ExRx.net

So people should follow their natural tendencies to be racist? I really dislike the word instinctive here because it makes it sound like no thought was involved, in which case you would accept animal behavior in humans as "right" and civilized behavior as "wrong".



Well I agree free will is an illusion in some sense. It would seem that no alternative to me typing this next word exists simply because of the fact that I typed it and it must be the case that something caused me to type it; were it not for the configuration of the atoms in me and around me to be the cause of that action, then I don't know what could have caused it.

Having said that, it doesn't mean you could predict the future. If you look at something like quantum mechanics you would only be able to get an idea of the future possibilities. Compounding that over many such "particles", the number of outcomes would rapidly reach toward infinity, which would give you zero knowledge of the future in the subatomic sense.



Well I would never argue that things do NOT happen according to physical laws. To me it is quite apparent that whatever is "free" about our will is very murky. I guess I agree with the above but do not see how it is very relevant.




I agree with assistance for bare necessities. I hope I didnt impress otherwise. Perhaps we disagree on entitlement to bare necessities. I don't want to give people material bare necessities, just the means to get them as well as is realistic. I am not against temporary reeducation/boarding expenses run by the state, but if someone is looking for work for a few years with no progress, they have to go. In my view, if generations of families have been poor, there is probably a reason, or just bad luck. Unfortunately, luck runs deep in the workings of the cosmos so we will have a hard time removing that part of the equation. I would be willing to sacrifice a few as lost to the system rather than build a system to lose none and make everyone worse off. In this sense I am more utilitarian. You will always have some people living extravagantly off the top and some people dying at the bottom.

It really seems as though modern societies have created systems where generations of people feel entitled to be "propped up" by the society. An example of this are individuals who have circa 8 children... even if they "support" them they are not really supporting them because there are unreflected costs to existing in society. For example, expanding infrastructure to harder to manage scales. It's as though these people think that sense they are born in a rich society they will be supported. It's similar to why people shouldnt be allowed to kill themselves, it costs a lot to invest in an individual, and their value is very high so to lose them is for the rest of society to absorb a huge cost. People should realize that to be in a society is a business deal where they get something out when they put something in. "Liberty" in a "society" is a fundamentally flawed idea. You belong to the society and the society belongs to you. Thinking about it differently is irrational.

If you want to go live in some uninhabited forest alone, then you can do anything you want.

That's absurd. If you have more money from lower income taxes, you can either spend it or save it. There's no other option unless you want to throw it away.

Well, I guess this thread is moot anyway. Obama care passed the house, and I don't see the Senate shutting it down. What I do see is a lot of Democrats getting tossed out of office this November. 37 States are suing the FedGovt right now for unconstitutionality of this bill.
Tim

uh...ok... So you like to disagree with me, even when you agree with me. Yes they can either spend it or save it. They will do those things in whatever ratio and ways they want. The income tax has nothing to do with what they do with it.

A consumption tax on the other hand would make them want to save it IF they have money they can save.

Well, I guess this thread is moot anyway. Obama care passed the house, and I don't see the Senate shutting it down. What I do see is a lot of Democrats getting tossed out of office this November. 37 States are suing the FedGovt right now for unconstitutionality of this bill.
Tim

"And the sales tax gets applied to imports as well, removing the unfair disadvantage our punitive income tax system has on industry here in the US." - frogbyte

How is that possible when you pay the same % sales tax on imported goods that you do on stuff thats made in the USA?

As far as I know, the unconstitutional part of the bill is forcing someone to buy health insurance. But access to health-care is not unconstitutional, it's a human rights issue.

Ok, so having more money is an incentive to save and spend. And having a sales tax is an incentive to save. And the sales tax gets applied to imports as well, removing the unfair disadvantage our punitive income tax system has on industry here in the US.

A person does not have a "right" to force you at gun point to perform a service for him. There is a right to ask you for a service, or pay for it, or beg a charity for it.

That's not what I am talking about here. You are making an aught out of an is. Being a racist isn't a natural tendency anyway. It happens because of "us vs them" thinking, and ignorance. This is what allows people to dehumanize their fellows. It definitely isn't anything to do with priori knowledge. It is all posteriori. As for animal behavior.... well we are animals, but ones with very sophisticated brains. We should understand what our instincts are, and usually they are good and do lead to civilized behavior. However right, wrong and civilized are all subjective of course. As a species we do have a lot of agreement on these subjective ideas though.

I agree with you here on the 2ne part of this section too. That is called scientific indeterminism.

The reason it is relevant is because it is one of the main reasons not to single out a segment of the population and act like they chose their lot in life and that they deserve it. Now on some issues of course you must forget all that and go with pragmatism.

No, having more money, just means having more money. It is not an incentive for anything. People will save and spend in whatever way they want. Lets say a person spends half and saves half. If they are wealthy having more or less is only going to affect the amount. They will still save or spend 50 50.

We aren't holding anyone at gun point.

I don't follow what I am making into an "aught". Racism IS an "us vs. them" and "us vs. them" is quite a natural tendency. Just because you think most people are capable of thinking around this doesn't make it so. If I think about it in a certain context, fighting between societies makes perfect sense and is optimal for survival of the group I am in.




But you are the one who said you could predict the future outcomes based on decisions we make. I am just saying, perhaps it is not so easy, and you seem to agree now.

You might see it as a reason not to single out a particular segment but I am not sure I agree it is compelling. There could be some fact of the matter, which is that a particular group of people is better than another, regardless of who deserves what. The fact is, that group exists and is affecting other groups. Pretending to redistribute talents is a strange way to think about how to solve it. What if one breaks the society trying to keep this group from breaking society? I do no like the "veil of ignorance" as put forth by Rawls.

Ultimately all IRS enforcement is backed up with the threat of taking your property. And ultimately that comes down to force.

This is the difference between charity and socialism. Charity is done by request, socialism is done by force.