differences in ways people describe and use it.

Star - all things have an "objective" component in terms of existence. My opinion exists. Since it is outside of your control - it is subjectively real to me, but objectively real to you. I don't think that is what we are talking about there. "Fairness" and "distance" are intrinsically different things. One is about a measurable relationship between physical objects. That distance exists even if there are no sentient people beings to measure it. "Fairness" does not have that characteristic. It is an assessment made by a sentient mind based on rules/relationships made by sentient minds. You are trying to attach absoluteness - and objectivity - to something that is implicitly/intrinsically relative and subjective.

Your attempt to compare to morality isn't going to work with me, since I believe all morality is subjective and relative.

[carpedm9587]

Sorry, turd*, I'll try to do better.

That is Mister Turd, to you.

*because somebody will try to use this as an example of me calling names, let it be known that it is a friendly poke at Carpe who "started this" (insert smiley face here)

He's lying...

[Cow Poke]

That is Mister Turd, to you.



He's lying...

Go to your room!

[carpedm9587]

Go to your room!

Can I use my X-box.... ?

[Sparko]

Can I use my X-box.... ?

That's sexist!

[carpedm9587]

That's sexist!