One of the first blogs I ever came across was Diana Hsieh's Noodlefood. I don't don't visit as often as I should, so I risk missing things like this.
That's where I found this link to a review of "The Ethicist" Randy Cohen's book, The Good, the Bad, and the Difference; How To Tell Right From Wrong in Everyday Situations.
To summarize; Randy Cohen has some serious lapses in his ethical reasoning.
This is of some interest to me. Many free market advocates think that economic ignorance is the biggest problem we face as a society, and with good reason.
I think we have a bigger problem when it comes to ethics. Judging from election results, most voters don't have a problem with confiscating large amounts of property from some people and awarding that property to others. It's called progressive taxation, and it's ethically indefensible. But where most people wouldn't dream of personally participating in such a practice, they have no problem with government doing it on their behalf. From what I know of Randy Cohen's politics, I don't think he has a problem with it, either.
Posted by Walter at May 2, 2004 09:33 AMWhy is progressive taxation more unethical than other forms of taxation? All you say is that it is “confiscating large amounts of property from some people and awarding that property to others”. If that is a fair description of progressive taxation, then wouldn't it also be for any other type?
Posted by: Kim Scarborough at May 3, 2004 09:26 AMYep, it also applies to most other types of taxation.
Posted by: Walter at May 3, 2004 10:36 AMWhat forms of taxation does it not apply to? And how do you propose the government be funded? I realize that you want a much smaller government... but I assume you still want some government. You’re a libertarian, not an anarchist, right?
Posted by: Kim Scarborough at May 5, 2004 12:03 PMTaxes which are tied directly to services are acceptable, assuming there's a reasonable chance to opt out of those services and taxes.
I'm not an anarchist. But even if I want some government I'm not going to take an ethical shortcut to make society conform to my wishes. That's what it means to behave ethically - you have to do so even when it's inconvenient or worse.
Posted by: Walter at May 5, 2004 10:08 PMInteresting. So how would, say, the military work under this system? I suppose there would be a specific “military tax”, and if you opted out, the Army wouldn't defend your house in case of attack. Presumably they would have a checklist they would consult when fighting invaders in a city; “okay, 311 Elm Street has opted out of the Defense Tax, so let the enemy advance that far, but start fighting when they get to 317 Elm because those guys are paid up”.
Posted by: Kim Scarborough at May 6, 2004 10:32 AMOnly if you think taxes and national defense are like la cosa nostra and protection money.
"Hey, listen. You understand how tings work, right? You give us a little something and nothing happens, capische?"
Posted by: Walter at May 6, 2004 11:36 PM
Sorry, I don’t get you here. What’s your point, exactly?
You seem to be avoiding the question. You say that all taxes that aren’t “opt-out” are inherently unethical. So all I want to know is: what would be an ethical way, in your mind, to fund necessary public services, like the military? How would the military work under a system where it was optional to pay for it?
I think if you’re going to accuse people of being unethical, then you are obligated to show us the ethical alternative to our actions.
Posted by: Kim Scarborough at May 7, 2004 08:12 AMhttp://www.walterindenver.com/archives/000552.html
Did that one a while ago.
Posted by: Walter at May 7, 2004 05:40 PM