Comments by "Vic 2.0" (@Vic2point0) on "The case for and against a wealth tax" video.

How bout we stop trying to justify stealing altogether?
7
@ebalicious1775 Well all sorts of bad things could be argued for in that way, right up to and including murder (as some people will inevitably be more of a drain on society than a benefit). No, I think people shouldn't steal. Even if, in their minds, they have a really really good reason for it.
2
@ebalicious1775 I simply responded to your presented interpretation of it. But sure, let's continue. "Rule utilitarianism puts certain restrictions on particular things such as murder." Why? If stealing can be justified for the greater good, why not murder? What's the fundamental difference? "And I should have stated that not only does utilitarianism utilise net gain/loss, but also what the people of the society want the most." What do you mean by "people"? Surely not all people, because not all people want to be stolen from.
2
@ebalicious1775 "So for me, outcomes are what is most important." Outcomes for whom? Surely the people who are being stolen from aren't having a good outcome there. And you might say, "Well they'll benefit from it later", but A. you can't guarantee that, and B. if you're just going to run their lives for them in this way, what's to stop you from running it in other ways (deciding where they should live, who they should marry, how many kids they should have, etc.)? "You can call taxation theft," Because it literally is. Now you can keep trying to justify this theft, but let's not evade the reality of what we're doing here. "but what actually has to be analysed is the outcome of it." No. Both what you're doing and why need to be analyzed, as I explained earlier. "As you and I know, the payroll taxes that millions of Americans pay, go towards social security, roads, welfare, water, etc..." And even if we had reason to think the government would run those programs efficiently, that still doesn't justify stealing the money for it in the first place. "And not on that, but the majority of the population believes that taxation is necessary." That's fine, the majority of the population has been wrong many, many, many times before. "And when I said 'people of the society want the most' I was talking about the populism part of utilitarianism. The idea that of the greatest number of people believe something to be good, that it is good." Well that's patently false. Used to be standard education, for example, that the world is flat. Women used to be considered inferior to men (and still are) in much of the world, even according to many women themselves. Sorry, but an appeal to the majority doesn't work in justifying something. "Most people in the U.S. believe taxation is necessary, which is why it is morally good." Well that just reduces morality to something subjective, then. In which case you can't actually say something is actually good, you can only say that you like it.
2
@ebalicious1775 No, in fact I'm quoting you so as to not misrepresent your side, but clarify away. "Utilitarianism-the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct." But who should get to determine what will/will not result in the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people? Who can even determine what will result in the greatest happiness for their next-door neighbor? Surely the neighbor himself has an advantage in that regard. And so you're still wanting to justify stealing because the assumption is made that it will help the most people (which may or may not include the person you stole from). "Taxation (at this current moment) provides the greatest utility at reducing income inequality," 1. Where's your evidence of that? 2. Income inequality isn't in and of itself a bad thing. For example, if some people work more often or work harder, then they should be getting more money. and 3. Even if this does fix the "problem" of income inequality, how does it justify stealing when we wouldn't say other types of wrongdoing could be justified by other good outcomes? Again, what's to stop you from deciding where I should live, who I should marry, or how many kids I should have? "and not only that, it provides great utility to those who want roads, water, protection, etc." Providing utility to someone after you've stolen from them hardly justifies the stealing, though, right? "We can talk about the other contentions you had with utilitarianism, but I want to cover this one first." Yes, you should really respond to everything I've said, not pick and choose from each comment.
2
@ebalicious1775 "I'm saying that you can justify taxation by using utilitarian concepts." Right, but you're not responding directly to any of my rebuttals there. How is it okay to steal money because you assume it will eventually benefit the most people (maybe or maybe not even the person you stole it from)? "I'm assuming you'll ask for proof." Well I did earlier, yes. But again, even if it does turn out to help the most people, why wouldn't we infringe on people's rights in every other way in light of the same reasoning?
2
@ebalicious1775 "Taking a portion of your money-" Stealing, you mean, unless you're talking about someone taking a portion of their own money. "in order to benefit society as whole" Which may or may not benefit society at all, especially managed as it is by government officials and agencies who have no real incentive to do a good job (and often have real incentives to do a bad one). And which may or may not include the person you stole from. "One example of taxation producing a good outcome would be roads." It's not enough to show that you can do good things with the money you've stolen. After all, you can also do good things with money and labor given voluntarily. You would also need to show that it's the greatest way of going about it, and still to explain how it would still be wrong to infringe on people's rights in other ways because it might help society as a whole.
2
@ebalicious1775 "Most people should use utilitarianism on an individual level." And most people should be free to choose how they're going to act, and what happens to their money. "If they believe the greatest good for the greatest number is a good ethical system, then they will use that." If they stayed in their own lane, I'd be fine with that. "And if these people are in positions of power, they will use their ethical framework to make decisions." And they still haven't given (nor have you given) any justification for stealing money to make those decisions with.
1