You passed judgement on a book you didn't read. I did not on a former member of the same school of thought I have read. I merely pointed it out as an example to rule out his tutor.
Say what now? I think your memory is off here. I didn't pass judgement on a book I didn't read (in fact, the book wasn't really part of the discussion at that point). In the post in question, I argued against your arguments (the first instance where you claimed that social behaviour could be explained through thermodynamics), saying that even if I wasn't familiar with the science you were butchering to make your point your arguments could easily be countered and shown to be false. What I admitted ignorance to was high-level math and physics. Again, your beloved book wasn't a part of the discussion, and I didn't address it. Don't really think I have since either.
And if your argument is "If you read Atlas Shrugged, you'd understand why thermodynamics are relevant to social behaviour" then yes, I'm very happy to dismiss that argument outright, as the entire field of social science (and psychology, really) can easily stand as evidence that this is
far too complex to boil down to a single variable like this.
You are the epitome of dismissive subjective evaluations.
Right back at you, I suppose? At least I argue for mine in a clear and reasonable manner.
Also, I never said I was in line with scientific conduct.
Maybe not, but given that you claim to be a Randian "objectivist", one would assume a certain adherence to the principles of that philosophy, no?
The whole essay of scientific evidencing is construed backwards. You amplify deviation when enlarging the groupset - what scientific arbitration does does not involve singular evaluations, it only works for reducing researcher's own bias being projected onto generalizations but even then subjectivity can confound the evaluation as a loaded primary question.
Subjective evaluations should be outside the field of evidence based validation, such as you passing verdict on something without reading it in the first place. The opposing view is an exception that is observable but not replicable(fault not at evaluation since not yet disproven by examination), like my argument since you fail at doing the same examination yourself...
I'm sorry, but I'm not even going to try to decipher that word salad. Did I talk about a groupset, or enlarging it? As for the difference between subjective evaluation and evidence-based evaluation, it sounds like you're grossly oversimplifying things. There's no such thing as understanding data without interpretation, so subjectivity always applies, even when one attempts to account for it. Humans are incapable of interacting with the world save through our senses, and our senses are interpreted through our brains - which are complex, shaped by experience, and quite malleable. There's no such thing as a non-subjective evaluation. But, again, you're trying to change the subject instead of arguing your case. We're not here to discuss scientific reasoning, and I'm still missing your arguments on the actual topic here.
Taxing people who make more money at a higher rate than those who make less money because they chose not to go to college.
Zero fairness? Really? So people with more opportunities in life have
zero responsibility to contribute more back to the society that gave them those opportunities? I suppose you refuse to use public roads or other infrastructure, then, as it's not fair for you to use something that you haven't built yourself? Sorry, but people with more means contributing more back to society is not at all unfair. We can disagree on the details, but if you think any and all taxation is unfair, then you don't agree that society should exist in the first place.
Not to mention that "choosing" not to go to college in the US is barely a choice for most people. You seem to have made it work, but that's not possible for everyone.
Let's say our imaginary business owner employees said line cook. How much time and effort do you think that restaurant owner has invested into the restaurant over his/her life. Or how much work in week do you think that restaurant owner has to invest? Do you think he/she clocks out at 40 like the line cook.
Let's think about programmers. Programmer A took some classes in high school. Programmer B graduated from college. Who is getting paid more.
Programmer B is highly likely to make (far) more money, and will have (far) more left after taxes, even if the tax rate is a few percentage points higher. An argument could be made for this
still being unfair towards the one that didn't have the means/opportunity to go to college, if you want to get that nit-picky. And if they're paid the same, they're taxed the same, which might seem unfair for the one with college debt, but that's not the fault of the government (but rather the business that fails to recognize the value of a degree).
As for the business owner vs. line cook - the business owner can deduct investment losses and other business-related expenses from income tax, and is as such likely to pay the same or less tax as their employees (dependent on the tax code where this happens). And still, the business owner benefits far more significantly than the line cook from government-owned and -run initiatives - the roads letting people and goods get to the restaurant, the phone lines letting people make reservations, the internet letting people check out the menu, the water, gas and electric lines letting the restaurant operate. Even if those are owned and maintained by private companies, the body ensuring that they are required to work properly and that everyone gets equal access is the government. Every business is built on public resources. Paying for these is only fair.
Exactly, but this is not who we are talking about. In most cases, in the US, if you put the effort in then you will be rewarded. If you choose not to put the effort in then I wouldn't expect to be carried through life. If you don't put the effort in then I don't think it is fair to tax me at a higher rate to cover your ass.
This simply isn't true. Socioeconomic mobility in the US is decreasing and is lower than in the 1970s, and is also lower than in many European countries. Where you're born and to who is a far greater factor in determining the outcome of your life than the effort you're putting in. Isn't it fair for society to try to equalise for this, if equal opportunity is the goal?
Also, it's kind of low to say that people working 2-3 jobs at minimum wage to keep their families fed aren't "putting in the effort."
But can we please get off this tax policy tangent? The first argument was flawed to begin with, as it's entirely possible to design tax policy that contains some fairness. Period. Your entire argument is arguing for the possibility of fair tax policy, even if you think the current policy is (somewhat?) unfair, which just goes to show that you misunderstood my question in the first place. You're actively saying that fair tax policy is a possibility. Now, let's get back to the topic, please.
