Page 1 of 2
Can anyone answer these questions?
Posted: Tue Jun 09, 2015 11:29 am
by Kingfisher
Great philosophical minds of Philosophy Now! I have a challenge for you. The challenges are as follows:
1. How can the welfare state, especially the extensive ones, be understood from an Aristotelian and Utilitarian position?
2. Is it possible to defend progressive fines for speeding, i.e. fines for speeding based on income, by using the distributive justice thinkers like Rawls, Nozick, Cohen and Walzer or from positions such as the principle of fairness?
I await your replies eagerly!
Re: Can anyone answer these questions?
Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 2:55 pm
by bobevenson
1) A welfare state can only be understood from a position of not understanding how human nature relates to economics.
2) Fines for anything can't be defended since they represent a conflict of interest and an improper form of taxation.
Re: Can anyone answer these questions?
Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 5:06 pm
by Arising_uk
When's your essay due?
Re: Can anyone answer these questions?
Posted: Wed Jun 10, 2015 6:31 pm
by Skip
Kingfisher wrote:Great philosophical minds of Philosophy Now! I have a challenge for you. The challenges are as follows:
1. How can the welfare state, especially the extensive ones, be understood from an Aristotelian and Utilitarian position?
What do you mean by a welfare state? What does 'extensive' welfare extend? Which states currently qualify for your definition and what welfare do they provide to whom? You can't understand it from any position until after you've defined and described it.
2. Is it possible to defend progressive fines for speeding, i.e. fines for speeding based on income, by using the distributive justice thinkers like Rawls, Nozick, Cohen and Walzer or from positions such as the principle of fairness?
I doubt it. But you can have progressive fines for speeding based on the amount exceeding the limit, because that would pose a progressively more expensive danger to the potential victims.
Re: Can anyone answer these questions?
Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:10 pm
by bobevenson
Skip wrote:You can have progressive fines for speeding based on the amount exceeding the limit, because that would pose a progressively more expensive danger to the potential victims.
Do you seriously believe that cops are shooting radar at drivers in the name of safety? Where do you think the term "speed trap" came from? It's all about raising money from fines instead of taxes!
Re: Can anyone answer these questions?
Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:42 pm
by Skip
The question wasn't what fines are for, but whether they should be progressive by income? No.
Re: Can anyone answer these questions?
Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2015 11:02 pm
by Arising_uk
Skip wrote:The question wasn't what fines are for, but whether they should be progressive by income? No.
They do so in Finland and Sweden and I think it an eminently fair position to take as it hits all those who break the law equally in the pocket.
Re: Can anyone answer these questions?
Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2015 11:07 pm
by bobevenson
Skip wrote:The question wasn't what fines are for, but whether they should be progressive by income? No.
I responded to Skip improperly linking fines to safety. Linking fines to income or anything else is an improper form of taxation.
Re: Can anyone answer these questions?
Posted: Thu Jun 11, 2015 11:10 pm
by bobevenson
Arising_uk wrote:Skip wrote:The question wasn't what fines are for, but whether they should be progressive by income? No.
They do so in Finland and Sweden and I think it an eminently fair position to take as it hits all those who break the law equally in the pocket.
All fines are a conflict of interest and an improper form of taxation.
Re: Can anyone answer these questions?
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:29 am
by Arising_uk
bobevenson wrote:All fines are a conflict of interest and an improper form of taxation.
Shouting doesn't make it true.
Re: Can anyone answer these questions?
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2015 2:23 pm
by bobevenson
Arising_uk wrote:bobevenson wrote:All fines are a conflict of interest and an improper form of taxation.
Shouting doesn't make it true.
First of all, I use bold 125 point on everything for visual clarity because I don't buy the current default position of this forum. Secondly, everything I say is true regardless of font. Thirdly, if I want to shout, I'll do it this way:
Fuck you!
Re: Can anyone answer these questions?
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2015 2:25 pm
by Skip
can't argue with that
Re: Can anyone answer these questions?
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:20 pm
by Arising_uk
bobevenson wrote:First of all, I use bold 125 point on everything for visual clarity because I don't buy the current default position of this forum. Secondly, everything I say is true regardless of font. Thirdly, if I want to shout, I'll do it this way:
Fuck you!
Bill Wiltrack II
Re: Can anyone answer these questions?
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:23 pm
by mickthinks
Arising_uk wrote:When's your essay due?
Re: Can anyone answer these questions?
Posted: Fri Jun 12, 2015 9:33 pm
by bobevenson
Arising_uk wrote:bobevenson wrote:First of all, I use bold 125 point on everything for visual clarity because I don't buy the current default position of this forum. Secondly, everything I say is true regardless of font. Thirdly, if I want to shout, I'll do it this way:
Fuck you!
Bill Wiltrack II
That DNA has left the building.