Yes, our social safety net is moral.

I do, in fact, have the ability to give some direction to my tax dollars; by using my franchise and voting in the municipal, provincial, and federal elections. There is no force - this is the agreement I have entered into as a citizen of this country.

I disagree with where some of my tax dollars go. In response, I write my MLA and MP; or talk with the councellors or mayor/reeve. I talk with other citizens. As an individual, and en mass, we have the ability to challenge the decision. (Here, in BC, we're seeing that as opposition rises over the Provincial Government's movement towards Harmonized Sales Tax.)

I would argue that Government taxation, while frustrating, is moral.

Christ's peace - r

gee alia, it's terrible the way the rich suffer. I mean, they make all that money all by themselves. You take Van horne building the CPR. He had to get out there and lay track for three thousand miles while all t hose lazy Chinese just hung around pulling down as much as a quarter a day.

You know, the rich have to all the work, and then they have to give all their money to the poor. So you get poor guy like Van Horne who ended his days in a hovel with barely thirty rooms and only a dozen or so servants.

The way we make the rich suffer is disgusting. What we should do is to tax the poor more heavily in order to give more to the rich. In fact, down here in NB, that is what we do.

I've just spent over 200 dollars on school supplies because the government has so far cut the education budget that we have buy even the computer paper for the school. But it just gave some thirty million to the Irvings, perhaps the richest family in canada, to update one of their companies for higher profit.

Thank God for common sense.

graeme

Not only is it moral, it's ethical, scriptural and downright Christian. See Acts 2:37-46 and Matthew 25:34-36. And in Ontario, at least, you can't work and "get welfare" at the same time.

absolutely, it is moral.

I know that through a combination of luck, good fortune and effort our family has what it has.  Lots don't have the opportunity.  

I use my vote, as others have indicated, to influence how those tax dollars are used.  Bailing out corporations is not in my top 10

It's not charity, it's making sure everybody has equall opportunity. I am pretty sure that, at some point, you have used services or had access to benefits at the local, Provincial or Federal level that some people would rather have money that funds those activities go elsewere. But yet, you use or continue to use those services. I don't see the rich hurting at all. 

What is not moral is money being paid into the tax system to fund Casinoes, Uranium mining and a thousand other programs that I as a tax-paying  citizen disagrees with. In, fact it would be more moral, if lower income folk were given more.

Paying taxes to support the total population is our duty as citizens.

WE all pay taxes adn at various points we get the benefit back.. Everyone supports the school system but only use it for a few years or perhaps never.  Same with EI, or welfare or even health care.  I would adore to get through my life having never used more health care dollars than those need for two healthy pregnancies.

I object to some spending decisions but am happy with others.  I figure everyone is exactly the same.

Do I hate the amount of tax i pay, sure I do, i would love to pay less but reality is we have as a country decided to support all our citizens as best we can.

Well, I am disturbed at the lack of Christian compassion for the very rich. Obviously, you have never had to suffer with a man who doesn't know where his next million is coming from.

graeme

It can be hard to deal with when you have to sell one of the jets to decrease your costs.  Sigh, in a recession everyone must cut back. 

There is a kind of funny thing that comes out of this.  People who are well below the poverty line still have to pay taxes.  At one point I was working a job where the hours weren't regular and there were some months that I had to go to social assistance to get topped up.  The amount that I got from social assistance pretty much exactly matched the amount being taken off my paycheck for taxes.

Thats what I mean.... why do lower income families pay taxes when the social assistance they get equals the same amount. 

Would we still complain about high costs if we paid 0% income tax? We could choose the schools our kids go to, choose our own health plans, our own insurance plans and so on. I called it charity becasue that is what it is... it is a forced system of charity. That is why the question is about morality. Is it moral to take money from one group and give it to the other group by force. Robin hood style? 

I would say ... no. We have great charities that help families get on their feet, church programs that assist people when they are down. I do not think it is fair to tax hard working families to help the world. (Rich, Middle class, or Poor) I think that taxes should be eliminated and people care about these issues can donate the extra money they have and donate it to a causes they see fit. 

aliabassi , if you and your partner lost your jobs tomorrow and couldn't find another. If you used all your savings and food in the cupboard, would you feel the same?

Charity by defintion must be voluntary. Charity by force is is not charity. Tax is not "all" charity - much of it goes to our police, fire, courts, military, regulators (think consumer protection agencies...). The "charity" portions - which is also significant - is taken from you by legal force in that the majority du jour decides how much and for what purpose you will be taxed. It's become such an ingrained notion in Canada that many - as posters above have commented - believe it has somehow become our individual "duty" to take care of everyone else by paying our taxes.

The question of morality revolves around your notion of morality. I agree, that for any "action" to be moral or immoral, it must have a component of volition (voluntary) to it. If it's forced, and you didn't "vote" or "agree" to it - it is inherently an immoral action to pay that specific tax.

However - be clear - that what you might consider immoral, might still be legal/lawful - and therefore, as a moral individual, you choose to follow the laws of the land and dutifully pay your taxes.

As to Robin Hood: it's unfortunate that the robin hood story has been largely misunderstood in conventional discourse. Robin hood stole from rich, tyrannical governments that forcibly stole - through taxation - from the peasants. He did not go around stealing from the local blacksmith... or the shoe maker... who happened to have found a way to produce and earn more than the other peasants....

Damn. Tried to edit a little and hit the "quote" button. Sigh. At least happy hour, Friday drinks are just around the corner....

Crazyheart - if that were the case - then alibassi would certainly be deserving of charity and I'm sure charity would be available if he/she went looking for it.

Greetings!

The money I give to the "government" through taxes is used for a lot of things and given to a lot of people . . . such as the Prime Minister of Canada, and other elected officials, as well as many avenues of charity.  Why would it be any more or less moral depending on whom it is given to?

Yes, the government should enforce individuals to pay taxes for the designated needs of the country, including helping the unfortunate or  unable.

I guess it's fair in the sense that it is through the collection of dollars from any source of income that money is available for our government and system to operate as it does.  It is probably easier to collect from everyone, and then give back to those who have paid too much in respect to their deductions.

Hope, peace, joy, love . . .

Well, I have a hard core capitalist that I know who would say "Hell yeah, it's immoral". Her take is that we work hard to earn our money and that money should not then be taken and given to others who are not working as hard.

I disagree (although I've given up arguing the point with this person). I think we as a society have a moral imperative to ensure some measure of economic equality (as well as equality in availability of health care, etc.). So is it immoral to use our tax dollars to provide this equality? I don't think so. And if you do, find a party that opposes social programs and vote for them.

Now, spending our tax dollars on bailouts to corporations that just add the money to their bottom line and still close plants and still lay off workers even when they said that the money would help prevent these from happening? Now there's a moral issue in our use of tax dollars.

Get real. Ever take a look at who gets all that tax money? You think it's the poor?

In the US, banks just got a trillion that will never be paid back. Can you guess how much social welfare that would pay for? our defence industry, like the US one, is notoriously corrupt. Billions get poured into it and they don't go to t he poor.  My province just gave 30 million dollars to the Irving family to "create a very few jobs" in one of their companies. Ever look at what we send out in the name of foreign aid? It's largely a relief programme to help millionaires get rid of stuff they can't sell. We're spending billion of tax money, losing lives, in a war in AFghanistan. Who do you think is gaining from that war? Who aasked for us to go there - hint - it wasn't a delegation of the poor.

If you're going to complain about social welfare, learn a little bit first about who gets the money..

graeme

If you (as an individual) disagree with the way your government plans to distribute your tax dollars - and you don't have a "choice" about it as paying your taxes is demanded by "law" - then it is inherently immoral as there is no voluntary action on your part.

It may be moral to you - if you voted for the government that told you they'd take money from everyone and give it to whomever needed it... but if you're against it... and are still required to give it... then it can't be moral to that person. 

Again - this does not extend to tax dollars used for police, fire, courts, military, regulators, etc. Simply those tax dollars that are used to support strangers "needs".

Good skeptic - as always using words as a fog.

Here in Canada we do not have what is commonly understood to be a tyrannical government. We elect it. We actually choose it, and we choose it on the basis of what it says it will do.

Mind you, your Robin Hood analogy doesn't work, unless your study of Robin Hood is confined to the Disney version. He stole from anybody who had money, not just from the tyrannical government. (Nor was tyranny the issue, in any case. Robin Hood was quite as much in favour of a tyrannical government as anybody else since there was no ther variety at the time to choose from. He opposed a tyrannical King John. But he would happily have accepted and equally tyrannical King Richard - who, incidentally, thought so little of England that he could even speak the language.)

Anyway, the decision to make welfare available was ours. Try to grip on the idea of democracy.

An earlier post said that without taxes, we could dump public education, and then would all  have the right to choose our own schools.

Drivel.

We once did live in such a magical time. And most people could not choose their own schools because they couldn't afford it. In fact, they couldn't choose any school.

And even if today we all h ad money, we still couldn't do it. To be practical, schools have to be as close to home as possible. There are very, very few districts with dense enough population to make any signicant choice of schools possible.

Amazing what a rush some people are to live in the dark ages all over again.

graeme

I disagree.  Your choice is in where you live.  Since it is obviously impossible for a nation to satisfy everyone, every nation takes it's own approach to decision making.  Ours has lead to certain choices.  You as an individual have the option to continue to live here knowing that, or to live elsewhere.

The question was one of morality - morality, as I understand and live it, requires choice. Where there is no choice, there is no consideration--no realm--of morality. The question simply becomes one of legality - the taxes are legal... the law of the land. 

Democracy was not, and is not, a dictatorship of the majority. Thomas Jefferson referred to such a condition as a "tryanny of the majority". The fact that legislated laws (to pay certain taxes in this case) were enacted by a government representing the majority - doesn't make it any more "moral" than if a random majority enacted laws condoning slavery. Morality exists independent of the majority's whims. 

The "you choose where you live" doctrine, I do certainly agree with - but only insofar as my choice to live by the laws, or not, are concerned. The morality of the law, as stated, is an independent consideration. 

Good skeptic, you can still be moral. Why this squirming as though you forced to be immoral. Very simple. You refuse to pay taxes. Even simpler, you go live in a country which has no services and, thus, virtually no taxes - except for those taxes you have no moral objection to, like maintenance of the army and prisons.

But, oh, I know. It's so much easier to discuss all this as though it were an abstract philosophical question.

graeme

In Genesis Cain asks (after killing his brother) "am I my brother's keeper?".  In the rest of Scripture the answer appears to be yes.

A more moral position would be to gaurantee every body an annual income that is above the poverty line.  Yes some poeple would make bad choices and still end up hungry and homeless.  But if we are to care for our neighbours we should actually do it.

What makes that position moral? From whom do you expect to take the money? How do you intend to get it? Could, for arguments sake, a family with two parents and two children over the age 16 expect to each receive guaranteed annual incomes above the poverty line? That would make the household income--tax free presumably--at least $80K or so, yes? 

Again - what makes that position moral? Does sacrifice and selflessness automatically equate to morality? 

I think goodsceptic is asking a good question in the separation of a law and ethical action.    In response to the common good we decide as a community or a nation what is important for the common good - and then we pay for it.  Now not everything we decide through government fits with my ethical standard - that is the use of money - but I affirm the basic insight that to help the common good we must create systems to do so.  To pay for it is through taxes - that becomes the law - and not a question of ethics but of practice built on a ethical principle.

We may decide that all citizens must contribute to the common good thus tax all.   Even those who receive  through the sharing through taxes.  The principle is even those on welfare need to contribute to the common good.  Now we may return the money for the most part with a tax system that has basic on taxable amounts.  Another illustration is all citizens over 65 get old age, but it you income is high it is all taxed back - the principle is to treat all as equals thus no means test.  If ones income is very low than the system adds to the basic old age pension - and that is tested through the tax system.

So the tax system in of itself is neither moral or immoral - the ethical questions is the use and here, as others point out, is to use the system to raise questions or defeat those whom we think use the money unwisely.  

The ethical part is based on the common good and how to acheive that and we chose to do that in part through taxing.

Basically I believe we should celebrate the opportunity to share through taxes.  Each according to their ability and each according to their need.

Suggesting there is an "opportunity to share" presupposes the existence of a choice. Where taxation is involved, there is no choice.

I would agree that it is a practice - however I would argue it is a practice built not on an ethical principle; rather, on a democractic principle rooted in the social contract we're expected to accept if we choose to continue living in the country.

I find the notion of a common good to be particular complex and astonishingly underepresented in discussion. Can I equate "common good" to "social good"? I will assume so for the sake of this argument.

What is the social good? Further, what is "society"? Is it best defined as a group of individuals who, for one reason or another, have entered into relationships of some form with each other? If that's the case, then arguably, there are no absolute "social goods"; rather, there are only what one group of individuals decides is good, and what another group of individuals decides is good.

I would also add that you accurately identify that the "common good" is only partly funded through taxation. The other part comes from deficit financing - which, said another way, is the spending of our descendent's--as yet--unproduced wealth.

sounds good but,as always,simplistic.

If you want to know where deficit spending is going- particularly in the US which has made a religion of it - take a look at what the spending is on. Most of it is on the rich - on a stunningly corrupt weapons production sector, on handouts to billionaire bankers, on amazingly corrupt wars with billions handed out to friends of the government who run "civilian contractor' war industries.

The deficit is also caused by letting the rich off from paying their share of taxes,and borrowing instead of taxing them -confident in the knowledge that the rich will never have to pay it off.

Try to skip the simplistic, ideological moralizing.

Here in NB, the government has just handed out 30 million to the richest family in the province so fix up its railway. To do it, it cut welfare spending and education spending.

Before you preach about how our governments apend money - find out.

graeme

Is it moral to leave people who are less fortunate without help.  when we have a free-makret society people will be left behind and as such people will fall through the cracks.  thus we have public institutions to help and provide for these people. 

goodskeptik, you have an amazing talent for asking highly hypothetical questions to which no provable answer is possible -and nicely ignoring realistic ones that need answers now.

What is society? you ask. what is the common good? I felt as if Iwere in flash back reading Juno and the Paycock. Well, my goodness, we can't fully define society. And we can't fully define common good. So we'll just leave all those people starving there.

Next time you're jay walking and you see a car heading toward you at high speed, don't panic. just open a discussion. What is a car? Does it have a right to hit you? What is a right? How do we define a road?

You seem determined to confuse philosophy with irrelevance.

aliabassi, I just re read your opening post.

Are you aware that we live in a democracy? That means we choose the government. That means that what it does is done in our name and with our approval. If it acts without that approval, there is a mechanism for defeating it and replacing it.

It also means we approve the money it gets - which it then gets from us.

Now, that means government is not something separate from us which hands out charity from the goodness of its heart. And what it gives us is not charity,but our money.

Think of the implication of your view. It appears to be that Canada is made up of two groups - the worthwhile ones who have plenty of private money, and the hangers on who don't. And democracy then is just a device to allow the worthless majority to squeeze money out of the worthy minority.

The root of the problem,then,is democracy. And the solution is to get rid of it. Interesting. It's been done, though. And not usually successfully.

Goodsceptic asks questions that push us back to the issue of social contract and John Locke  - "Suggesting there is an "opportunity to share" presupposes the existence of a choice. Where taxation is involved, there is no choice. "

Built into the metaphysics is the idea of choice - it is to make a contract and it is to elect a government - it is to participate in a society.   Now we are not autonomous individuals but related selves - by metaphysical nature we are connected - our very being is social.  We related and that relationship is imprinted on us and we also have a choice, true limited, to make meaning of those relationships - some level of self determination.

Yes taxation comes out of the social contract which we choose to participate in and with by the very nature of citizenship.   Strict libertarianism may not view the social contract and see us as self contained individuals and the only freedom is what we choose without contact.  That is hard to hold for the very fact of ecologically, natural and human for example, suggests relatedness is primary.  The question is how do we use that, hence choice.

Now for the next question of common good,  Locke and even the Utilitarians suggest that a society should move to care for all members and especially those at the edge.  So the contract suggests how to include all - hence the good that is good for the least.

 Of course what I just said is based on some ethical standard - care and hospitality of all within the contract - at the least self interest that is enlightened.  Of course this does challenge the myth of the free market for even Adam Smith spoke of moral economy and did not think the market was a reality but it was guided by a moral interested - hidden hand - The neo liberal take assigns an actuality to the market as if was an natural reality and gives it a direction that will work for the benefit of all if the market is free.   We know this is an ideology and the market is not a natural reality but a human shaped reality.  This means to what ends do we do economics - the stewardship of the household is the orginal idea of economics.  The neo liberal suggest the market is rational yet we know this is not the case and we do not always act in rational ways in the pursuit of our ends ( Cf Predictably Irrational by Ariel).

Thus while it is true tax systems are created they are created out of choices - electing governments, choosing to be part of a democratic system, and to affirm some level of sharing our goods for the common good.  Ownership is collective as well as private.

I think it's very christian to take care of people who struggle.

On democracy: 

"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will, to be rightful, must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, wich equal laws must protect, and to violate would be oppression."     --Thomas Jefferson

The fact that government redistribution of the earned, to the unearnd, is democractic in origin; has no bearing on whether or not that practice is moral, or even reasonable. 

Never encountered Govt charity. Given the definition of charity, I doubt whether a non-sentient institution would be capable of it.

Or are you confusing Government corporate responsibility to it's constituents as charity?

Nobody is taking your money by force.

You belong to a "club", a club called Canada. As a member you pay dues (taxes). The amount of the dues are set by the club board (legislature) and approved by the membership at the General Meeting (elections). The membership, as a whole, in years past, has voted in measures to protect the least able of it's members, through a social safety net, using funds from membership dues paid. This is club democracy at work.

You obviously don't agree with that democratically arrived at club policy. That is your right. If you don't like the way your membership dues are being paid, you have a couple of choices, i.e.;

1. You can petition the membership to repeal the policy through democratic process. If you can get enough support among the membership, you can enact a motion to the board, or at thee general meeting, to have the policy repealed. Considering that most of the membership agrees that the social safety net is aa necvessary part of the club, and indeed soemwhat defines this club called Canada, I wish you good luck with that.

2. If #1 fails for you, which it probably will, you have the further option of suspending your membership (citizenship) and removing yourself from the communal property (Canada). Choosing this will remove you from any obligation to pay future membership dues (taxes). If you choose to remain in the club, however, and use club property and services, then the club has every legal right to demand that you continue to pay your dues.

Built into the metaphysics is the idea of choice...

Which metaphysical position are you referring to? 

I would argue differently. I see us as autonomous individuals first, related selves second. Stating otherwise contradicts our observed existence. With no concept of the self, one cannot form relationships by which a relation of the self-identity to the identity of the counter party is meant to be established.

Again, I must not be familiar with the metaphysical axiom from which you're arguing. I would never argue that we're not social creatures - however - I cannot deny that we are unique individuals first, relational social creatures second.

Libtertarians have an interesting philosophy - however I personally find that it contradicts itself, philosophically, far too often and is therefore useless to me. It shares some attributes with liberalism - but they are entirely different philosophical positions.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, John Locke's position was:

Promotion of the public good, as Locke refers to it (and as I understand it), is entirely separate from a society seeking to "care" for it's outer edges. The public good, within the scope of government authority that Locke refers to, resides entirely in its moral mandate to ensure individuals are free to engage in relationships with other individuals - without interference or persecution. I do not consider my readings of Locke to be comprehensive in the least - so if you have an alternative take, I look forward to reading it.

 Your ethical standard is entirely dependent on your metaphysical position - so I'll defer my questions here until we've more adequately circled back on your rationale regarding the metaphsyical.

Ownership cannot be both collective as well as private. Private ownership for which a claim by the collective is acknowledge, by definition, is not private. At best, it would be "leased" by the collective to the private interest.

Much of your argument stems back to your metaphysical (and related epistemological) base. That should probably be our starting point - either agree or disagree with those basic principles before we debate on the morality of practices and choices that exist within a specific philosophical realm. Agreed?

On the contrary, since what is moral and reasonable is in the eyes of the people, democracy in action has a very great bearing on it.

Your particular love of the pie-in-the-sky version of plutocracy you seem to think is the be all and end all of political systems, is thee thing that has no bearing on it.

Witch, if a democraticly elected government acted to marginalize a minority - or more extreme - sought to approve a form of slavery --- would the fact that it was a democratic action have any bearing on the morality of the actual decision? 

You're arguing in favour of philosophical (ethical, moral) relativism. Would a tyranny of the democratic majority be ethical/moral? By your comment above, it would be.

You talk lots... you say little, and what you do say reeks of the philosophical simplicity you accuse others of.

The democracy in question has given birth to the concept of human rights, which all further democratic decisions are measured against. This is one of the many checks and balances that democracy has come up with that previous plutocracies completely lacked.

Democratically enacted human rights legislation protects minorities from the excesses of the majority, and is a hallmark of modern democracy.

Your plutocracy love affair aalways results in much more marginalization than does the democracy you seem to know so little about.

And philosphical (moral ethical) relativism is the only thing we have. In tyhe complete absence of any "Absolute" morality, we, the people, decide what is moral and ethical. If rule is by the rich, as you subscribe, then the rich decide what is ethical. Those societies built on plutocracies in the past have been the most morally decrept, and are example of the worst in human suffering.

My question wasn't directed to "the democracy" - it was directed at "democracy" in principle. You argue that human beings only have "rights" because a democracy agreed that they do. Is that right? Again, philosophical relativism. By your logic, if the democratically elected government of tomorrow had enough political capital, and repealed the "human rights" legislation, then we human beings in this society would therefore lack rights? 

Agree to disagree. And if it's not too much to ask, keep the personal, unsubstantiated attacks to a minimum?

quite right, goodskeptic. The billionaire who gets a bonus on government bailout money from taxpaers has earned his wealth. He deserves to keep it. The billionaire oilman who sends the children of the poor to fight his wars is providing employment - and that alone means he earns his money.

the bum who's worked all his life for peanuts is worthless and deserves nothing.

Hey - great idea. Why do we waste charity on soldiers? It destroys their initiative, and immorally takes away money from those who have earned it. Soldiers should buy their own uniforms and weapons. In case of injury, they should be expected to sign up for private insurance. Enough of this immoral throwing of money from the earners to the non earners.

graeme

Correction, you were directing at a caricature of democracy you have invented to prop up your love of plutocracy, support your dripping and moaning about having to pay taxes, and pretend to be morally superior to. Your caricature doesn't exist, and so is not relevant. You might as well argue against the theoretical excesses of government by unicorns.

Bingo!!

We have rights because we have declared we have rights. We have rights because we have elected to have rights. We have specific rights because we have decided what rights go into our Human Rights Act, and in the laws that preceeded it.

Human rights are a product of democracy. Plutocracies such as you think would be preferable have rights ONLY for the wealthy, with the wealthiest determining what constitutes "wealthy".

Relativism? Yes it is. Since we don't have any absolutes to point to, relativism is the only thing that exists. Unless you can actually point to anb absolute, one that we humans have not come up with? No? Alrrrrrrrighty then

Noooooooo.....

By your caricature of my arguement. I don't answer to your fantasies, especially not your fantasies of what you want me to have said.

Do you have any concept at all of what that would take?

No, I don't suspect you do.

In any case, we do have examples of democratic societies which have fallen to oligarchies, tyrranies, or even your favorite, plutocracies. Without fail the government which takes over and repeals democracy has also suspended human rights. Now in your fantasy phiolosophical world you could argue that those people still had the rights, but in reality, on the threshing room floor, philosophies don't count for much when you get killed for not agreeing with the ruling wealthy.

Then please feel free to give me an example of a broad based and objective moral absolute, that has it's origins outside human sensibilities. You may disagree all you like, but you tend to pass moral judgement on those who don't subscribe to your ridiculous fantasy love of plutocracy. If you want to agree to disagree, stop your judgements. Until then, expect to be called on it.

I call a spade a spade. You say stupid things, I respond accordingly. You try to hide ridiculous, unsubstantiated suppositions in reams of psyco-politic babble, I respond accordingly.

If and when you decide to discuss without all the crap and games, I'll be much nicer, I assure you.

Indeed, why have a standing army at all. We have a good selection of tactical and strategic nukes at our disposal. Long shelf life and minimal delivery personnel required. Much better use of my hard earned millions.... plus I just happen to have some wonderful manufacturing facilities to produce them, at very competitive prices.

But then again, I may be wrong about that. Seeing as several of my wholly owned subsidiaries produce small arms and other military individual equipment, maybe we do need a staanding army. I completely agree, however, that I should not pay for that soldiers equipment. I propose we lend them the money to pay for their uniforms, with interest, of course. The individual soldier can recoup that cost in the time honoured tradition of all plutocracies in years past, by looting and pillaging the losers.

After all, if the people we go to war against, and we will, cannot afford to defend themselves, they don't deserve to live.

Witch,

I count upwards of 10 distinct ad hominem, libelous assertions in your post - aside from the dripping sarcasm and attempt to bait me into an unintelligle conversation. You demand a higher level of integrity in your other discussion threads than you provide here. I will not respond to your libelous, albeit, hilarious ad hominem attacks.

Goodskeptic, you don't need to b e baited into unintelligible conversation.

graeme

Only 10? I thought I had at least a wealthy baker's dozen (that's only 12 BTW... only fools give away bread). I must be slipping.

Dripping sarcasm? Guilty as charged. One responds as is appropriate to the quality of the arguement one is responding to.

Unintelligible converstation? The irony meter has just gone OFF THE SCALE!!! You don't need to be baited into unintelligible conversation, you engage in it with wild abandon before the chum ever hits the water.. You are extremely well versed in the art of psycho-political babbletalk. It's the only thing you've contributed lately.

Gee..... I wonder why that is? Hmmmmmmmm????????

Translation:

No problem. I'll still continue to point out the manure in your posts, if and when it pleases me to do so. You may respond, or not, as it please you. I don't expect you will change your fantasies, or even debate with any degree of honesty, or integrity, so my replies will serve to point out your fallacies to others (not that anyone takes you seriously anyways).

If you find yourself unable to handle me calling a sspade a spade, then please feel free to seek out weak minded people in other forums. Don't let the forum door hit you in the fallacy generator on the way out.

And please feel free to pay for a new irony meter for the one you broke. After all, it would be unethical for you to expect me to pay for the results of your spurious ideas.... right?

Goodskeptic here is the metaphysical and empirical beginning point.  First it is a both/and not either/or or first second.  Yes we are individuals and from that one also and at the same time social - we are a self- in- the world.  Each effecting the other.  The self is both inner directed and outer directed.  By that I mean we begin in receptive - we receive - we are relational by givenness.  This both metaphysical and empirical.  We do not birth or create ourselves.  The next aspect is we take that receptivity and self actualize it - make our own, an inner subjectivity of inter subjectivity.     Then we generalize or contribute to the wider context.   The process continues in the making of the self.

The other metaphysical assumption is all living forms have some power of self determination.  This means choice is built into the process of becoming that which is real.  (Here we move on to the issue of free will and determinism - and it is case of both, not either/or.)

Your quote from Jeferson suggests an ethical ( or Kantian moral imperative) built into the democratic process/  "however I would argue it is a practice built not on an ethical principle; rather, on a democratic principle rooted in the social contract we're expected to accept if we choose to continue living in the country."  The idea of a social contract is built on some ethical framework as your quote of Locke suggests.  Since we build on previous thinkers ( cf Charles Taylor's Making of the Modern self) I am suggesting a reading of Locke does lead us to take this quote and push it to caring in the common good for all within it.  It is a beginning statement which pragmatically extend. "

Promotion of the public good, as Locke refers to it (and as I understand it), is entirely separate from a society seeking to "care" for it's outer edges. The public good, within the scope of government authority that Locke refers to, resides entirely in its moral mandate to ensure individuals are free to engage in relationships with other individuals - without interference or persecution. I do not consider my readings of Locke to be comprehensive in the least - so if you have an alternative take, I look forward to reading it."

It is the beginning in free and equal that we begin with and extend Locke.  Government or social contract is to extend this freedom.  This then raises the ethical questions of when do our pragmatic results inhibit that which we seek to achieve.

I disagree with Witch when he says all we have is relativism for within a postmodern pluralism we do create standards that function as absolutes and in fact can determine in the discussion that which is common or transcends the particular relativistic view.   There is a more in the particular.

When you say "Ownership cannot be both collective as well as private. Private ownership for which a claim by the collective is acknowledge, by definition, is not private. At best, it would be "leased" by the collective to the private interest."  This is what I meant by ownship being both private and collective - I was rejecting any priority to the private and if it existed, for all life is social.

if the democratically elected government of tomorrow had enough political capital, and repealed the "human rights" legislation, then we human beings in this society would therefore lack rights?"

This a good question because it takes us back to Locke (and others  before him - the whole judeo-christian ethics) where rights are basic and seen to be natural.  Democracy has been an experment to expan the concept of natural rights.  It is true we can enter ideological concepts that call into question human rights, but that leads to debate in a  free of rights.  For not all human rights legislation are based on rights but on identity politics.

To end this part the metaphysical assumption is what is is a process and is created by relationships.  Further within the process are hints to be built on to create ethical stances, and those are also evolutionary, built on what we learn that works for the common good.  It is assumed that we are moving toward intensity, harmony, peace, compassion, and justice as the aim of humanity fully alive.

I will always be poor. I'm not ashamed of it. But it's true.

The poor don't do useful things with money? They just sit at home with smokes and dorritos and TV? I have rarely seen such arrogance and ignorance combined in one, short sentence.

When I was very young, my father had to shovel snow for the city to survive - and at very, very low pay. He had to stuff newspapers in his boots because they were all cracked, and he couldn't afford new ones. There were no dorritos or smokes, though there was an old radio. Then he worked in a factory at a pretty deadening job. The grit and rust was so worn into his skin that his hands all looked unwashed even to the day he died.

He somehow made enough to raise two children and get them through school. I think that was kind of useful.

Families and corporations are being bailed out because they did something USEFUL with the money? Useful? What they did was to pursue policies that put billions into their pockets while setting up the world for an economic crash. What they did was to divert so much of the nation's wealth to themselves that poverty in the US has been rising spectacularly. What they did was to take all that bailout money and divert billions of it to themselves as bonuses for having created such a disaster. Meanwhile, they are making sure that millions of people who do the real work in the country cannot get adequate health care, and they are sending those useless poor people off to fight wars to keep their oil profits up.

Put your name at the bottom of you post by all means. It is a self-indulgence, as you say. But I don't think self-indulgence is a problem for you.

graeme

Your earlier post asserted that "by metaphysical nature we are connected". Please correct me if I misunderstood your reasoning--you posit here that the metaphysical and empirical basis supporting your previous assertion is the observed fact that we don't birth or create ourselves. Further, that our early dependency on our parents/family for survival suggests that we are not really "individuals" - simply individuals "programmed" (for lack of a better word) by the familial relationships that fostered us? My questions/thoughts would be: 

- What metaphysical axiom are you arguing from?

- I disagree that familial relationships (specifically infant and parent) can be considered representative of our "social nature" as a) there is no element of volitional consciousness in those early relationships, b) those relationships are supported through evolutionary theory as being necessary to ensure our genetic continuous, whereas large, unknown social memberships (cities, states, nations, etc.) do not, c) in nature, all mammalian species rear their young, but take no responsibility for the welfare of all other members of the larger "community". 

Could you please elaborate further on what you mean by "inner subjectivity of inter subjectivity"? 

I agree with the metaphysical assumption of free will, or the axiom of volition - that free will is possible. However I disagree that free will can exist with an assumption of determinism. He who denies it is claiming that he is a deterministic mechanism; by what means does he establish that he is not merely programmed to deny volition, or indeed to make any other statement?

I disagree in that Kant argues from an a priori perspective whereas the transcendental, self-evident truth of our "free and equal" rights is established a posteriori through our survival as human beings, free to use our minds.

I don't see how you extend Locke's quote, within the context of his larger treatise, to encompass "caring for the common good". Locke's notion of "free and equal" refers to the idea that we are each born free and equal to pursue our own life, free from interference. To suggest we are each responsible (owe a duty of care), in any way, to other members of society directly contradicts the principles associated with being "free" - as some individuals are determined to be receiving, while others are determined to be giving - this is not freedom.

The problem with philosophical relativism is that it internally contradicts itself. The statement that there are no absolute truths is a contradiction--a logical fallacy. When it comes to post modern pluralism - I'll agree with Voltaire in that one may disagree with another person but defend their right to say it. I do not agree with the process of supplanting absolutes with standards that function as absolutes. 

I draw a distinction between interconnectedness (physics, "we are star stuff") and social interconnectedness. Are we circling back up to the first point in this discussion if I question your reasoning for believing that "all life is social"? 

 I would argue that democracy was originally an experiment to protect our individual natural rights but has since expanded it's scope and attempted to oppress minorities by subjectively denying the right to life and equal pursuit of freedom through wealth redistribution efforts.

Could you please clarify?