Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
. . . you choosing to ignore the social contract. You were born into or became a citizen of the United States of America. By benefiting from the services the government provides—military, police, social safety net, fire protection, etc.—you are agreeing to pay into the system.
|
I’m never sure what the contract in Social Contract theory states. It says, at least, that I agreed to do as society says, but does that conception of “what society says” the majority of the population, the majority of those who vote, the majority of those who have greater political clout? My argument is that any majority can be wrong, and I am raising instances where that is so.
I assume that no contract can contain contradictions within it. I cannot have nor can I enforce a contract that says I must do x while at the same time I must not do x. Since, ownership seems to mean that one has the right of disposal over the thing he owns, and the social contract gives government the rights over an owner’s property, then there is a contradiction in the social contract.
The social contract is whimsical. You may own an African; you may not own an African. You may kill an Indian; you may not kill an Indian. Women may not vote; women may vote. You may consume alcohol; you may not consume alcohol; and then, you may again consume alcohol. Our intention, I suppose, is always to improve the contract for the sake of the people, but (1) if the contract can be changed through majority opinion, then what stops us from changing it back so that we may again own Africans, kill Indians, etc.? (2) Since slavery really is wrong and it should be illegal whether the majority approves or not, then we have appealed to something much higher than the social contract. If I think slavery is wrong because that’s what the majority thinks, then I am following the social contract. If I think slavery is wrong in the U.S. in 1817, then I am denying the social contract.
I think social contract theory is mistaken because it serves as no standard for judging right and wrong due to its whimsical nature. The standard for right and wrong goes beyond majority opinion so that the minority might be protected. And one instance of that protection for minorities is ownership.
---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willravel
Do you really want me to lay out the various argument for a progressive tax system and against a flat tax in a pub discussion?
|
No, please don't. I am much more interested in your conception or definition of "fairness." You have a concept of "fairness" in mind because you appeal to it. I am only asking what the concept is.
"Fairness" is difficult to understand because it takes different forms. I have two children, so I give each the same amount of cake. The older child complains that such is not fair because she is older. Since one child is 10 and the other child is 5, then the older child gets twice as much cake as the younger, in order to be fair. But then the younger child complains about fairness.
You say that the progressive tax is fair while alternatives are not fair. Is your conception of "fairness" tied to how you feel about the rich versus the poor? If your conception is how easy it is for someone to pay the tax, then should not be based on income at all; rather, it should be based on the ease of payment. I make the same amount of money now that I did ten years ago, but now that my children have left the nest paying taxes is much easier for me. It would still be easier for me to pay more even if I made far less than I did ten years ago.
So, what is your conception of "fairness"?