Ted Vollers wrote:
I am applying the principles of MBT
that does not justify taking from those who have little to give to those already with much more than they can make use of or justify control.
These both violate the principle of protecting free will.
Have you a way to subjectively justify removing a tax burden from the 1% for instance to place it instead on the 99% or can you understand it as reasonably objective as a criteria that tax burdens should be equitable, i. e. fair? This has been a significant part of what was discussed in this long thread. It is accepted that as we get above the poverty level and start to pay taxes, that those with proportionately more income should pay more taxes, as long as they are members of the 99%. Somehow those in the 1%, especially the uber wealthy, feel that they should pay disproportionately less on the false basis that they create the jobs for the 99% and will create more if they are allowed to keep more with lower taxes. This has been show to be a false assumption repeatedly in the 'real world'. No one has actually disputed this in this thread or out in politics and claimed that it was in fact true except those wishing to justify making further tax cuts for the uber wealthy.
Have you a way to subjectively justify control of the 99% by the uber rich using their vast wealth to effectively 'buy' our elected Congressional representatives. This leads them to fighting against returning taxes to an equitable distribution over the 100%. This leads them to provide campaign financing through Grover Norquist's organization if, and only if, they pledge to never raise taxes, particularly on the 1% and especially not on the uber rich. This almost shut down government and the economy last year. Clearly you must understand that this can be called nothing but control of the 99% by the uber rich from among the 1%.
Now my original intent in posting this was that I was amazed at how these 'human' concepts were present in our 'distant' relatives all the way down to capuchins. I thought that members might find it of interest. Furthermore, I had the thought spelled out in "I found it interesting that a conception of fairness went all the way down to a capuchin monkey while there are humans who don't 'get it' at all." but was not applying it to anything in particular. All in all, you will have to explain how you consider concepts of fairness to be subjective, in light of monkeys getting it, if that is in fact your point.
How are the "1%" controlling the "99%" again, Ted? I forgot if you ever mentioned that before. I know you mentioned the tax thing.
I thought you were relating the article to the 1% vs. the 99% and fairness in an objective sense, that is why I chimed in. You said,
Regarding the relationship of the 99% to the 1%, I found this of interest in a discussion of behaviors that are very human like among our primate ancestors.
I wasn't meaning concepts of fairness at all regarding to monkeys, just saying that I thought fairness in general is a subjective thing, in monkeys or humans. Basing an argument off of what is fair in an objective sense for whatever subject or issue seems pretty omni scientist like to me. The social norm of what is fair for a group or people or monkeys might be one thing, but that doesn't mean it is justified, right, or moral.