This week we are going to do something a little different. Many of you are now actually going to start your "project" on the different forms and types of governance. This is political theory.
To help get your mind in that direction, we are going to partake in one of the most popular courses ever taught at Harvard University. Michael Sandel was so popular they decided to film his courses. And luckily for us- they are now online.
You need to watch this link : http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/02/episode-three/#watch
And if you don't like this link feed- you can always YouTube Michael Sandel Episode Three.
This episode is on Utilitarianism v. Libertarianism (somewhat different than libertarian/Tea Party of 2011). And, ironically, he uses taxation as the discussion.
While watching the clip he will ask several questions to his 'class'. Please write down notes on how you would respond. Then, when you are done watching- summarize your reaction to the dialogue and come to some conclusions about what is "right".......
Have fun with this one.
I will miss you guys!
Ms D
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
Both sides of the argument, libertarian and utilitarian, make valid claims that they are able to support. On the topic of redistribution of income, both parties refer back to the fundamentals of their parties in order to prove that they are right. Utilitarianism supports individual rights, but sometimes allows for individual rights to be violated if it can benefit people in the long run. Libertarianism supports the opposite, saying that individual rights are the most important factor in this argument.
Personally, I support the libertarian side of the argument on this issue. Individuals should not be forced to abide by paternalist, moral and redistribution legislation. Although paternalist legislation is supposed to protect individuals, it is making decisions for them; for example, wearing a seat belt or helmet. Yes, they are safety precautions, but they are also decisions that people should be able to make for themselves, as long as they don’t interfere with the safety or well being of anyone but themselves. On the topic of moral legislation, everyone has different morals. Passing laws based on morals, no matter what it is, is going to offend a group of people somewhere in the country at the very least. Passing these laws is definitely an infringement on individual rights, most of the time rights that aren’t hurting other people. Now on the topic of redistribution, libertarians believe that taking money from wealthy individuals to give to other people who are less fortunate is wrong, if they have earned their money fairly. If they have, then taking from the wealthy individuals to benefit others would be stealing, even if it is helping other people. Under the standards of Utilitarianism, redistribution is acceptable because even though it may be infringing on someone’s individual rights, it is helping people to be better off in the long run.
That being said, I don’t believe that libertarianism would be most effective in practice in the real world. I do believe that the libertarian view on this issue is right, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it is best. The Utilitarian viewpoint on the topic of redistribution is more realistic for the society we live in, especially since it is a democratic environment, for the most part. Yes, people are entitled to a plethora of individual rights in this country that cannot be violated, but when it comes to taxes and redistribution of income, I believe that our economic problems would only worsen and a ripple effect would also take place in terms of hostility and even crime rates. Sometimes what is right, is not always best, especially when millions of people have to be taken into consideration when making these decisions.
The libertarian view on the sake of taxation is the redistribution of wealth, as far as it is just in acquisition and just in transfers, for the sake of helping the poor is wrong. Take Joe's argument about having skateboards around minute 19. (Aside from this argument, I thought his opening statement about collecting skateboards was his way of introducing himself, which made me laugh)He says that it is not right for the society to take 99 of his skateboards and give them to those who don't have one. He continues to contradict his argument and point out it may be necessary to overlook these "unjustices" and even condone them for the sake of helping others, as his example of killing the cabin boy for food. Professor Sandel makes an interesting qualification to this argument by taking the class on an interesting line of reasoning. By using Nozick's argument against taxation (starting after minute 22), the class sees that we, as the people of society, don't even own ourselves. Which takes us to the "fundamental principle that underlies the libertarian case for rights," said Professor Sandel. Libertarianism follows this main principle; we own ourselves, we have self-possession.
Utilitarianism is based on the idea that everyone belongs to the community, that we do not own ourselves, that there is limited respect for the individual. This is why the doctor can take the organs from a healthy patient and save five other people, (taken from Professor Sandel's examples at 3:30 and 25:30) because in the long run, more lives are saved. As Taylor points out, if people can be benefitted in the long run, then utilitarians say it is okay to infringe on the individual rights.
The commentary from 25:47 to 26:05 can sum up my opinion on the matter of the government. We are our own people, we put our big boy (or big girl) pants on every morning, we don't need the government telling us what to do. Paternalist legislation (8:08) is made to protect us from ourselves, like seatbelt laws and helmet laws. It is a good measure by the government to pass laws like this to protect us, but as Professor Sandel and the libertarians say; it is solely the choice of the person whether or not they should do certain things.
Sorry guys for writing a book, I'm almost done!
As for redistribution of wealth, it isn't fair to take money for the wealthy. In all reality they earned it. Sure Bill Gates makes over $150 per second as Sandel says, and Michael Jordan made almost $80 million in one single year, but it is THEIR money. The government has no right to say: "okay, you're successful; I'm going to put a larger tax on you because you make more money than citizen so-and-so and so-and-so." I know this probably isn't a popular opinion, but the way I see it, if the rich get their money taken from them, there is no incentive. The poor need to stop depending on the successful percentage of society and start depending on themselves.
Re Everyone
...or post to everyone... anyway, the video isn't really a 'clip' per se, but it really isn't that long if you take enough notes!! ;)
Well, there goes a thing I spent 20 minutes typing.
Because I'm disgruntled and tired I will shorten what I said.
The man cut up by the doctor to save 5 lives is a bad example, because he could be a taxpaying law abiding citizen, with several children that will be left behind. While the 5 saved are people who will die from the transplant either way, a gangster thug who will resume his killing spree after a new bladder, or an assassin. Without the consent of the dissectee, it is illegal, but consent or not, its how utilitarianism works.
Taxation, although necessary, is coerced. However, no matter what industry the person works in, they earn what they work for, the talented people have more valuable time, while others are with jobs monkeys can do.
"Poor need the money more"
They poor might need the money more, but giving them money, just nilly willy is just an incentive to keep unemployed. If the government is paying for their lifestyle, then the rich will stay rich, monopolies will start to form as ingenuity falls from grace and competition dies, the moneymakers will be taxed ever so slightly more with each passing year, going into a vicious cycle without social escalation and the poor keep on their crack pipes and dirty mattresses. If the government really wants to help, then they can forward any excess money into making federal loans more accessible while also making scholarships more attainable and giving incentive to become educated and better themselves.
"Taxation by consent of the governed is not coerced"
Remember, in the Articles of Confederation, that the federal government couldn't collect taxes simply because the states said no (And the ratified power of the articles didn't specify tax collecting as a federal power)? If one doesn't have to pay taxes, one won't. The only reason why there isn't a widespread movement to abolish taxation (to some extent) is because the rich are a minority and the middle and lower classes are voting in higher taxes on the rich, the rich aren't deciding to give more. so yes, that taxation IS coerced.
"The Successful owe a debt to society"
I own a lemonade stand. I make 238947235320598628 dolllars, from people buying my lemonade. Do I owe them anything because of my charm, grace and ingenuity? No. My brilliant advertising and choice of only the ripest lemons, with great customer service got me there. You were served, and you paid for a product. I built, ran and oversaw the operation, giving you my service for your money, which was in and of itself consent of both parties. The money you gave me is mine, I earned it, and all I owed to you for that money was lemonade.
While I agree with parts of both the Libertarian and Utilitarian point-of-views, I don't agree with either extreme. however, in this argument, I think that I side more with the Utilitarian POV. I do believe that taxing the rich to provide for the poor is just, to some extent. I understand the Libertarian defense of the Right of Possession, as I agree that if you work for something you should be able to do with it what you want. However, I also have to believe in people's right to have life's necessities- food, water, shelter, clothing, etc. When discussing this issue, we are basically debating this concept: what outweighs the other- the rich's right of Private Property or the poor's right to life's necessities? Living in a democratic society, both sides should be able to express their views. And these groups are probably about the same size. One member of "Team Libertarian" talked about "the top 10%" and "the bottom 10%." I really have to side with the bottom here. They lack they very basics of life, and are going hungry and cold, while the rich have way more than they possibly could ever use. That being said, I still wouldn't support the Utilitarian extreme of this example. For example, I would be opposed to taxes that that stripped all of a person's wealth to help the poor- that would be analogous to the doctor stripping the organs of a healthy person to save 5 sick people. Instead, the taxes imposed on the rich would keep them rich, but the poor would be in a better position.
I also believe that this Utilitarian-shaded view would work best for democracy in general. Of course, I still don't agree with Utalitarian extremes, that people are part of a giant collective and that their needs are completely subject to the needs of society. I just think that people should be able to help those in more need. In the earliest days of America, the Founding fathers all believed that virtue is the key to a working democracy. That is to say, stuff like greed, corruption, deception, etc. should not be in a society for democracy to work the best. To me, a lot of the Libertarian argument sounds like greed. Take for example the Fire Corporation in Arkansas. The "fire chief" said that the reason why the corporation did not put out the fire was to force people to continue their subscriptions. This is, or very close to, greed. Despite having all the equipment there with them, they refused to help because they feared they would lose some money. If they were perfectly virtuous, than they would have put out the fire anyway. Same goes for people who protect their property over helping people who need it much more. Also, the Constitution speaks of the government's responsibility to provide for the "general welfare" of its people. How can the government be doing this effectively if some of its people in poverty? To me, a Utilatarian-shaded point-of-view just makes more sense.
I must admit I do not have as much to say on the topic, however in general I completely agree with most of what everybody else has said.
Libertarianism is the idea that each individual should be allowed to do as they please provided their actions to not damage, cheat, or do harm to anyone besides themselves. It assumes that each person can stand their own ground on their own two feet. If they work hard and/or are lucky, they receive certain benefits which they are then free to enjoy because they and they alone worked to attain them. Likewise if they are lazy and/or unfortunate, they are left to bare the consequences of their actions with no assistance whatsoever, since just as they are free to build themselves up, they are also free to tear themselves down. It is on this principle that capitalism is founded, and with this principle that I tend to agree most, although I cannot say I am a pure libertarian.
Utilitarianism, on the other hand, supports the violation of some personal rights for the ultimate "benefit" of the citizens. Although many people through no fault of their own find themselves in hard circumstances and, because their misfortune was not do to their own negligence, deserve some sort of help or assistance, in general I believe most people should bare the consequences of their actions. I understand that "paternalist laws" do save many lives, but in the end who gave the government the right to do anything with my life? If I wish to be irresponsible, I may choose to do so - that is the foundation of the American system. On both the economic front and the political/legislation front I see some small benefits to applied utilitarianism, but overall I would say that it hurts more than it helps. Although it picks up a small portion of the deserving population, it discourages innovation and enables many undeserving miscreants who pull the working population down with them. To become utilitarian is to condemn America to a future of increasing mediocrity. I understand that some things, like seat belts, are reasonable infringements upon personal decision, but in general I cannot support the principle. Libertarianism is by no means perfect, and those who become victims of chance must be provided for either by personal initiative or through organizations like the church or the Red Cross, but ultimately there cannot be a public compunction to uphold every "poor" (because of laziness) American. Likewise in general if Americans wish to be idiots we should be allowed to do so. We are not government zombies.
After watching this video I found that it was very interesting to learn about two different political viewpoints Utilitarianism and Libertarianism. Utilitarianism believes that it is better to have moral or “Respected Rights.” These rights would entail having government make laws about how the society should act. For example the seatbelt laws, “click it or ticket.” A Utilitarian believes that it is the right thing to force people to wear their seatbelts because they are a safety feature. Libertarianism would disagree and feel that government cannot force anyone to do an action if they do not wish to do so. A Libertarian would believe that although a seatbelt is a safety precaution, it should not be the government’s call to order people to wear them; it must be the individual’s decision.
After learning the basics about each viewpoint, the video goes more in depth on the taxation of the wealthy to support the poor class. Utilitarian believe that the rich should be taxed on their wealth and that money should then be redistributed to the poor. Libertarians believe that the rich should not be taxed for redistribution, but if they wish to donate their money to help the poor then it is okay. As long as the rich are not making their money unjustly then they should be able to do as they please with their income.
On this issue, concerning the taxation, I do not think that one point of view is 100% correct. I think that each viewpoint has solid ideals and strong information to back up their way of thinking but neither is correct. I think that in order to fix this situation there should be a combination of both ideals. I think that the Liberals are right when they say that it is wrong to tax one’s income without their consent in order to support another person that is less fortunate. But on the other hand less fortunate people need the support in order to live. This is tough decision because no one wants to see someone suffer while others are having great success. I think the only way to get a consensus would be to have the rich people agree to have a tax on their income that then becomes redistributed to the poor; then the rich are also allowed to donate as much as they please to support others.
In the argument of libertarianism vs. utilitarianism, and such alike that are so opposite, there is usually a middle ground that comes to fruition. Utilitiarists believe that the wealthy should contribute to the good of society and libertariasts believe that everyone has the right to one's self and no one else. I believe that everyone does have the right to one's self but that they are also responsible for the good of the society that gave them that right. The rich are rich because of the oppurunity given to them by their government. That same government has set up a tax system in which everyone, not just the rich provide for the very poor. One girl in the video brought up the point that if we did not provide for the poor, they would commit crimes that we would have to pay for with taxes anyways. I thought this was a good point and believe that our system is designed so we can live in the most harmonious society as possible. Everyone contributes top to bottom and i believe everyone has a duty to the state to keep if this way. So i guess im taking a utalitrian side. However, i dont believe that it is the sole responsibility of the very rich to pay for the very poor, but i do believe that everyone should pay their share because we owe it to our well being.
I think that libertarism has valid claims to thier theroy of redistribtuion. However, Everyone may volentarly give up peices of thier liberty by commiting crimes meaning that all situations are differnt.Idivual taxes and dedicing what would be best for the nation as whole seems complicated.
I think it is also important to conside ones pride for the nation and how much money they have. Ten percent from person who is poor adn can't buy food, means alot more then ten percent from someone who makes more money then they will ever need. I don't agree that taxing the rich by 33 percent is stealing. They have been given more and requried to do more and have more responiblity. I think redistriubtion is a goode thing.
Forgive the harsh, pessimistic vibe of my post, but this website has been extremely mean to me this whole summer and at this point I want to kill it.
I agree with the libertarian point of view on government. We can make our own decisions we can decide whether we want to set aside savings for the future or not. If you are ill prepared, it's your own fault. Figure it out for yourself and if you screw up then you have nobody to blame but yourself. You can't just tax people who have been successful in their lives because they worked hard to get there. I understand that poor people do need money, but I believe that if you make the right decisions in life then you will not end up in a bad financial situation. Now I know some people don't think that athletes deserve the money they earn and that may be true, but we glorified them to such an extent that we have made it seem to the majority of society that they do deserve such an amount. So deal with it.
Utilitarians think that we should just redistribute money by taxing rich people. I just don't understand how that makes sense. So you made a choice to not do well in school, or to choose a low paying profession. Now you get to leech off of people who found something that they can do well and that they worked hard for. No. Sure if the world was a perfect place then we could all skip around and catch butterflies and get money from people who work hard and are willing to give their money to people who need it because they didn't work hard enough to earn a lot of money. Too bad the world is imperfect, and we actually have to work for stuff and life is hard and unfair and we are not just entitled to money because we need it.
Re Mark
I don't necessarily agree with your point that the rich owe their success to opportunities they got from the government and that because of this they should be taxed for the benefit of the poor. I mean, most successful people owe it to themselves, not the government. They became wealthy through hard work. Sure there are less deserving people like celebrities who have a lot of money and yes they do owe it to society. There wealth is also made possible by society, and if society just stopped glorifying them and stopped giving a crap about them then they would not have all that money, so everybody could fix that situation if they really really wanted to and then only the deserving people would be wealthy and why should we tax them when they worked for every penny they have?
Re Scott
I agree with you in that giving the poor money just because they are poor gives them the incentive to stay unemployed. It basically says that we are going to give you money even though you haven't earned. And where did we get it from? The people who did earn it. I think that you are right in saying that the government instead should make scholarships and loans more accessible. They can help the poor to better their financial situations using their own money instead of the money from people with jobs.
I think the hardest part in picking sides in this argument is separating myself from my current lifestyle. Coming from a well-off family living in sort of suburban America, I naturally resort to the view of "I'm fine as I am; I don't need government support; things are going to be alright if they continue on just as they are." I've always sort of believed in every man for himself because I know I could do fine by myself, which makes me push for more libertarian policies that say it's all about maintaining individual rights, no matter who it may hurt along the way. However, I know there's a big difference between what I think is right and what is actually right for America, and I can separate my personal beliefs from the matter enough to say that I believe the Utilitarian idea of redistribution would be a more effective means of running the country.
I know Kyle mentioned that we all "put on our big boy pants" and can probably run our own lives, but the fact of the matter is that some people just can't. I don't know where people got the notion in their heads that life's cooler when you don't wear a seatbelt or a helmet and thus significantly increase your chances of dying in an accident, but somewhere along the way they did, and if it weren't for government laws, plenty more people would be dead every day. Of course, it's their choice whether they want to put themselves at that risk, but don't we also have some obligation to protect our fellow man, ensure the highest probability of our species continuing to survive, and look out for each other when people are about to do really dumb things? We may all be 'individuals,' but we still all have the same DNA, and that makes us a community. If America just sits back and allows the rich to get richer and the poor to waste away in the slums, American citizens will likely rise up and revolt, and demand their fair share of the economy. It may not be what I believe is 'right', but it may be what is necessary to ensure peace in America.
Both extremes, Libertarian and Utilitarian, as far as I am concerned, have aspects that I agree with, and aspects I strongly disagree with. If I had to pick a party, I would have to side with the utilitarians. I understand the concept of right to possession, but I believe all people have a right to things you need to live.
In this aspect, I believe that taxation of the rich to provide for the poor is acceptable to a point. I don't however, agree with the Utilitarian idea of taxing the rich to such an extent that it makes them poor.
As to which system would be the most applicable in the real world, I would have to choose Utilitarianism. And For those of you who say you support Libertarianism as a system, but don't think it's applicable in society, how could you support it? If it wouldn't work in society, then it's not a well-functioning system. It ignores the needs of individuals. People. Humans. Unless you plan to commit genocide by killing unsuccessful people through denying them basic necessities, you shouldn't support Libertarianism. (see Cooper's last section about moral's, i think it's awesome.)
Kathy Nguyen:
I had to watch this twice because there was sometimes a point where I couldn't hear him. Either that it was me not understanding this case much. Both parties stated their reasons about what their standards means for the rights of the people. I did not like the idea of the utilitarian I honestly prefer the libertarian side as well because people shouldn't be forced to be used by the community. That they are individuals themselves. In the beginning of the clip there was an important phrase that I believe is correct, "individual rights are worthy of special rights... justice is the most sacred part". When he was discussing about the seat belts and the helmet I also believe that it is the person's choice to use it or not, which the government should not place strict laws for that. It is their choice but they should not harm anyone that could be in harm's way if they chose not to. Individuals matter and shouldn't be used as a tool, which we all have seperate lives and each have our own respect for others and themselves. When he talked about the moral laws legislation that they have liberty that no one should be violated by liberty said by the libertarian policy. Redistribution discussion it was kind of a hard decision to pick because people have the right to work really hard and they have earned that money. By which no one can take that away from them. If a lazy person was receiving money from a person who is working really hard and put their time into their work ethnic it wouldn't be right to take that money away from people who work really hard for it. I don't like the fact that someone who is working hard has to get their money taken away to someone who is less fortunate. I mean it sounds really cruel but think about the hard working people and think about the lazy people.
Overall, I believe that the libertarian was the most powerful one that proved to be better than utiltitarian. In summary of all of this, I think that if we had to chose between one or the other, it would be a difficult decision. It's difficult to think about these because both of these groups have pros and cons that many people want to have. Libertarianism could work out in the past society, but in a society that we live in today, it is much different. It's hard to pick a side in the end because there are things that we would want that the other side doesn't have and vice versa.
@Taylor: When I read your post, it kind of got me thinking about whether which group is better for our society today. It's hard to pick one or the other cause there are some things that we can from both sides but can't have. But I like the idea at what you are trying to get. :)
@Connor Mullins: What through me off was the last paragraph because I don't think that a libertarian society wouldn't be a well-functioning system if it were to happen. Recently I went to Canada (Newmarket, Ontario) I thought that it was really great over there. People run their own lives and the government was there only to protect their rights. I thought the place ran smoothly and there was no need to others to be taken their rights or liberty. Well that's what my uncle said over there. He said that Canada was a much better society than America. But maybe whatever I'm saying could be wrong. Not sure.
@: Lauryn Rasimas I agree with Lauryn because people who work really hard shouldn't have their money taken away to someone how is "less fortunate". Cause if someone is really working hard on their job they are getting paid well, but if their money goes to someone who isn't working hard and is so-say lazy then it's wrong to take that money and give it to those kinds of people. I think that she is right because if people put hard work into their life then they get good results, those who don't work hard and expect things to go their way... well, good luck with that.
RE: kaacarroll
I really agree with you on the seatbelt and motorcycle laws, what was called in the video as "paternalistic laws." I believe that the government's job is to protect its citizens, even if it means protecting them from themselves. Libertarians will probably invoke the Right of Self-Possession, but I don't think it can apply when the person is doing something that could potentially kill the person.
Re Mark:
Yes I agree with you on the aspect that it should not only be the rich providing for the poor, but others should also contribute. Since the rich have more money to spare I think that they should give more money. Maybe there could be new tax that taxes by a certain percentage depending on their income. Again this is a more of utilitarian stance but as you said if one doesn't care for another our country would not be running harmoniously.
RE Taylor:
You made an great point when you said that what is "right is not always best" for our society. It may seem that the Libertarian view is correct but it really isn't that practical in our society that has become so dependent on our government doing things for us. I think that we should be able to make our own decisions on whether we need to wear our seatbelt or helments but in our society it has become so dependent on the government telling us what we need to do. I think that there needs to be a combination of both ideals to come to an agreement.
Re: megwrite
Taxation on the rich is a touchy subject. You said the richer have been given more and are required to give more and have a greater responsibility. But to do what?
Re: Scott
That's the problem about taxation. Looking at the last two points of your original post, you mentioned the rich are the minority of socitey and they aren't the ones that make the decision to 'voluntarily' give their money away to taxes. There's a charity for a reason. I agree with your lemonade stand analogy as well. Just because one becomes wealthy from their work doesn't make them owe anything back to society. It's not a logical way of thinking. There should be a reward for working hard and being successful, not a larger tax to keep the wealthy on welfare.
The problem we face with just about everything out there is: "to what extent." I mean, we, as a society, have agreed to create social security to support the older citizens in this country. But to what extent should we support them? To what extent do we stop spending money on them?
We agreed to help the poor on welfare. But to what extent should we help them 'get back on their feet'? To what extent do we keep paying them their welfare chacks?
People want to tax the rich. To what extent should we tax the rich for being successful?
Just some thoughts to throw around..
Right off the bat I am going to come out and denounce the proposition that we "own ourselves" or that in a democracy, a principle of self-possession exists. The absolute fact of the matter, as I also brought up in last week's blog, is that every single action we make has a ripple-effect. Therefore, as depressing as it may be to some, we are NOT our own self-contained entities. This idea that I continue to champion week by week is more formally known as the Butterfly Effect and is an offshoot of the Chaos Theory. In accordance to this "effect," even the most smallest of actions committed (such as a butterfly flapping it's wings in South America) could have consequences around the world and/or at later points in time (such as a tornado in Kansas). Now that I've given you all a little background on where I'm coming from, I will proceed with the post!
Both parties make valid points... Both parties have valid objections... How does one decide which is "right?" The libertarians denounce any and all activities that could potentially violate the rights of others, essentially requesting that individuals are to be completely protected from any and all negative repercussions that society might bring upon them. On the other hand, the utilitarians are willing to sacrifice the rights of individuals in order to make sure that society as a whole benefits. I do not particularly agree with either view, but I do have to give kudos to the utilitarian side simply because I believe that their argument encompasses the big(ger) picture. I tend to believe that as important as we all might think we are (I'm not excluded from this group), there are others around us with whom we must share and from time to time, help out.
Finally, I would just like to point out that Nozick's argument against taxation is extremely short-sighted. Nozick uses the transition property of geometry to equate taxation to slavery, but his inductive reasoning is flawed. For, although taxes do take earnings, and essentially the labor required to make those earnings, taxes give back to the individual! They pay for roads and medicare and public education! They are not by any means a one-way street!
Er Sam Rabichow is Harvey^^^ forgot to sign out while using my dad's laptop :P
In watching the video, my opinions mostly reflected the speaker, Victoria. In a democratic society like ours, we vote, majority rules. Our successes and sometimes even losses are not always completely by our own doing. There were others who helped or hurt along the way. So, in following what sam and Victoria said, by choosing to live in this society, we choose to pay the taxes and abide by its laws.
What I think the video may have missed, or maybe is justa point I would have wished be shown, were how libertarians and utilitarians would react on taxing corporations. What is the difference of taxing an individual and taxing a company itself? To me, the two are completely different. Corporations are collectives of people working so that a few (president, vice prez, and CEO) gain a lot while the rest do not get near as much. These companies make huge profits and the libertarian would say that if the company hadn't wronged anyone, they have the right to those profits. The utilitarian would see that maybe the whole system of the corporation is unjust because the decisions of a few can affect so many, and often wrongly. Just something I wanted to add.
Re: Connor, I completely agree with what you said about libertarianism not applicable in society. There are contextual situations that make libertarianism comparable to how communism is perfect on paper, but unsuccessful when used in the real world.
Re: Sam, you made an excellent point in saying that taxes aren't just used to be given to the poor to spend as they wish. A lot of the money goes towards utilities that benefit the original taxpayer. Tome, it kind of goes to show that the stance that libertarianism has over the situation is partially invalid because the taxes being spent by the rich don't all go towards the poor.
Geez, sorry for writing so much everybody, but I wanted to get all my opinions out here since I won't be able to respond later. I will be in Payson tomorrow and will not have internet access until Sunday afternoon. -Janeen Lantry
(Re: Jen K)
You make a very valid point in that neither situation is ideal, but how would one go about getting rich people to agree to taxation? Rule of economics: people do what is best for them. How would you suggest enticing the rich or even the middle class to give away their hard earned money? Could there be some sort of incentive system?
(Re: Kyle M)
This is just a thought on your question of extent: What if, instead of handing out blanket Welfare money to every poor person in the country we were to offer free job skills training, life skills training, day care for people with children under the age of 12 and an opportunity for poor high school drop outs to finish their GED. If applicable we might even consider offering addiction counseling or health classes. After that we can assist them in finding a job and let them work their own way up. That way our tax burden would be substantially reduced and the poor would be better equipped to deal with the market, since the legitimately poor usually are in their condition because of such deficits. The lazy poor living off the rest of our tax money would no longer have any incentive to be unproductive, since we would not give them hand outs and the legitimately poor would have the skills to improve their position. Just a thought.... :)
@ Kathy Nguyen - Canada's government is a parliamentary democracy. It has a two main parties, one liberal and one conservative. If Canada has a bill of rights that clearly states a citizen's rights, why would there be different political parties? I don't think that the only thing that the Canadian Government does is protect rights.
In summation, your argument is invalid because Canada's government is not a Libertarian government.
However, in case I am misunderstanding something and your reasoning is valid, could you explain this sentence,
"I thought the place ran smoothly and there was no need to others to be taken their rights or liberty."
It is central to the support of your argument, and I don't understand its current phrasing.
RE: Lauren
My point is that they owe they're successes to the freedom our government gives them. They protect us from crimes and give us free education so in return they should have to pay their fair share of taxes. If they lived in some other country they might not have been as successful. Also them paying higher taxes contributes to the well oiled society that they live in. So all in all i think the rich need to be paying their fair share and not have all the taxes put on the backs of the middle class.
Re: Jennifer
Right now the highest percentage of taxes is on the middle class. The republican or libertarian view is that the rich create jobs for others and they shouldn't have to pay as high of taxes to provide for the poor. The flaw in the view of libertarians is that the poor are reliant on everyone and its not just the rich that have to pay high taxes for their benefit.
RE: Sam
I agree that the Butterfly Effect has at least some relevance in this argument. Really, the only possible way to not affect someone else's rights is to become a hermit and live in the middle of nowhere. For this reason, I believe that the Libertarian view is impractical- no matter what you do, someone's rights will be affected.
@ Cooper and Sam:
I agree with both of you.
Re:Laura
(Still on my dad's laptop)
I love that alternative viewpoint! Not only would a plan such as this decrease the pressure that handouts have on the overall budget, but it would also be instrumental in setting America back on track, educationally. In today's world, our education system is severely flawed. By offering additional educational services for those who may be able to better their living situation through said programs, a more middle-ground solution between the libertarian and utilitarian point of views.
Re: Jen
In my opinion, your analysis of the situation is entirely accurate. The libertarians and the utilitarians both offer relatively polar opposite views; and both are a bit unrealistic in their rigidity. Libertarians tend to be unbending in their interpretation of individual rights, while utilitarians tend to bend too often in theirs. In an ideal world, the proponents of both would be able to find a middle-ground in which the rights of an individual are respected and adapted to the times in which one lives.
@Conner
I'm not quite sure how to explain things because what my uncle said is kind of hard to translate into English. But I guess I see what you mean but there is a libertarian party that is trying to get people to support them. But for that statement, again, I don't know how to translate it into simple "english" terms. So, I guess I'm apologizing if I'm not making sense.
@Connor Mullins
I was agreeing with most of what you said until that last paragraph, which I don't really know if it's serious or not.
But, genocide? That's a bit extreme, don't you think? I'm guessing you're just trying to guilt us into believing in Utilitarianism, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that believing in Libertarianism is the equivalent of believing in the mass-murdering of some kind of peoples.
@Kathy Nguyen
I think your final paragraph sums it up well. Basically I don't think either could work perfectly or ultimately to solve America's problems. A lot of people would believe in protecting the rights of the individual, but this would come at the cost of threatening anyone who needs assistance. Contrariwise, with Utilitarianism there would be a more even distribution of wealth, but it would come at the cost of individual rights, something America tends to pride itself on.
RE:Kathy
Exactly. They need to decide on something that actually works, or that is supposed to. Stop the arguing and get it done. I completely agree with your statement.
RE:Kathleen
I liked what you said about the rich getting richer and the poor "wasting in the slums". If we cant take care of our own, then what kind of country are we that supposedly stands up for equal rights? We need to help those that need it and maybe we can bring this country back together again.
Post a Comment