Subsidy

[Bronzeage]

Hey Bomb, how would you reconcile repeated individual justifications for small tax increases with a cumulative unjust collective total tax burden? For instance, suppose a tax burden of 70% of earned income is unjust. Eight instances of justified 10% tax burdens would exceed what's just.

It seems to me that all these so-called justified tax burdens ought to be increasingly more difficult to justify, as it ought to not only consider the details of each individual issue but also include the cumulative effect on tax payers.

Which costs more, a $1 million life insurance policy, or a $10,000 life insurance policy? Both policy holders are equally dead.

 

[Bomb#20]

Hey Bomb, how would you reconcile repeated individual justifications for small tax increases with a cumulative unjust collective total tax burden? For instance, suppose a tax burden of 70% of earned income is unjust. Eight instances of justified 10% tax burdens would exceed what's just.

It seems to me that all these so-called justified tax burdens ought to be increasingly more difficult to justify, as it ought to not only consider the details of each individual issue but also include the cumulative effect on tax payers.

Right you are. It's the law of diminishing returns. The amount of happiness you get from each additional dollar you get goes down as you get more of them; when you run that in reverse, the amount of happiness you lose from each additional dollar taken from you goes up as more are taken away. So some government expenditure might well do enough good to justify taking $5000 from a guy making $50,000; but that doesn't mean it does enough good to justify taking $5000 from a guy making $50,000 who's already having $30,000 of it taken away. The harm done to him in taking him from $20,000 down to $15,000 is greater than the harm done to him in taking him from $50,000 down to $45,000; consequently it takes a greater public benefit from the expenditure to justify it.

 

[Bomb#20]

Society is so arranged that Alf gets paid 10$ an hour, and Bobby gets paid 100$ an hour.
Question: Is either Alf or Bobby being harmed by the situation?

What the heck does it mean to be harmed by a situation? People are helped or harmed by acts. Whoever is performing the act of paying Alf $10 is helping him. Whoever is performing the act of paying Bobby $100 is helping him. So far I don't see a harmful act. And as far as I can see, the actors are all humans -- I don't see any act at all that's being performed by a situation.

Situation 2:
Alf and Bobby work making bicycles. Society is so arranged that Alf gets paid 10$ an hour, but has to pay back 1$, while Bobby gets paid 100$ an hour, but has to pay back 20$.
Question: Is either Alf or Bobby being harmed by the situation?

No; and what is it you mean by "pay back"? Are you saying Alf has to pay $1 back to the person who gave him the $10 and Bobby has to pay $20 back to the person who gave him $100? Or do you mean they're made to pay that to some third party, it's never returned to the original payers, and you're using the word "back" in some unexplained rhetorical sense?

On the other hand, Alf is being harmed by whoever makes him pay $1 and Bobby is being harmed by whoever makes him pay $20.

I'm not seeing any possible construction of this problem that would lead to Bobby being harmed more than Alf, and yet that appears to be the basis for the arguement over subsidy. Can anyone clarify?

Well, Alf is out the pleasure he'd have gotten from the cup of coffee he would have bought with that $1. Bobby is out the pleasure he'd have gotten from the steak dinner he'd have bought with that $20. Alternately, maybe Alf and Bobby decide to work more to get enough money to buy themselves those pleasures anyway; Alf works an extra 6 minutes and buys his coffee; Bobby works an extra 12 minutes and buys his steak. They're out the pleasure they'd have gotten by doing something fun for 6 or 12 minutes instead of working. It seems to me the guy who made Alf and Bobby pay has harmed Bobby more than he harmed Alf, since I'd enjoy 12 minutes of fun more than 6 minutes and I'd enjoy a steak more than a cup of coffee. But maybe that's just me -- after all, I'm a tea drinker and coffee is loathsome.
:sick001:

You seem to be suggesting that whoever makes Alf and Bobby pay $1 and $20 had preexisting account balances with them, credited with $10 and $100, because somebody else had paid them that. Sort of like if your wife saved my life and then you broke my arm and you slapped my brother, and that meant you actually wouldn't have hurt me as much as you hurt my brother -- in fact actually you didn't harm me at all; you helped me -- because you get to start out already having a one-life account balance with me that you're drawing against, because when you and your girlfriend got married the two of you became one person, and that person is you. Or as Charles Dickens put it, "The law assumes that your wife acts under your direction."

So in effect, your line of reasoning appears to amount to arguing that when the King took control of the nation, that was a marriage. The King and the people became one person, and that person is the King. Lord and master, meet helpmeet.

Um.. Why not? What's the difference in moral terms between an income of 1$ and a income of 2$, 1$ of which has to be paid in tax?

An income of $1 is simply two people realizing they'll both benefit if they swap, and agreeing to do so. It's not a moral issue at all, any more than two people agreeing to have safe sex with each other is. Granted, some arrogant third party may look on at what they're doing, and feel entitled to tell them under what conditions they're allowed to pleasure each other; but his prudishness doesn't actually affect the moral status of their sex act.

On the other hand, an income of $2, $1 of which has to be paid in tax, is an act of coercion. Granted, some arrogant third party may take the morality of coercion by him as the default, and feel that letting people be is what's in need of justification; but his special pleading doesn't actually affect the moral status of his coercive act.

 

[Togo]

Maybe I should take a go at this from another angle. It may add some clarity. We, as individuals, make decisions in our lives--decisions that have consequences, either immediate consequences to our financial lives or consequences that ultimately have an effect on it in some way. Either way, it's decisions we make (emphasis on "we"). Yes, not being born into a billionaire family most often would have a significant impact on where we eventually wind up, and it's certainly not a level playing field out here in this ole world, but I firmly believe that the wide disparity of income between the average Joe's has a lot to do with the cumulative effect of their decisions. A person with the right mindset can and does overcome many of the barriers to success if they have a track record of making smart decisions. Yes, so many factors can come into play, but there's a difference between the whiner who cries foul (justly so or otherwise) and ventures not to bravely tackle the obstacles before them and the person who makes the decisions and does the things conducive for a better outcome.

If you have a job making less than someone else with the same skills and experience, maybe you caved to the pressure of negotiating your salary because you were just so happy to even have a job whereas the other person didn't. If you have budgeted wisely, saved a nest egg and choose to settle with where you're at instead of pursuing better opportunities, then maybe that's an unforeseen effect of an inferior mindset. I have respect for people who put forth the effort to succeed, and when they wind up making five times what others make, even with less education and experience despite their gender or race or whatever excuse is readily used by those that complain (justly or otherwise), I, for one, do not cry foul.

Ok, so this is interesting. You're treating income disaparity as being, not an accident of circumstance, but a form of moral status. A bit like the way people used to regard aristocrats as being morally superior to commoners, because they had to strive to get where they were, and because the social expectations on them in terms of standards, morals and public service were so much higher. You're arguing that someone who is higher paid is morally entitled to that higher pay, due to fairly broad assumptions about the choices they made to get there.

As someone who was privately educated, and walked into a job after university, I disagree. I had to work hard, but so do most people I know. I certainly don't believe myself to be somehow morally entitled to a six-figure income.

I brought up the term "harm" before, but perhaps a better term is "negative impact". People tend to weigh the pros and cons before judging whether something is beneficial or harmful; it's a post evaluative term. I'm using it in a pre-evaluative sense such that there is both benefit and harm (or better pros and cons). Let me illustrate. The local fire department has somehow managed to secure funds from the county who collect funds through taxing its residents. Am I being harmed? Well, in the post-evaluative sense, perhaps not, but there most certainly is a negative effect. It's partly being paid for with my dollars. It negatively effects me. Yes, it also has a positive effect, and yes, the net effect might be such that the pros outweigh the cons, and so people would say I'm benefitting instead of saying that I'm being harmed, but what I'm saying is that despite that, there is a negative effect. So, perhaps it's poor word choice on my part to use the word harm as I have been.

That certainly chimes in better with what Bomb is arguing, which appears to be that each act needs to be evaluated in isolation. However, even with this adjustment, I'm curious as to why fortune can't be netted - is there really a moral difference between paying someone 2$ and then taking 1$ away, and paying someone 1$ in the first place. The outcome is the same, but do you believe there is a moral difference in how they are treated? The reason I ask is that it seems that splitting the pay from +1 into +2-1 somehow makes a moral difference. But I don't see that there is a moral difference between a tax code that takes away 1$ at the end of the year, and a tax code that takes away 1$ from your pay packet before you ever see it.

When one enters into a work arrangement with an employer, he has no obligation to make sure everyone with the same experience, knowledge and skill are paid equally. Some think otherwise, I understand, but I don't think that. That's between the worker and the employer.

The idea that the employer doesn't have a duty or responsbility to do something doesn't change the positive or negative impact on the employee though. If Alf is paid less than Bella, then the positive impact on Bella is still less, and the positive impact on Alf still more. Moreover, given that they're being paid from the same pot of money, when it comes to wage negotiations, Alf's employment has a negative impact on Bella that is greater than Bella's negative impact on Alf.

Yet, there are negative things, and the government has a duty to minimize it. So no, the government shouldn't pay unreasonable wages in carrying out their function when they have a duty to minimize the negative impact on tax payers. Civilian employers have no such duty.

Sure they do. They have a duty to their owners/shareholders, the people who put them in place, and who's money they are spending, just as the government has a duty to those who put them in place and who's money they are spending. Leaving aside very small operations, or privately owned companies that like spending vanity money, I don't see the difference.

 

[Togo]

What the heck does it mean to be harmed by a situation? People are helped or harmed by acts.

Nonsense. If I'm struck my lighning, I'm harmed. What is the act?

Similarly, being born with no hands is a situation with a negative impact for me. If there was an incompetant doctor or irresponsbile chemical spill that caused it, then those people would be obviously culpable. But the harm is the same whether there is a human actor or not.

I'm not seeing any possible construction of this problem that would lead to Bobby being harmed more than Alf, and yet that appears to be the basis for the arguement over subsidy. Can anyone clarify?

Well, Alf is out the pleasure he'd have gotten from the cup of coffee he would have bought with that $1. Bobby is out the pleasure he'd have gotten from the steak dinner he'd have bought with that $20. ... It seems to me the guy who made Alf and Bobby pay has harmed Bobby more than he harmed Alf, since I'd enjoy 12 minutes of fun more than 6 minutes and I'd enjoy a steak more than a cup of coffee.

Ok, but you're ignoring the overall situation, and focusing just on the tax paid. Why?

To be consistent, if Alf and Bobby never saw the tax paid, because it was paid by their employer directly, and they just had negotiated wage packets that were proportionally smaller as a result, would that mean that they hadn't been harmed? Or was Bobby still harmed more than Alf on the basis of the loss of money that he would have had had the situation been different?

You seem to be suggesting that whoever makes Alf and Bobby pay $1 and $20 had preexisting account balances with them, credited with $10 and $100, because somebody else had paid them that.

Not exactly. I'm suggesting that increasing the number of actors and interactions doesn't change the morality of the outcome. If all you're genuinely concerned about is individual acts is isolation, then they can artificially manipulated and eliminated.

Um.. Why not? What's the difference in moral terms between an income of 1$ and a income of 2$, 1$ of which has to be paid in tax?

An income of $1 is simply two people realizing they'll both benefit if they swap, and agreeing to do so.

And tax is several million people realising they'll benefit if they swap, and agreeing to do so. Still not seeing the difference, other than the number of actors.

On the other hand, an income of $2, $1 of which has to be paid in tax, is an act of coercion.

No more than having to work to get paid. You want be an employee, you have to work. You want to be a citizen, you have to pay tax.

 

[fast]

That certainly chimes in better with what Bomb is arguing, which appears to be that each act needs to be evaluated in isolation. However, even with this adjustment, I'm curious as to why fortune can't be netted - is there really a moral difference between paying someone 2$ and then taking 1$ away, and paying someone 1$ in the first place. The outcome is the same, but do you believe there is a moral difference in how they are treated? The reason I ask is that it seems that splitting the pay from +1 into +2-1 somehow makes a moral difference. But I don't see that there is a moral difference between a tax code that takes away 1$ at the end of the year, and a tax code that takes away 1$ from your pay packet before you ever see it.

If I earn two dollars and taxed one dollar, then although I've netted one dollar, it's still the case that I've earned two dollars, not one. If we assume that I earned the two dollars righteously, then the negative impact of being taxed is not harmful if the taxation is just, but if the tax is unjustly high, then the negative impact despite benefit is harmful.

Suppose that anything over eighty cents taxed on my two dollars is unjust, and suppose they tax me a whole dollar. Yes, my net will be the same as someone who earns a dollar and isn't taxed anything, but the difference in how much we earn doesn't compensate for the harm if we both rightly earned (pretax) what we did.

 

[fast]

Sure they do. They have a duty to their owners/shareholders, the people who put them in place, and who's money they are spending, just as the government has a duty to those who put them in place and who's money they are spending. Leaving aside very small operations, or privately owned companies that like spending vanity money, I don't see the difference.

Maybe I wasn't clear. The key word was "tax payers." Yes, corporations have a duty to it's shareholders, and yes, shareholders are tax payers, but the duty of one is of another breed than the other. This is about justified taxation. It's the government that is set up for that, not corporations.

 

[fast]

Ok, so this is interesting. You're treating income disaparity as being, not an accident of circumstance, but a form of moral status. A bit like the way people used to regard aristocrats as being morally superior to commoners, because they had to strive to get where they were, and because the social expectations on them in terms of standards, morals and public service were so much higher. You're arguing that someone who is higher paid is morally entitled to that higher pay, due to fairly broad assumptions about the choices they made to get there.

As someone who was privately educated, and walked into a job after university, I disagree. I had to work hard, but so do most people I know. I certainly don't believe myself to be somehow morally entitled to a six-figure income.

I don't think I'm too keen on articulating this with the use of the word, "entitled." When I walk out the cave and kill a bear and drag it home to feed my family, I never once thought I was entitled to what I got before getting it. When you walk out your door with degree in hand, you're not even entitled to a job, let alone one with a six figure income. The results you get is a product of your actions. It's not I, but rather others, that think it's unfair that some make more than others for similar skills and education. Mindset, will, perseverance, determination, and a downright winners attitude is just a sample of the ingredients of the potion that separates those that drag a bear home for his wife to cook ... .

No, I'm not saying the average educated and highly intelligent individual stands a chance of competing with those born into great wealth, but I am saying that a person born into poverty in America does have a good fighting chance to make a six figure income despite the irrelevant fact that there are extremely wealthy people lucky enough to have been born into money.

 

[bilby]

Ok, so this is interesting. You're treating income disaparity as being, not an accident of circumstance, but a form of moral status. A bit like the way people used to regard aristocrats as being morally superior to commoners, because they had to strive to get where they were, and because the social expectations on them in terms of standards, morals and public service were so much higher. You're arguing that someone who is higher paid is morally entitled to that higher pay, due to fairly broad assumptions about the choices they made to get there.

As someone who was privately educated, and walked into a job after university, I disagree. I had to work hard, but so do most people I know. I certainly don't believe myself to be somehow morally entitled to a six-figure income.

I don't think I'm too keen on articulating this with the use of the word, "entitled." When I walk out the cave and kill a bear and drag it home to feed my family, I never once thought I was entitled to what I got before getting it. When you walk out your door with degree in hand, you're not even entitled to a job, let alone one with a six figure income. The results you get is a product of your actions. It's not I, but rather others, that think it's unfair that some make more than others for similar skills and education. Mindset, will, perseverance, determination, and a downright winners attitude is just a sample of the ingredients of the potion that separates those that drag a bear home for his wife to cook ... .

No, I'm not saying the average educated and highly intelligent individual stands a chance of competing with those born into great wealth, but I am saying that a person born into poverty in America does have a good fighting chance to make a six figure income despite the irrelevant fact that there are extremely wealthy people lucky enough to have been born into money.

The American Dream Report, a study of the Economic Mobility Project, found that Americans surveyed were more likely than citizens of other countries to agree with statements like

“People get rewarded for intelligence and skill”,
“People get rewarded for their efforts”;

and less likely to agree statements like

“Coming from a wealthy family is ‘essential’ or ‘very important’ to getting ahead,”
“Income differences in my country are too large” or
“It is the responsibility of government to reduce differences in income.”

In the US only 32% of respondents agreed with the statement that forces beyond their personal control determine their success. In Europe, in contrast, majorities of respondents agreed with this "fatalistic" view in every country but three (Britain, the Czech Republic and Slovakia). The Brookings Institute found Americans surveyed had the highest belief in meritocracy — 69% agreed with the statement "people are rewarded for intelligence and skill" — among 27 nations surveyed.

Another report found such beliefs to have gotten stronger over the last few decades.

...

The correlation between parents' income and their children's income in the United States is estimated between .4 and .6. If there was perfect economic mobility and being raised in poverty was not a disadvantage, you would expect to see 20% of children who started in that bottom quintile remaining there as adults. That is not what research shows. According to a 2012 Pew Economic Mobility Project study 43% of children born into the bottom quintile remain in that bottom quintile as adults. Correspondingly, 40% of children raised in the top quintile will remain there as adults; 63% of children in the top quintile will remain above the middle. Additionally, large shifts in income between childhood and adulthood are very unlikely to occur. Only 4% of those raised in the bottom quintile to the top quintile as adults, and only 8% of children born into the top quintile fall to the bottom. These findings have led researchers to conclude that "opportunity structures create and determine future generations' changes for success. Hence, our lot in life is at least partially determined by where we grow up, and this is partially determined by where our parents grew up, and so on."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_United_States

In other words, many Americans believe that what you say is true; but the facts suggest that they massively over-estimate the degree to which it is true in reality. A person born into poverty in the US has a slim chance to make a six figure income (and an even slimmer chance of becoming uber-wealthy); but most such people cannot achieve this result despite hard work, "perseverance, determination, and a downright winners attitude".

This disconnect between belief and reality leads to terrible consequences for the mental health and the physical well-being of poor Americans; Where poor Europeans can expect sympathy and assistance from their wealthy countrymen as a consequence of their misfortune, poor Americans can expect derision and disdain from their countrymen as a consequence of their personal failure to work sufficiently hard.

When you work your arse off in a miserable and laborious job for low wages, it is very bad for you psychologically to be accused of, and even punished for, 'laziness'.

 

[fast]

In other words, many Americans believe that what you say is true; but the facts suggest that they massively over-estimate the degree to which it is true in reality. A person born into poverty in the US has a slim chance to make a six figure income (and an even slimmer chance of becoming uber-wealthy); but most such people cannot achieve this result despite hard work, "perseverance, determination, and a downright winners attitude".

The facts may suggest it, but they don't imply it. You can't look at how things generally and most typically turn out for people born into low income families and attribute mediocre income to that. The factors that allow us to predict how things will typically turn out need not be causal. If people were taught and molded into attaining a better frame of mind, things would be extraordinarily different than they are. I'm not saying people with low incomes are lazy, but if I were to say it, I'd qualify it by saying they're lazy in thought. Sure, there are disadvantages to being unlucky enough to having been born on the poorer side of the spectrum, but that's not why most eventually come to make the money they do.

 

[bilby]

In other words, many Americans believe that what you say is true; but the facts suggest that they massively over-estimate the degree to which it is true in reality. A person born into poverty in the US has a slim chance to make a six figure income (and an even slimmer chance of becoming uber-wealthy); but most such people cannot achieve this result despite hard work, "perseverance, determination, and a downright winners attitude".

The facts may suggest it, but they don't imply it. You can't look at how things generally and most typically turn out for people born into low income families and attribute mediocre income to that. The factors that allow us to predict how things will typically turn out need not be causal. If people were taught and molded into attaining a better frame of mind, things would be extraordinarily different than they are. I'm not saying people with low incomes are lazy, but if I were to say it, I'd qualify it by saying they're lazy in thought. Sure, there are disadvantages to being unlucky enough to having been born on the poorer side of the spectrum, but that's not why most eventually come to make the money they do.

Well you just demonstrated that you are an American; Your response is exactly what the Economic Mobility Project predicted you would say if you were an American.

Insulting the unfortunate by suggesting that they are lazy (or 'lazy in thought', for that matter) doesn't actually change the fact that their misfortune is frequently caused by the circumstances of their birth. It is just a belief statement on your part. I note that you offer no evidence to support your belief.

We all agree that people who are lazy can't expect to improve their lot in life; but the existence of people who are hard working but still poor - and such people assuredly do exist - demolishes any argument that "people with low incomes are lazy". You presumably understand this - and so you resile from making that claim explicitly; but if being "lazy in thought" isn't the same thing dressed up as something else, then what is it?

It sounds to me like something that cannot be measured, observed or quantified; which makes it a very good ad-hoc explanation to defend against cognitive dissonance.

1) Only the lazy remain poor
2) Here is a person who is hard-working, but remains poor
3) Ok, then only the "lazy in thought" remain poor
4) You cannot show that he is not "lazy in thought"
5) Therefore I need not worry that my initial assertion is rubbish
6) So I shall continue to behave as though it were true.

It is not uncommon for people to use such techniques to hide from the fact that their beliefs do not reflect reality; but nevertheless, reality remains stubbornly real.


ETA - I speak as a person who is lazy by almost any standard, and who is certainly less hard-working than many of the people I worked alongside in my youth. They remain poor; I am now comfortable - mostly as a result of things I had no influence over at all (my choice of parents, my genetic make-up, my place of birth, and some dumb luck being in the right place at the right time). Sure, I put in some effort, but I know plenty of people who put in far more effort than me, and who have achieved far less status or wealth as a result.

ETA2 - if you doubt this, consider that I am supposed to be working right now, but am instead posting this on TFT

 

[fast]

The facts may suggest it, but they don't imply it. You can't look at how things generally and most typically turn out for people born into low income families and attribute mediocre income to that. The factors that allow us to predict how things will typically turn out need not be causal. If people were taught and molded into attaining a better frame of mind, things would be extraordinarily different than they are. I'm not saying people with low incomes are lazy, but if I were to say it, I'd qualify it by saying they're lazy in thought. Sure, there are disadvantages to being unlucky enough to having been born on the poorer side of the spectrum, but that's not why most eventually come to make the money they do.

Well you just demonstrated that you are an American; Your response is exactly what the Economic Mobility Project predicted you would say if you were an American.

Insulting the unfortunate by suggesting that they are lazy (or 'lazy in thought', for that matter) doesn't actually change the fact that their misfortune is frequently caused by the circumstances of their birth. It is just a belief statement on your part. I note that you offer no evidence to support your belief.

We all agree that people who are lazy can't expect to improve their lot in life; but the existence of people who are hard working but still poor - and such people assuredly do exist - demolishes any argument that "people with low incomes are lazy". You presumably understand this - and so you resile from making that claim explicitly; but if being "lazy in thought" isn't the same thing dressed up as something else, then what is it?

It sounds to me like something that cannot be measured, observed or quantified; which makes it a very good ad-hoc explanation to defend against cognitive dissonance.

1) Only the lazy remain poor
2) Here is a person who is hard-working, but remains poor
3) Ok, then only the "lazy in thought" remain poor
4) You cannot show that he is not "lazy in thought"
5) Therefore I need not worry that my initial assertion is rubbish
6) So I shall continue to behave as though it were true.

It is not uncommon for people to use such techniques to hide from the fact that their beliefs do not reflect reality; but nevertheless, reality remains stubbornly real.


ETA - I speak as a person who is lazy by almost any standard, and who is certainly less hard-working than many of the people I worked alongside in my youth. They remain poor; I am now comfortable - mostly as a result of things I had no influence over at all (my choice of parents, my genetic make-up, my place of birth, and some dumb luck being in the right place at the right time). Sure, I put in some effort, but I know plenty of people who put in far more effort than me, and who have achieved far less status or wealth as a result.

ETA2 - if you doubt this, consider that I am supposed to be working right now, but am instead posting this on TFT

"Resile"

I don't think I've ever used that word. I gleaned it's meaning immediately (and looked it up just for funzies) ... gonna use it sometime (cool).

 

[bilby]

Well you just demonstrated that you are an American; Your response is exactly what the Economic Mobility Project predicted you would say if you were an American.

Insulting the unfortunate by suggesting that they are lazy (or 'lazy in thought', for that matter) doesn't actually change the fact that their misfortune is frequently caused by the circumstances of their birth. It is just a belief statement on your part. I note that you offer no evidence to support your belief.

We all agree that people who are lazy can't expect to improve their lot in life; but the existence of people who are hard working but still poor - and such people assuredly do exist - demolishes any argument that "people with low incomes are lazy". You presumably understand this - and so you resile from making that claim explicitly; but if being "lazy in thought" isn't the same thing dressed up as something else, then what is it?

It sounds to me like something that cannot be measured, observed or quantified; which makes it a very good ad-hoc explanation to defend against cognitive dissonance.

1) Only the lazy remain poor
2) Here is a person who is hard-working, but remains poor
3) Ok, then only the "lazy in thought" remain poor
4) You cannot show that he is not "lazy in thought"
5) Therefore I need not worry that my initial assertion is rubbish
6) So I shall continue to behave as though it were true.

It is not uncommon for people to use such techniques to hide from the fact that their beliefs do not reflect reality; but nevertheless, reality remains stubbornly real.


ETA - I speak as a person who is lazy by almost any standard, and who is certainly less hard-working than many of the people I worked alongside in my youth. They remain poor; I am now comfortable - mostly as a result of things I had no influence over at all (my choice of parents, my genetic make-up, my place of birth, and some dumb luck being in the right place at the right time). Sure, I put in some effort, but I know plenty of people who put in far more effort than me, and who have achieved far less status or wealth as a result.

ETA2 - if you doubt this, consider that I am supposed to be working right now, but am instead posting this on TFT

"Resile"

I don't think I've ever used that word. I gleaned it's meaning immediately (and looked it up just for funzies) ... gonna use it sometime (cool).

My extensive vocabulary is one of the many advantages I have over my harder working but 'lazy in thought' peers, that results from my skill, effort and forethought in choosing a mother who is a linguist and author.

 

[fast]

"Resile"

I don't think I've ever used that word. I gleaned it's meaning immediately (and looked it up just for funzies) ... gonna use it sometime (cool).

My extensive vocabulary is one of the many advantages I have over my harder working but 'lazy in thought' peers, that results from my skill, effort and forethought in choosing a mother who is a linguist and author.

Oh come on, I didn't mean to be insulting, but surely you can observe the lack of effort put forth by so many people who refuse to work at what needs to be worked on. I know people who will bust their ass and truly care about doing a great job and should in no way be referred to as lazy, but they're focused--focused on the task at hand. If people put near as much effort into bettering their lives (hence, worked on what needs to be worked on), they wouldn't be busting their ass making 20k a year. There are too many people out there by-passing their peers. People need some inspiration and guidance in their lives. They can't get stuck with a bad frame of mind and put themselves in a position to flourish.

 

[Bomb#20]

ETA - I speak as a person who is lazy by almost any standard... if you doubt this, consider that I am supposed to be working right now, but am instead posting this on TFT

As Dilbert's fellow employee Wally would correct you, that's not lazy; that's useless.

 

[fast]

This use of the term ["right"] is perhaps so common that it cannot be called wrong; nevertheless it seems to me to be an unfortunate loosening of what we would do better to keep a tight rein on.

The ambiguity gives rise to the decision to differentiate between an immoral unjust act and a just yet morally indecent act. I've been kidnapped, and I've been forced and strapped into a bed and hooked to another person such that my kidney's are being used against my will that will ultimately save the life of another--and let's say this person arranged my kidnapping. It's a procedure that takes a long time (let's say nine months). I owe this person nothing, and if I were to immediately disconnect myself, that person would surely die. It would neither be morally wrong nor morally indecent to unplug myself, but let's say I've suffered through this captivity for nine months less a an hour, and suppose all this person needs is that extra hour (and no further harm would come to me), it would still be morally just if I had a means to escape and did so, but would it be the decent thing to do? Morally justified as I might be, wouldn't it also be morally indecent of me to allow that person that kidnapped me to die? There's something about the time lapse that transitions not the morality but the decency of my decision. I can't quite put my finger on it.

 

[Bomb#20]

What the heck does it mean to be harmed by a situation? People are helped or harmed by acts.

Nonsense. If I'm struck my lighning, I'm harmed. What is the act?

You mean, what is the thing your insurance company calls "the act of god"?

I suppose I should have said people are harmed not by situations but by events; an act is just an event that's someone's choice. I limited my original statement to acts because this is M&P and involuntary events go in Natural Science.

Similarly, being born with no hands is a situation with a negative impact for me. If there was an incompetant doctor or irresponsbile chemical spill that caused it, then those people would be obviously culpable. But the harm is the same whether there is a human actor or not.

Likewise, if the doctor was competent and the chemicals weren't spilled, then there was presumably a cosmic ray that messed up the embryo's DNA, or your mother was struck by lightning at a critical moment in her pregnancy that caused you to be born with no hands, or whatever; that's what harmed you.

I'm not seeing any possible construction of this problem that would lead to Bobby being harmed more than Alf, and yet that appears to be the basis for the arguement over subsidy. Can anyone clarify?

Well, Alf is out the pleasure he'd have gotten from the cup of coffee he would have bought with that $1. Bobby is out the pleasure he'd have gotten from the steak dinner he'd have bought with that $20. ... It seems to me the guy who made Alf and Bobby pay has harmed Bobby more than he harmed Alf, since I'd enjoy 12 minutes of fun more than 6 minutes and I'd enjoy a steak more than a cup of coffee.

Ok, but you're ignoring the overall situation, and focusing just on the tax paid. Why?

Suppose Cindy and Dave have really good sex. The next day Fred punches Dave and Ed in the stomach so hard they collapse and retch violently for ten minutes each. It looks to me like Fred hurt Dave and Ed about equally badly. Are you going to ask me why I'm ignoring the overall situation? Are you going to claim Fred hurt Ed more than he hurt Dave, because Dave got sweet sweet love yesterday and Ed didn't? I'm "ignoring" the overall situation, if that's what you want to call it, because no normal person would imagine that how bad Dave was hurt by having his stomach punched depends on the overall situation of whether he got a happy ending the day before. When we estimate how much harm event X does to person Y, we examine the effect of X on Y; we don't wander around the universe picking and choosing a thousand other events to add to and subtract from the harm from X. Doing so would make any calculation of the harm from a given event completely arbitrary.

You argue that Alf was harmed more than Bobby even though the King only took half as much of Alf's life as of Bobby's, why? Because their employer Gwen paid Bobby more for his services than she paid Alf for his? Why are just those specific events the ones that you pick and choose to throw onto the scales of harm along with the King's acts which are the ones whose harmfulness we're actually trying to measure? Why not throw in the circumstance that Alf doesn't need the money because he's still living in his rich parents' basement? Why not throw in the circumstance that an incompetent doctor made Bobby be born with no hands?

To be consistent, if Alf and Bobby never saw the tax paid, because it was paid by their employer directly, and they just had negotiated wage packets that were proportionally smaller as a result, would that mean that they hadn't been harmed?

Of course it wouldn't mean they hadn't been harmed. That's what it means to say their wages were smaller "as a result". To talk about help or harm is to talk about cause and effect.

Conversely, if their wages had been smaller to begin with because overall demand for their kind of labor had been smaller to begin with, but the demand was perfectly inelastic and their employer had no choice but to pay the going rate, so when the King imposed a tax on Gwen, she was unable to pass it on to her employees by reducing their wages and it came straight out of her profit margin, and the circumstance that each wage was lower than in the previous scenario by an amount equal to the tax was pure coincidence, then that would mean Alf and Bobby would not have been harmed by the imposition -- the King only harmed Gwen. Cause and effect.

Or was Bobby still harmed more than Alf on the basis of the loss of money that he would have had had the situation been different?

"Had the situation been different"?!? How the heck could that ever be a basis for calculating loss of money? Every situation could have been different in infinitely many ways. No matter how much anyone has, he could have had $1 more and $1 less and $1 million more and $1 million less, had the situation been different. (And yes, a person who's broke could have instead been both broke and $1 million in debt, had the situation been different.) If you're going to claim harm based on "situation", then you can compare the actual situation with any alternate situation you pull out of your ass and get whatever degree of harm or benefit you please. That's an unfalsifiability engine.

Bobby has prima facie been harmed more than Alf on the basis of the amount of their lives the King took from them. Now, if you want you can try to argue that a minute of Alf's time is worth more to Alf than a minute of Bobby's time is to Bobby; but that's something you'd have to provide evidence for, not simply assert without proof because Alf being poorer makes you sympathize with him more.

You seem to be suggesting that whoever makes Alf and Bobby pay $1 and $20 had preexisting account balances with them, credited with $10 and $100, because somebody else had paid them that.

Not exactly. I'm suggesting that increasing the number of actors and interactions doesn't change the morality of the outcome. If all you're genuinely concerned about is individual acts is isolation, then they can artificially manipulated and eliminated.

In the first place, who said the morality of the outcome changes? We haven't gotten there yet. We're still arguing about who harmed whom how much. We kind of need to establish that before we can figure out whether the harm was justified.

In the second place, what makes you think increasing the number of actors and interactions doesn't make a moral difference? Suppose you ask Harry to take a shift for you at work, and he takes your shift in return for you promising not to show up at Ian's poker game tomorrow night because you're too good at it and he's sick and tired of losing all the time and wants a chance to win for once. Do you really think that whether you show up anyway and win all Harry's money, or instead Ian invites his new friend Jeff and Jeff wins all Harry's money, the increase in the number of actors and interactions when it's Jeff doesn't change the morality of the outcome? The fact that it was Jeff and not you outplaying Harry obviously makes a difference, morally. So why wouldn't the fact that it was the King and not Gwen preventing Alf from getting an additional dollar of Gwen's money make a difference?

Um.. Why not? What's the difference in moral terms between an income of 1$ and a income of 2$, 1$ of which has to be paid in tax?

An income of $1 is simply two people realizing they'll both benefit if they swap, and agreeing to do so.

And tax is several million people realising they'll benefit if they swap, and agreeing to do so. Still not seeing the difference, other than the number of actors.

That is a truly bizarre description of tax. Do you have evidence that that's what tax is? Are you seriously suggesting

(a) that back in the days when Kings rather than Parliaments made subjects pay, that wasn't taxation,
(b) that now that it's Parliaments, everybody paying a tax agrees to pay it,
(c) that each person who's made to pay a tax is getting something swapped to him for it,
(d) that each of them is better off than if he'd kept his money and not received the thing that the tax was swapped for, and
(e) that each of them realizes he's better off that way?​

Those are what your assertion appears to imply; and those are all extraordinary claims.

No, a tax is a ruler making his subjects pay him; and that act may or it may not be coupled with the ruler acting to use the money he raises for something that makes some or all of those subjects better off.

On the other hand, an income of $2, $1 of which has to be paid in tax, is an act of coercion.

No more than having to work to get paid. You want be an employee, you have to work. You want to be a citizen, you have to pay tax.

Sure it's more an act of coercion. In the first place, your description is wrong. You have to pay tax whether you want to be a citizen or not, and whether you get to be a citizen or not -- it's not a quid pro quo.

And in the second place, why do you call having to work to get paid "coercion"? Suppose Alf makes bicycles for Gwen, not in exchange for money, but in exchange for sexual favors. Would you call the circumstance that Gwen can choose not to put out if Alf chooses not to make her a bicycle "Gwen coercing Alf"? The alternative is that Alf can have sex with Gwen whether she's willing or not. Would you call that alternative "noncoercion"? Or are you arguing that between Alf coercing Gwen, and Gwen coercing Alf, there does not exist a middle ground where neither person coerces the other?

But perhaps what you're getting at is that Alf has to have an income in order to buy his cup of coffee. And this metaphorically coerces him to work, under threat of not getting a cup of coffee, because he is not metaphorically but literally coerced not to have that cup of coffee at Lucy's cafe unless he pays for it, because the King enforces private property laws. Unlike Alf's employee/employer relationship with Gwen, his relationship with the King is nonconsensual. If Alf finds a pot of coffee at Lucy's place and pours himself a cup without Lucy's permission, Lucy will ask the King to throw Alf in jail. And the King will do it, whether Alf agrees to the rule or not, whether Alf gets anything swapped to him in exchange for having to respect Lucy's property rights or not, and whether the swap is a net benefit to him or not. So if this is what you're on about, then yes, property is maintained by coercion in our culture which means an act of property right enforcement is every bit as in need of moral justification as an act of taxation is.

But note that all this coercion is between Alf and Lucy and the King. Gwen isn't a party to it. If she declines to buy a finished bicycle from Alf for love or money, she's not the one stopping Alf from drinking the coffee. So why would she be part of the moral problem to be solved? She's not coercing Alf to make bicycles; she's just minding her own whorish business, giving her john/employee Alf his bicycle's worth. Why would what she and Alf do for each other raise any moral issue in the first place?

 

[Togo]

Nonsense. If I'm struck my lighning, I'm harmed. What is the act?

You mean, what is the thing your insurance company calls "the act of god"?

I suppose I should have said people are harmed not by situations but by events; an act is just an event that's someone's choice. I limited my original statement to acts because this is M&P and involuntary events go in Natural Science.

The situation in which one person earns 100 times the wage of another is not natural science. It's a social set-up that we have arrived at, once way or the other.

Ok, but you're ignoring the overall situation, and focusing just on the tax paid. Why?

Suppose Cindy and Dave have really good sex. The next day Fred punches Dave and Ed in the stomach so hard they collapse and retch violently for ten minutes each. It looks to me like Fred hurt Dave and Ed about equally badly. Are you going to ask me why I'm ignoring the overall situation?

Yes.

Are you going to claim Fred hurt Ed more than he hurt Dave, because Dave got sweet sweet love yesterday and Ed didn't?

No, but I am going to argue that Dave is better off than Ed. Which seems obvious, given the situation you describe.

I'm "ignoring" the overall situation, if that's what you want to call it, because no normal person would imagine that how bad Dave was hurt by having his stomach punched depends on the overall situation of whether he got a happy ending the day before. When we estimate how much harm event X does to person Y, we examine the effect of X on Y; we don't wander around the universe picking and choosing a thousand other events to add to and subtract from the harm from X. Doing so would make any calculation of the harm from a given event completely arbitrary.

No, and given that you are focusing on the specific harm, your evaluation is accurate. But the question remains unanswered - why are you focusing on the specific harm of a single transaction rather than the overall situation?

You argue that Alf was harmed more than Bobby even though the King only took half as much of Alf's life as of Bobby's, why? Because their employer Gwen paid Bobby more for his services than she paid Alf for his? Why are just those specific events the ones that you pick and choose to throw onto the scales of harm along with the King's acts which are the ones whose harmfulness we're actually trying to measure? Why not throw in the circumstance that Alf doesn't need the money because he's still living in his rich parents' basement? Why not throw in the circumstance that an incompetent doctor made Bobby be born with no hands?

Because I'm trying to keep the example simple. In practice, of course, a tax code may well take into account those things.

To be consistent, if Alf and Bobby never saw the tax paid, because it was paid by their employer directly, and they just had negotiated wage packets that were proportionally smaller as a result, would that mean that they hadn't been harmed?

Of course it wouldn't mean they hadn't been harmed. That's what it means to say their wages were smaller "as a result". To talk about help or harm is to talk about cause and effect.

But then that makes a nonsense of talking about individual acts. If Megacorp decides that all their subsidiaries need to contribute 10% RoI, and the bike shop only produces 5%, then that decision by Megacorp is going to lower Alf's income repairing bikes. If Alf's pay gets cut by $10 but he gets a $9 bonus, it makes very little sense to talk about his harm in losing $10. You can do it, but there are very few questions for which that is a useful answer.

Or was Bobby still harmed more than Alf on the basis of the loss of money that he would have had had the situation been different?

"Had the situation been different"?!? How the heck could that ever be a basis for calculating loss of money? Every situation could have been different in infinitely many ways. No matter how much anyone has, he could have had $1 more and $1 less and $1 million more and $1 million less, had the situation been different. (And yes, a person who's broke could have instead been both broke and $1 million in debt, had the situation been different.) If you're going to claim harm based on "situation", then you can compare the actual situation with any alternate situation you pull out of your ass and get whatever degree of harm or benefit you please. That's an unfalsifiability engine.

Otherwise known as 'a description'. Descriptions always have those characteristics. Whether they are falsifiable misses the point since they aren't hypotheses in the first place.

Bobby has prima facie been harmed more than Alf on the basis of the amount of their lives the King took from them.

It doesn't follow that that's a useful measure. Let's say Megacorp gives Alf a job at a wage of $10, but charges him $5 for being called 'Alf'. That's an unjustified tax of $5. Bobby earns $4. Is MegCorp harming Alf more?

Not exactly. I'm suggesting that increasing the number of actors and interactions doesn't change the morality of the outcome. If all you're genuinely concerned about is individual acts is isolation, then they can artificially manipulated and eliminated.

In the first place, who said the morality of the outcome changes?

I'm saying that it doesn't. If you agree, great.

We haven't gotten there yet. We're still arguing about who harmed whom how much.

That's not relevent to my calculation. If you want to argue otherwise, feel free.

We kind of need to establish that before we can figure out whether the harm was justified.

I'm not arguing for justified harm vs. unjustified harm. That's your arguement, not mine. Your arguement involves harm in one interaction being justified by aid in another. I'm just looking at the overall situation.

In the second place, what makes you think increasing the number of actors and interactions doesn't make a moral difference?

The fact that I'm looking at the outcome.

Suppose you ask Harry to take a shift for you at work, and he takes your shift in return for you promising not to show up at Ian's poker game tomorrow night because you're too good at it and he's sick and tired of losing all the time and wants a chance to win for once. Do you really think that whether you show up anyway and win all Harry's money, or instead Ian invites his new friend Jeff and Jeff wins all Harry's money, the increase in the number of actors and interactions when it's Jeff doesn't change the morality of the outcome? The fact that it was Jeff and not you outplaying Harry obviously makes a difference, morally. So why wouldn't the fact that it was the King and not Gwen preventing Alf from getting an additional dollar of Gwen's money make a difference?

Because you're still ignoring the overall outcome and focusing on the individual actors.

Um.. Why not? What's the difference in moral terms between an income of 1$ and a income of 2$, 1$ of which has to be paid in tax?

An income of $1 is simply two people realizing they'll both benefit if they swap, and agreeing to do so.

And tax is several million people realising they'll benefit if they swap, and agreeing to do so. Still not seeing the difference, other than the number of actors.

That is a truly bizarre description of tax. Do you have evidence that that's what tax is? Are you seriously suggesting

(a) that back in the days when Kings rather than Parliaments made subjects pay, that wasn't taxation,
(b) that now that it's Parliaments, everybody paying a tax agrees to pay it,
(c) that each person who's made to pay a tax is getting something swapped to him for it,
(d) that each of them is better off than if he'd kept his money and not received the thing that the tax was swapped for, and
(e) that each of them realizes he's better off that way?​

Those are what your assertion appears to imply; and those are all extraordinary claims.

a and e are not implied, and I'm not sure why you'd think they were.
b-d seem relatively uncontrovertial. If someone doesn't like it, they can vote with their feet, just as they would if they were in a job, and the company kept lowering their pay.

No, a tax is a ruler making his subjects pay him;

Not in the context of a democratic western country

On the other hand, an income of $2, $1 of which has to be paid in tax, is an act of coercion.

No more than having to work to get paid. You want be an employee, you have to work. You want to be a citizen, you have to pay tax.

And in the second place, why do you call having to work to get paid "coercion"?

Well if you're independently wealthy, then it isn't. But if you have to work in order to live, then that's coercion. Why wouldn't it be?

Suppose Alf makes bicycles for Gwen, not in exchange for money, but in exchange for sexual favors. Would you call the circumstance that Gwen can choose not to put out if Alf chooses not to make her a bicycle "Gwen coercing Alf"?

No, because Alf's life is not at stake. He can do without sexual favours. But most people need the money from employment in order to live and thrive.

But perhaps what you're getting at is that Alf has to have an income in order to buy his cup of coffee. And this metaphorically coerces him to work, under threat of not getting a cup of coffee, because he is not metaphorically but literally coerced not to have that cup of coffee at Lucy's cafe unless he pays for it, because the King enforces private property laws. Unlike Alf's employee/employer relationship with Gwen, his relationship with the King is nonconsensual.

Eh? You're allowed to move and find another government, just as you are allowed to move and find another job. What's the difference?

 

[fromderinside]

In other words, many Americans believe that what you say is true; but the facts suggest that they massively over-estimate the degree to which it is true in reality. A person born into poverty in the US has a slim chance to make a six figure income (and an even slimmer chance of becoming uber-wealthy); but most such people cannot achieve this result despite hard work, "perseverance, determination, and a downright winners attitude".

The facts may suggest it, but they don't imply it. You can't look at how things generally and most typically turn out for people born into low income families and attribute mediocre income to that. The factors that allow us to predict how things will typically turn out need not be causal. If people were taught and molded into attaining a better frame of mind, things would be extraordinarily different than they are. I'm not saying people with low incomes are lazy, but if I were to say it, I'd qualify it by saying they're lazy in thought. Sure, there are disadvantages to being unlucky enough to having been born on the poorer side of the spectrum, but that's not why most eventually come to make the money they do.

RE OP:
If the social correlation is high enough then a I agree that a social compact where the few may be harmed somewhat so that others might have better outcomes is warranted. My calculation depends on the few not being materially harmed in any survival or meaningful social sense.

 

[Bomb#20]

T: Society is so arranged that Alf gets paid 10$ an hour, and Bobby gets paid 100$ an hour.
Question: Is either Alf or Bobby being harmed by the situation?
B: What the heck does it mean to be harmed by a situation? People are helped or harmed by acts.
T: Nonsense. If I'm struck my lighning, I'm harmed. What is the act?
B: I suppose I should have said people are harmed not by situations but by events; an act is just an event that's someone's choice. I limited my original statement to acts because this is M&P and involuntary events go in Natural Science.
T: The situation in which one person earns 100 times the wage of another is not natural science. It's a social set-up that we have arrived at, once way or the other.

No one suggested otherwise. That's because it's the result of someone's voluntary act of giving somebody else a lot of his money, rather than of a natural event of somebody getting a lot of money. You still haven't explained what it means to be harmed by a situation as opposed to being harmed by a voluntary act or a natural event.

Are you going to claim Fred hurt Ed more than he hurt Dave, because Dave got sweet sweet love yesterday and Ed didn't?

No, but I am going to argue that Dave is better off than Ed. Which seems obvious, given the situation you describe.

But your question was whether either Alf or Bobby is being harmed, not whether one or the other was better off. Did you mean to ask which one was better off?

When we estimate how much harm event X does to person Y, we examine the effect of X on Y; we don't wander around the universe picking and choosing a thousand other events to add to and subtract from the harm from X.

No, and given that you are focusing on the specific harm, your evaluation is accurate. But the question remains unanswered - why are you focusing on the specific harm of a single transaction rather than the overall situation?

Where by "the question remains unanswered", you mean I answered it but you don't care for my answer? Then I will expand on my earlier answer. I'm focusing on a single transaction because this is a thread about subsidies rather than a thread about how well off people are, because you asked whether Alf or Bobby were harmed, because as far as I can tell talking of harm by a situation as opposed to harm by an event is a category error, because there appears to be no way to define harm in terms of situations other than by comparing one situation to an arbitrarily chosen different situation and thus making claims of harm arbitrary and unverifiable, and because no explanation of what it means for a situation to harm someone has been forthcoming because when I asked you you instead told me salaries aren't a matter of Natural Science.

Here are two questions for you.

(1) If you wake up to find the SML plugged your circulatory system into a famous violinist because he's going to die unless you're used as a host to provide him with human dialysis for nine months, did the SML harm you?

(2) If you wake up to find the SML plugged your circulatory system into a famous violinist because he's going to die unless you're used as a host to provide him with human dialysis for nine months, who's better off, you or the violinist?

To be consistent, if Alf and Bobby never saw the tax paid, because it was paid by their employer directly, and they just had negotiated wage packets that were proportionally smaller as a result, would that mean that they hadn't been harmed?

Of course it wouldn't mean they hadn't been harmed. That's what it means to say their wages were smaller "as a result". To talk about help or harm is to talk about cause and effect.

But then that makes a nonsense of talking about individual acts. If Megacorp decides that all their subsidiaries need to contribute 10% RoI, and the bike shop only produces 5%, then that decision by Megacorp is going to lower Alf's income repairing bikes. If Alf's pay gets cut by $10 but he gets a $9 bonus, it makes very little sense to talk about his harm in losing $10. You can do it, but there are very few questions for which that is a useful answer.

Are you suggesting that because equating "Megacorp did him $10 of harm and then gave him $9 of help" with "Megacorp did him $1 of harm" is an innocuous accounting simplification, it follows that equating "Megacorp gave him $9 of help and then the government did him $10 of harm" with "Megacorp did him $1 of harm" is an innocuous accounting simplification? You appear to be trying to give government the credit for everything positive that one subject does for another.

Or was Bobby still harmed more than Alf on the basis of the loss of money that he would have had had the situation been different?

"Had the situation been different"?!? How the heck could that ever be a basis for calculating loss of money? Every situation could have been different in infinitely many ways. No matter how much anyone has, he could have had $1 more and $1 less and $1 million more and $1 million less, had the situation been different. (And yes, a person who's broke could have instead been both broke and $1 million in debt, had the situation been different.) If you're going to claim harm based on "situation", then you can compare the actual situation with any alternate situation you pull out of your ass and get whatever degree of harm or benefit you please. That's an unfalsifiability engine.

Otherwise known as 'a description'. Descriptions always have those characteristics. Whether they are falsifiable misses the point since they aren't hypotheses in the first place.

So descriptions can't be correct or incorrect? They're just subjective impressions and if I describe you as three meters tall, that can't be falsified by somebody who has access to you and a tape measure?

Bobby has prima facie been harmed more than Alf on the basis of the amount of their lives the King took from them.

It doesn't follow that that's a useful measure. Let's say Megacorp gives Alf a job at a wage of $10, but charges him $5 for being called 'Alf'. That's an unjustified tax of $5. Bobby earns $4. Is MegCorp harming Alf more?

Was the $5 charge for being called Alf specified when he took the job, or imposed afterwards when some higher-up noticed he was named Alf? If the former, then there's only one act: they hired him for a net wage of $5, which helped him. If the latter, then there are two acts: first they gave him $10 of help and then they did him $5 of harm, which means they harmed him more than Bobby -- they didn't harm Bobby -- but they also helped him more than Bobby.

So what's your point? Are you saying that measuring help and harm from acts and adding them up instead of just finding the net help/harm from all Megacorp's acts is useless, and therefore it follows that measuring help from your acts and harm from my acts instead of just finding the net help/harm from all your and my acts is useless? If that's your point, that doesn't follow.

In the first place, who said the morality of the outcome changes?

I'm saying that it doesn't. If you agree, great.

But I didn't say I agree either. That's not what we were talking about. You appear not to distinguish moral questions from non-moral questions, and instead try to derive non-moral conclusions from moral premises.

We haven't gotten there yet. We're still arguing about who harmed whom how much.

That's not relevent to my calculation. If you want to argue otherwise, feel free.

Fine. We haven't gotten to the morality of the outcome yet. We're still arguing about who was harmed how much. Does using passive voice make it relevant?

In the second place, what makes you think increasing the number of actors and interactions doesn't make a moral difference?

The fact that I'm looking at the outcome.

That's not an answer; that's simply repeating that you think how we get to an outcome doesn't make a moral difference without saying why you think it doesn't.

Suppose you ask Harry to take a shift for you at work, and he takes your shift in return for you promising not to show up at Ian's poker game tomorrow night because you're too good at it and he's sick and tired of losing all the time and wants a chance to win for once. Do you really think that whether you show up anyway and win all Harry's money, or instead Ian invites his new friend Jeff and Jeff wins all Harry's money, the increase in the number of actors and interactions when it's Jeff doesn't change the morality of the outcome? The fact that it was Jeff and not you outplaying Harry obviously makes a difference, morally. So why wouldn't the fact that it was the King and not Gwen preventing Alf from getting an additional dollar of Gwen's money make a difference?

Because you're still ignoring the overall outcome and focusing on the individual actors.

Are you telling me that you seriously think it makes no moral difference whether Harry loses because a stranger won his money, or whether Harry loses because you won his money after you promised him you wouldn't and he took your shift for you?!?

And tax is several million people realising they'll benefit if they swap, and agreeing to do so. Still not seeing the difference, other than the number of actors.

That is a truly bizarre description of tax. Do you have evidence that that's what tax is? Are you seriously suggesting

(a) that back in the days when Kings rather than Parliaments made subjects pay, that wasn't taxation,
(b) that now that it's Parliaments, everybody paying a tax agrees to pay it,
(c) that each person who's made to pay a tax is getting something swapped to him for it,
(d) that each of them is better off than if he'd kept his money and not received the thing that the tax was swapped for, and
(e) that each of them realizes he's better off that way?​

Those are what your assertion appears to imply; and those are all extraordinary claims.

a and e are not implied, and I'm not sure why you'd think they were.

(a) Do you mean back when there was no voting and the King simply ordered people to pay however much he pleased, to you that qualified as "several million people agreeing"?

(e) You're the one who said "realising". That appears to be a claim about the state of mind of the people who are getting their stuff swapped away. What am I missing?

b-d seem relatively uncontrovertial. If someone doesn't like it, they can vote with their feet, just as they would if they were in a job, and the company kept lowering their pay.

(b) Huh? You don't have to vote with your feet to quit your job. Unless you've been drafted into the military or you've signed a contract with a quitting procedure spelled out, you can just not do any work and your ex-employer can just not give you her money. On what planet do people have to take whatever painful affirmative step Thomas Hobbes and/or you decide to assign to them in order NOT to agree to something? An agreement is a "meeting of the minds", a state of two or more minds thinking the same idea: a promise by P to do X and a promise by Q to do Y. Inaction is not evidence of minds having met. It is no more possible to bring a promise into existence by saying "You promise" than it's possible for you to sin by Eve eating a fruit. It's ridiculous. You might as well mail somebody a magazine with a bill for a subscription and a letter saying if he doesn't want to subscribe he has two weeks to return the magazine to your place of business along with the bill with the "Cancel" box checked, and then when the two weeks are up claim he's in a binding contract with you to subscribe to your magazine.

(c) Fast was made to pay $75 so that other people could be connected to city water; the city water was not connected to his house. What was swapped to him for that $75?

(d) will have to wait until you answer (c).

No, a tax is a ruler making his subjects pay him;

Not in the context of a democratic western country

How do you figure? Britain has Parliamentary supremacy. They can enact any tax they like, and you'll all have to pay it for up to five years before you have a chance to fire them for it. Even in Switzerland, where there's a referendum, all that means is that the majority is the ruler, and they can make the minority pay them.

And in the second place, why do you call having to work to get paid "coercion"?

Well if you're independently wealthy, then it isn't. But if you have to work in order to live, then that's coercion. Why wouldn't it be?

Huh? So if a deer won't come into the cave and commit hara-kiri over the cooking fire, that means a caveman is being coerced to work because if he wants to eat he needs to go out and hunt? Who's coercing him? The deer? Needing to work to live is a consequence of ecology; it's not something other people did to you.

Suppose Alf makes bicycles for Gwen, not in exchange for money, but in exchange for sexual favors. Would you call the circumstance that Gwen can choose not to put out if Alf chooses not to make her a bicycle "Gwen coercing Alf"?

No, because Alf's life is not at stake. He can do without sexual favours. But most people need the money from employment in order to live and thrive.

So your theory is that there's only a middle ground between Gwen coercing Alf and Alf coercing Gwen, where neither coerces the other, because Alf won't die of celibacy? Does the middle ground also go away if Gwen will die of celibacy? If Alf declines to make a bike for Gwen to sell, she won't get the money she needs to live and thrive. So by your line of argument, if she stops putting out so he stops making bikes for her, that means she's being coerced to have sex. Would you actually argue that buying sex from a prostitute is rape?

In any event, I see you added "and thrive" to "Alf's life is not at stake". Did you add that because in the context of a democratic western country, Alf's life isn't actually at stake even if he's working for money? After all, if Alf doesn't get money from employment he can get welfare and not die. It looks like you needed to change your criteria in order to still be able to claim Alf is being coerced to work. So what's your basis for saying Alf needs a job to thrive but he doesn't need sex to thrive? In the words of Owen Wilson, "How do you live?" Note that poor people very often choose to trade off a hit to their material standard of living just in order to get sex; that seems to imply that they feel sex is more important than money for thriving. By what standard do you count material standard of living toward thriving but not count sexual favors?

But perhaps what you're getting at is that Alf has to have an income in order to buy his cup of coffee. And this metaphorically coerces him to work, under threat of not getting a cup of coffee, because he is not metaphorically but literally coerced not to have that cup of coffee at Lucy's cafe unless he pays for it, because the King enforces private property laws. Unlike Alf's employee/employer relationship with Gwen, his relationship with the King is nonconsensual.

Eh? You're allowed to move and find another government, just as you are allowed to move and find another job. What's the difference?

What the heck has that got to do with anything? The King ordered Alf not to steal from Lucy. If Alf moves and finds another government, that's not going to enable him to steal Lucy's coffee without getting his ass tossed in the slammer. Moving away isn't choosing not to obey the King; moving away is obeying the King. That's a nonconsensual relationship.