Is the concept of fairness irrelevant in taxation?

[plover]

The binary framework is not my concoction. It exists inherently in Njorl's philosophy because he applies luck to any factor that produces achievement. The overall effect is to negate the entire achievement as a matter of luck.

And no, I do not support this notion at all. People have free will and most should be credited for their achievements. (Those that achieve due to nefarious activity or pure luck --- the lottery, for example --- should not be credited.)

Going from the posts Njorl has made in this thread to "Njorl's philosophy" is a bit of a leap, except as a figure of speech. Your previous posts here, however, have led me to, as a rule, expect your words should be treated literally. It is, of course, possible that you have a greater experience of Njorl than I do, and have some reason (from sources other than this thread) to believe that you have a functional outline of his overall philosophy.

This is, however, irrelevant to this discussion, which is about the implications of a specific argument, not Njorl's convictions.

The point I have been putting at issue is not what "Njorl's philosophy" might be, but whether there is a set of premises which may be derived from his initial statements that justifies taking his point concerning taxes under consideration. I have argued in favor of this. (As has, for entirely different reasons, BobG.) You have yet to indicate that any interpretation other than yours is even a meaningful possibility.

The binary framework I'm referring to is indeed yours. It is the idea that luck must play no part in human achievement, because if luck does play any part it negates all achievement. This is the statement that I have found to be implied in your previous posts, and have been asking if you explicitly support.

It is, however, not Njorl's statement. AFAICT, the strongest interpretation that is supported by Njorl's statement would be:

N1) There is significant luck involved in the acquisition of wealth.​

N2) If there is enough luck involved in the acquisition of wealth, we can safely ignore how each person's wealth was accrued when considering how taxes should be apportioned.​

You seem to take statement N2 as equivalent to:

J2) if any luck is involved in human achievement, that would negate all human achievement.​

(Note that Njorl does not use the word "achievement".)

There are a few problems here. One is that statement J2 takes the threshold from statement N2 and arbitrarily sets it to zero. Another is that J2 assumes that "acquisition of wealth" and "human achievement" can be equated in some simple fashion. It is simple enough to come up with "human achievements" (e.g. being a good parent) that have no correlation to wealth. Lastly it implies something like the idea that progressive taxation is equivalent to the denial of all human achievement -- which strikes me as being up there with full-on rejection of the social contract in plausibility. Please note: I'm not saying that J2 by itself has the above implications, I'm saying that taking J2 and N2 to be equivalent does.

You are welcome to give evidence that you don't take the two statements to be equivalent. So far, I haven't seen any.

Above you say: "I do not support this notion at all". As best I can tell, the notion you are referring to is the idea that all human achievement is determined by luck (i.e. the consequence of taking both N1 and J2 as true). Your opinion on this idea was not at issue. You've repeated it enough times in earlier posts that we're pretty clear on it.

In addition to not convincing me that you don't think that statements J2 and N2 are equivalent, you also haven't convinced me that you disagree with the essence of statement J2. While winning the lottery is a means of acquiring wealth, I doubt that it qualifies as "human achievement". And whether or not criminals should be "credited" for their achievements, says nothing about whether luck plays any role in achievement, legal or otherwise.

Here is another statement -- one which you have implied might be your replacement for N1:

J1) All human achievement derives from the exercise of free will.​

Nothing you've said so far has supplied any refutation of the idea that acceptance of J1 and J2 logically implies approval of Saddam Hussein. (And, yes, I know you don't feel approval for Saddam -- I'm talking about consistency here, not your opinion.) All it would probably take is another principle to derive morals from other than free will. Regarding "free will" however, there is a decade or two of experimental evidence in neurobiology you'll have to refute in order to get me to accept that any of the received notions of "free will" still make much sense.

Sadly, you have done a fair job of convincing that me that you're not reading my posts very carefully. Your responses have been repetitive, often contain loaded rhetoric, and rarely respond to anything I've actually said. What reason do I have not to believe that you are just being rigidly dogmatic and ideological? You are welcome to convince me this reading is unfair.

 

[JohnDubYa]

The binary framework I'm referring to is indeed yours. It is the idea that luck must play no part in human achievement, because if luck does play any part it negates all achievement.

And this is where you are wrong. I am not saying that if luck plays ANY part, it negates acheivement. I am saying that achievement is negated if all factors of achievement are ultimately reduced to luck.

I have stated this many times, and you seem unable to acknowledge it. This is why my posts have been repetitive -- you just continually ignore the most crucial aspect of my argument.

N1) There is significant luck involved in the acquisition of wealth.

Well, my philosophy is "There is often significant luck involved in the acquisition of wealth." But very well.

N2) If there is enough luck involved in the acquisition of wealth, we can safely ignore how each person's wealth was accrued when considering how taxes should be apportioned.

A logical statement. (I don't agree with it, of course, but the statement is consistent.)

You seem to take statement N2 as equivalent to:

J2) if any luck is involved in human achievement, that would negate all human achievement.

No, and this is where you misunderstand my argument.

Wealth is accumulated in many different ways. Some obtain it by sheer luck. Some obtain it by hard work, or smart work. Some require both.

However, the original philosophy, to which I object, relegates all success to luck. No matter what factors were involved in obtaining wealth, those factors were always reduced to sheer fortune. So a person who used his determination to build wealth was said to be lucky because he was born with "determination" genes (or something along those lines).

By the same token, we can use that logic to reduce all factors that led to Saddam Hussein's cruelty to misfortune. Which is why I don't agree with that logic.

 

[selfAdjoint]

And this is where you are wrong. I am not saying that if luck plays ANY part, it negates acheivement. I am saying that achievement is negated if all factors of achievement are ultimately reduced to luck.

But it's up to you to prove that having a lot of money is significantly affected by an achievement that is independent of luck. Recall that skill, drive, and other inputs to achievement are partly genetic and partly environmental, in other words due to luck.

 

[JohnDubYa]

But it's up to you to prove that having a lot of money is significantly affected by an achievement that is independent of luck. Recall that skill, drive, and other inputs to achievement are partly genetic and partly environmental, in other words due to luck.

And I am refuting that argument by illustrating the consequences of adhering to it. Hence the Saddam Hussein example.

The entire luck argument is a tautology anyway. How do we even know that Bill Gates is more lucky than unlucky? After all, not everything has gone his way. If you use his accomplishments as evidence, then you have a circular argument.

"Bill Gates should not be entitled to fairness because his wealth is due to luck."

"How do you know his wealth is due to luck?"

"Because he's lucky."

"How do you know he's lucky?"

"Because he's wealthy."

Bah!

 

[selfAdjoint]

So Lance Armstrong was just lucky to win six Tours de France. And Martin Luther King, Jr. was just lucky when he established the civil rights movement. Audie Murphy was just lucky when he won the Medal of Honor. Saddam Hussein was just unlucky when he slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people. Adolf Hitler was just unlucky when he deported the Jews to concentration camps. There is no achievement. There is no barbarity. We are all just pawns being played by the hand of fortune.

You cannot deny achievement on one hand, and then assign blame and responsibility on the other.

Yes. Lance is lucky to be who he is, a man able to overcome terrible handicaps and win those Tours de France. And if Saddam (or Hitler in one of your other posts) had had different genes and different early experiences they could have been law abiding citizens of their nations instead of what they were.

Libertarian views on wealth derive from pop-calvinist ideas that if you did well in this world, that was evidence that you were "saved", ergo morally good. For a Biblical take on this world view, see the book of Job. But calvinism is a splinter belief nowadays. Bill Gates had a bunch of traits and attitudes that made him rich, and those traits and attitudes were no achievement of his.

 

[JohnDubYa]

Bill Gates had a bunch of traits and attitudes that made him rich

First of all, how do you know that Bill Gates' riches were due to traits and attitudes obtained by luck? (Without using circular reasoning, of course.)

And those that have similar traits and attitudes always become rich? If not, why not? Were they simply unlucky?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Those who have exactly Bill Gates traits and attitudes will BE Bill Gates. No two human beings are identical. Everyone's traits and attitudes are the product of their genes and their environmental influences. Psychologist have forund that many adult characteristics, such as the Big Five, are already marked in individuals at the age of two. Even the fine tuning is unlikely to have lasted past high school. At the end of that time Bill Gates was a finished personality. Was he furiously ambitious, fanatically hard working, brilliantly shrewd and clever? Moreso than anyone else in his generation? Well it wasn't because he screwed up his face and REALLY TRIED to be those things. He was those things.

 

[plover]

And this is where you are wrong. I am not saying that if luck plays ANY part, it negates acheivement.

Great! Finally an answer to my question... (Though in the quote you could have left in the part of my statement that shows it was a query rather than a declaration.)

I am saying that achievement is negated if all factors of achievement are ultimately reduced to luck.

I have stated this many times, and you seem unable to acknowledge it. This is why my posts have been repetitive -- you just continually ignore the most crucial aspect of my argument.

I did indeed acknowledge it. From [post=273638]post #27[/post]:

As I just stated, if every factor of achievement is written off as due to luck,

Here's a premise...

then all achievements are a matter of chance. At this time you cannot take any action that cannot be assigned to luck. [...]

Okay, if I take your premise [as it stands, then] your conclusion follows.

The consistency of this conditional has not been at issue.

Well, my philosophy is "There is often significant luck involved in the acquisition of wealth." But very well.

Now you're answering questions I haven't even asked yet...
(Note: I was not explicitly attributing N1 to anyone in particular.)

A logical statement. (I don't agree with it, of course, but the statement is consistent.)

Fair enough.

No, and this is where you misunderstand my argument.

Wealth is accumulated in many different ways. Some obtain it by sheer luck. Some obtain it by hard work, or smart work. Some require both.

It's your premises I haven't been able to figure out, not your argument. That's why I kept asking you to clarify them...

Up until now you'd given no solid indication of what you might think the role of luck is, only an assertion of what you believe the role of luck is not.

However, the original philosophy, to which I object, relegates all success to luck. No matter what factors were involved in obtaining wealth, those factors were always reduced to sheer fortune. So a person who used his determination to build wealth was said to be lucky because he was born with "determination" genes (or something along those lines).

Yes, Njorl's original statement when interpreted to say that all success is relegated to luck is what you have stated an objection to.

The whole reason this conversation got started is that your original statement seemed to deny that any other interpretation could be considered. At this point, it is easy enough to read your original statement as a specific argument; in context, and without knowing your premises, it was not. Perhaps my overall point is that your rhetoric did not serve your case.

By the same token, we can use that logic to reduce all factors that led to Saddam Hussein's cruelty to misfortune. Which is why I don't agree with that logic.

What are you saying does lead to cruelty such as Saddam's? Are you denying that neurobiological factors play any part? How do you define "free will" in light of current evidence in neurobiology?

 

[plover]

The entire luck argument is a tautology anyway. ... If you use [Bill Gates'] accomplishments as evidence, then you have a circular argument.

"Bill Gates should not be entitled to fairness because his wealth is due to luck."
"How do you know his wealth is due to luck?"
"Because he's lucky."
"How do you know he's lucky?"
"Because he's wealthy."

The issue has never been whether any given person is lucky or not. The question is the overall effect of circumstance upon people across the population.

You can't refute a statistical proposition with a single instance counterexample.

In addition, the statement "Bill Gates should not be entitled to fairness" misrepresents Njorl's argument. Depending on the interpretation, Njorl could be saying either that nobody is entitled to fairness on this issue (not you, not me, not Njorl - Bill Gates is no different), or that the fairness of any system of taxation is, at root, undecidable (so we need to refer to other factors in making policy).