Tyler ’s Comments (group member since May 09, 2008)

Tyler ’s comments from the Philosophy group.

Patrice made this point, which relates to the problems we're having with the political system in the United States, and maybe in other countries.

[de Tocqueville's] point was that when you have two separate segments of society, one who contributes and one who takes, you have a powder keg of resentment. I think that's the situation we're moving towards and it has to be reversed if we're to be one America.

She makes the point, over and over, that the government will confiscate all our property and redistribute it. From her posts, she appears extraordinarly afraid of this.

I'm mentioning this here because it's a perfect example of the problems we've been discussing about the political system, especially the mainstream media.

The media in this country promotes the idea that the government is in the process of seizing private property to give it the poor, the unemployed, the sick and retirees, none of whom work.

The notion that grips political discourse in the United States is that people who don't work don't deserve assistance of any kind from the government. It is presented as a known fact. Yet most voters know that they either have or might in the future accept government assistance.

The media has created in this country a nation of people driven by one huge fear: That somewhere out there, somebody, somehow, is getting something for nothing. All public political talk in this country now dances around this fear.

The cognitive dissonance set up by the constant distinction in our media between deserving and un-deserving individuals undermines whatever self-respect these people have. That, by itself, calls for a rethinking of our political system.

A part of the problem in applying the human element to the political system is overcoming this deep fear. The mainstream media will do nothing but fan it, and in this respect freedom of the press has become meaningless.

Comments?

Amen to that, and it is exactly what keeps bringing me back over and over. Physics and philosophy often walk hand in hand for me.

It's ironic that the more we know, the more we're aware of that's out there as a possibility.

Hi Aaron --

If the government has a moral or legal right to take the property for its own ends, it is no longer exclusive to the first owner.

Saying that something is either A or not-A, whatever its logical merits, forces the conclusion that all property is public.

The government decides what property ownership amounts to in the first place, and what restrictions attach to a deed or title. Private property is a legal concept. Thus, regardless of moral principles, we're arguing, under A or not-A, about the use of public property.

Because we don't commonly think of houses and cars this way, I question whether A or not-A is the best basis for a libertarian defense of private property.

Hi Patrice --

His point was that when you have two separate segments of society, one who contributes and one who takes, you have a powder keg of resentment. I think that's the situation we're moving towards and it has to be reversed if we're to be one America.

Will it be okay if I (or you) move this part of the post to Robert's thread or a new one? I think it's important enough to stand on its own, and it will get more attention there.

Hi Robert --

Your points are well made, and I think Sartre would agree in both instances that the actual freedom a human being possesses is far more than we acknowledge in everyday life. So the point you've made is important, namely, to what extent is a limitation on freedom set in concrete? I'm surprised at your view about overcoming natural obstacles, but it's true that if we all live longer, we'll have more aggregate freedom. Should we invest in life-extension technology?


Everyman says in post 217 that one can say that there are really three basic sources of limits to personal freedom, natural, personal and societal. So, provided this is a complete enumeration of the ways personal freedom gets limited, I would ask which one of the three matters most. I thought it was #3, because that will include #2 and the kinds of ways society limits the individual have moral implications as well. Either way, it's important for everyone to stop for a moment to think about the general ways in which freedom is limited.

Hi Aaron --

I'm jumping into a conversation already in progress, so I hope you'll forgive me if I'm asking questions or discussing matters you all have long since covered.

Welcome to the thread. It's fine to jump in, and once a thread gets long enough, repetition is always needed. To give you a quick run-down, we've been using the syllogism to discuss how the concept of "redistribution of wealth" properly applies, specifically in the case of government activity.

(minor quibble: P1 and P2 can be transfer of wealth from anyone to anyone else, whether individuals or groups).

It has been my contention that this is more than just a minor quibble, and that it affects the argument. What we're considering is which definition to use, but we've reached no agreement. It is a classic anti-statist argument, but the question is whether it can be improved.

Hi Patrice --

I wonder why Tyler changed what I was saying?/Tyler quoted me as saying that taxation is theft and I was correcting him.

In post 180 you said:

Patrice: If I am poor or rich and want your money, it is not government's obligation to "steal" it from one to give to the other.

and I took up that point in post 185:

Tyler: You're saying the idea that "Taxation is theft" is sound.

It certainly sounded like that's what you were saying. But now that you've made your position clear, I obviously misunderstood you.



If we don't believe in compensation for work, if we don't believe in private property, why not just say so?

Who said that? The discussion has been about a much narrower point.

Hi Everyman --

Okay, I follow. Am I right to conclude that source #3 is where the most attention should be focused?

Age certainly brings with it opportunities.

Hi Everyman --

The definition "transfer of wealth means government transfer of wealth" doesn't have any value judgment of assumption within it.

I agree there. But the actual premise in question has defined transfer of wealth much differently, to the point of being opinion. That definition needs a further argument to support the restriction on its use. Otherwise, the conclusion, in order to make the argument sound as well as valid, would have to be restated, "C.>>Therefore, the opinion of those who subscribe to P1 is that government transfer of wealth is evil."


All logical arguments depend on agreed definitions; one of the main problems with discussion or argumentation comes when people are using the same term to mean different things.

I think here that even the terms are different; that's to say, the reference isn't even the same for the competing senses in which it's used. The ambiguous definitions are actually leading to unrelated arguments. The reference, for its part, is subject to a true or false valuation, provided it's not arbitrary.

I've been thinking lately of how common expressions in English might convert to something more logical. Commonly, if you tell someone "You're rationalizing", you mean they're reaching somehow. So I thought maybe that usage would convert to something like unsoundness in argumentation.

That contrasts with the common usage of "That begs the question ...", by which people ordinarily mean that leads to a further question. People don't mean anything logical even though that started out as a principle of argumentation.

Anyhow, the dictionary definition is correct, and the other usage might be thought of as secondary, or slang.

Hi Robert --

It rationalizes if one tries to extrapolate anything from it, or so it appears to me.

Hi Robert --

For me, the most important reason it is unsound is because it is not a useful argument.

As it stands, it's a rationalization rather than a reason. As such, it doesn't convince people who don't already accept a specially tailored definition of wealth redistribution. It won't be of use in that respect.

Hi Everyman --

Entirely correct. But the fact that one of the terms of the syllogism is based on opinion doesn't invalidate it as a logical syllogism.

Saying that gets us to Robert's ending point:

Someone thinks that moving money from the rich to the poor is a bad thing. Well, so what? Someone else thinks its a good thing. Well, so what?

I've already said such an argument is valid, if that's what you mean by logical. But it remains unsound. It is viciously circular unless there's some reason independent of bare assertion to think that the restricted definition of wealth redistribution is the true one.

I'm surprised you would be content to rest the argument on an unsound footing which could easily be fixed, unless you subscribe to some form of moral nihilism. But I don't know what your starting principles are for moral reasoning, so my lack of understanding makes it hard to say much more than I already have.

Hi Robert --

I can't really give you reasons to be more relaxed. I'm not relaxed myself. Rather, I'm nervous as hell about the future.

I thought about that as soon as I posted it. It's really I who ought to be finding reasons to be positive myself.

Any ideas? Anyone?

Hi Robert --

That, of course, is not the aim of most of those self-identifying as liberals.

That's true, but what's under ferocious attack right now is any attempt whatever to reduce the gap. Speaking of things that are different these days, that's a big one.

to apply the humanities to politics? [...] is to draw insights from intellectual history [...] as an aid in understanding current political trends and the ability to actually make progress politically.

I like the history of ideas and there's a lot that I haven't read. One I have that you might like is Three Critics of the Enlightenment. It's not as bad as it sounds.

..he [...]draws out implications for understand the enigmatic reaction we are currently witnessing to the efforts of the Obama administration and how attempts to improve that reaction can be made more effective.

The only thing is I'm not quite sure where he thinks all this is heading, maybe because the shifts in politics do seem so enigmatic and counterintuitive. But I'm afraid public discourse has become so poisoned that the only next step possible will turn out badly.

I think technology has a lot to do with this trend. You have a different perspective, so I hope you can give me reasons to be more relaxed about the short term.

Hi Robert --

You and Everyman are saying that a definition cannot make the argument circular. I'm saying that a definition used as a premise does. Am I mistaken about the status of definitions that appear as premises? I either haven't seen or have overlooked any protocol saying definitions used this way don't count toward an assessment of the overall argument.

I said in post 195 that I thought the syllogism was valid but unsound. If it's actually sound, then the restricted definition used in it would be true, and any other definition of redistribution false. But I don't think that's what Everyman is claiming, and that's why I suggested a definition that subsumes any category indifferently.

There cannot be more than one true definition. If the restricted definition is true, the syllogism would be both valid and sound. It would stand in no need of further evidence. The truth of the definition would be evidence enough. That is what I dispute.


There is nothing to test but personal viewpoint on value, which is inherently subjective

I don't precisely agree, not because there aren't a multiplicity of personal views, but because some views might have an objective basis.


A value judgement that can not be verified is detached from reality.

I agree, but I don't yet know how Everyman verifies his moral judgments -- that is, by reference to what criteria.

And I suggest doing just that before any more debate, so that the debate could be meaningful. To this point, because of what I explained above, it can't be meaningful.

I made a similar point in post 195. Again, I'm not sure what Everyman's position on the various definitions is, so I don't want to put words in his mouth.

Hi Robert --

Who said I was satisfied?

Sorry, I confused your remarks there with Everyman's. I'll answer in another post.

The fact that the argument isn't falisfiable is evidence that it's circular, due to the nature of the definition. But this I don't understand:


Moreover,my position on the matter is incontrovertible, and simultaneously, useless.

Why would you be satisfied with your position if you could improve it? While I'm open to your idea on the matter, I don't think a value judgment is mere opinion unless it's detached from contingent reality.


To "disprove" the argument you would have to convert the syllogism (not to mention increase the sophistication) with reference to something verifiable

Then why not do that? This is what accepting that all (as opposed to certain kinds of) government spending redistributes wealth does. That is a statement of fact, not an opinion.

Structured that way, would would it take to disprove that argument?