CJoy

edited

Either this is a contradiction, or I'm not understanding what you're saying. Corporate taxes have been lowered, leading to 1. lower activity in "the sectors" or 2. your economy is out of recession and doing better than other G8 countries. Which is it? It shouldn't. You're answering the question "Is it moral to keep what you've earned?" But that's not the question I'm asking. I'm asking the question, "What's the evidence that the interests of rational men do not conflict?" If, in fact they do not conflict, then taxing corporations less should lead to benefit to them, which in turn results in benefits to the economy. That benefit should be traceable. I am asking about that. Yes. What happened to the money that the corporations were allowed to keep? Not that they have any moral obligation to say what they did with it. But they did do something with it, and whatever it was, it had an effect on somebody. That something is a physical reality, and there are some kind of records somewhere that show it. I don't understand finance well enough to ask specific questions about where, but I know that such things are kept. And, looking at those records, does the evidence actually demonstrate that what was good for the corporation was also good for someone else? That their interests did not conflict? Or to restate my initial question, what is the evidence that lower corporate tax rates do anything for the economy?

It dawns on me that my question is not really about the morality of keeping what one has earned; it's actually about how the interests of rational men do not conflict. The popular image of the corporate executive is of a fiscal rapist, willing to take whatever he can get away with, or in other words, thinking only in the short term. I assume the idea is he should pay more taxes to keep him from cheating too much, or something like that. Can't let people like that on the loose, or they will consume every resource they can and leave nothing for anyone else (like the Once-ler in The Lorax). "What can he say?" Well that's the point, isn't it? I mean, he lowered taxes and (I'm assuming) wants it to be understood that the result was improvement in the economy. Meanwhile, his opponents say no, there's no evidence there was any connection. If the interests of rational men do not conflict, there ought to be some evidence. Both sides of the argument can't back off into "You're the one who has to prove it" postures. It isn't a legal case, with a judge who is making a single decision. It's about persuasion. To persuade one has to present facts. That's what I'm trying to understand.

Playing devil's advocate here - why? Why could not a private company protect intellectual property rights and patents? What do you think he should say? What facts show that it WAS tax-cutting that brought you out of recession?

Okay, so I am going to try to role play an argument I don't understand: "well, those corporate taxes were lowered and (as per Daunce's comment) that provided no benefit to the economy. Somebody must have benefited though, so it must be just the executives of the corporation. How immoral for those executives to take money they didn't earn, and at a time when so many other people are struggling!"

Good point, in both posts - the moral argument is primary, and the benefit is a product. The post came from here:Harper Challenged on Corporate Tax Cut (in the comments) but there isn't any development. It's just a claim. As such, it deserves no response. However, this argument is bandied about freely enough by anti-capitalists that it is worth understanding the root of the idea. I'm sure if I just keep my eyes open I'll come across someone attempting to justify the idea. Of course, already one comes to mind... there's this: 9 Reasons The Rick Get Richer - A Tax Expert's Story on Tax Myths That's a little different idea, but it relates - the underlying premise is that what the government does is good and a producer who doesn't pay in is cheating. But the basic question I'm trying to understand is why some people think that lower tax rates only serve to "pad corporate profits." There seems to be an implication that the lower taxes do not represent increased productivity, but just go straight to the "corporate" pockets, without anyone else benefiting. Why would anyone think that? What kind of alleged evidence could anyone put forward for that? It seems so obvious that if the corporation is profiting more it means that they are doing more business, and that should be *good* for the economy, yes?

I ran across this comment in a Canadian news source: "There is no evidence that lower corporate tax rates do anything for the economy other than pad corporate profits. This trickle down thinking of Conservatives in general is about following party lines and has absolutely nothing to do with the well being of the people of this country." I see this kind of statement often in political conversations. What is the counter argument, besides just the assertion "Capitalism works"?

In the previous regime, how is the issue of fairness in the transfer addressed? Someone might say that there are people who, due to no fault of their own, do not have the funds for a bid, but are otherwise able. Since the previous system was not meritocritous, how can an earnest but unfunded person make an inroad? Some would say that this immediately creates an underclass.

BTW, for future reference, I recognize this also applies to me.

Thanks, this is enough to get me started. What do you think is the most effective method? Or is it too situational for blanket generalizations? How do you answer the idea that without some form of oversight, natural resources will be consumed until they are gone, because people will have an incentive to view their self-interest in the short-term? (i.e., "get it while the getting's good.")

I'm looking for information about how to transition from "public" property to private property. I'm hoping to find both some introductory philosophical principles about how this can be done peaceably and for examples of how it has been done in regime changes. I'm working on a story that implies this transition as part of the background, and I want some good theory to back up my characters' actions. If this is a topic you know something about and would like to discuss, that would be great; if you have links or book titles, that would also be great.

I have read Atlas Shrugged, parts of it twice, but haven't gotten to Fountainhead yet. I like the poem, up to a point. I'm not sure how to define it, but there is a wide area where I can keep my head, and a point where being unjustly blamed becomes intolerable. But I'm a glass-half-full person, because it's what's in the glass that has the power to quench my thirst. The world is full of people who are contentious for contention's sake, but I am looking for people who enjoy exploring ideas honestly. I'll just ignore the rest. There isn't time in life to fix all the others, even if I could figure out how.

Well then! I guess the point has been made. All disagreement is not the same. What is it that makes it sometimes useful and sometimes and sometimes not? I suspect that ad hominem attacks are a key element that makes disagreement un-useful. Now I'm wondering how to describe when disagreement is useful. (If this question is more suited to another location on the forum, please let me know where you would put it.)

I have been called innocent before. . . please connect the dots for me. Specific about what? And why "Selene" and "Adam"? Good point. I'll have to come back later and add my interests to my profile. Cool. I love to paddle upstream in search of new species of flowers on the shore. You guys were fast on the welcomes!

Creative? Sounds like a flame war. Wars are so boring. Real exploration of ideas is SO much more interesting. I once asked the question of what was to censure in McCaskey's comments, and found myself in a conversation so much like the religionists I was trying to shake off that I knew something had to be seriously wrong. Peikoff's statement left me astonished. I find McCaskey to be so thorough and cautious that his censure seems a contradiction of reason, honesty, and justice. Likewise, I find people so adamant about the moral position of marriage that it is hard to get real exploration of ideas. Why should there be a contract if there are enough shared values? What are they contracting for - to always have shared values? (Not talking about children here, just marriage) Either they share them or they don't. What I want is not a contract, but evidence that my values actually are shared. Anyway, that should probably be for another thread. The point is that just because someone calls themselves objective doesn't make them so. Being rational in one thing, like finding value in Rand's writings, does not guarantee being rational in anything else, like determining whether McCaskey's objections were valid. I consider irrationality in someone committed to reason evidence of volition: thinking has to be chosen, on purpose, every time. Thanks for the welcome. The best part about the name is - it's my real name. First initial and middle name.

I'm relatively new to Objectivism, having been actively religious until about two years ago, when I had a total turn-around almost overnight. Well, it felt like overnight! Probably it was more like a few weeks. I read OPAR and VOS, dallied around on the ARI site and an Objectivism forum, and have made new friends. I announced to my family that I'm atheist, left the church I belonged to, and put my children into school after having home schooled them all their lives. I love finally having a fully integrated philosophy that isn't riddled with contradictions. Now I'm looking to expand my Objectivist horizons a little and explore objective thinking from a less orthodox perspective.

So am I safe to infer from this post that this forum is not, by and large, in agreement with "Objectivism's quasi-puritanical perspective on sex"? I would be relieved to find objective thinkers who disagree with that.