You need to learn a few things about analogies.
1.You accuse me of making redicilous analogies, because the way taxation works is very different from armed robbery. This is expected with analogies - there is no such thing as a perfect analogy. There will always be differences between the two things being compared. The only way you can have a perfect analogy is if you compare the same thing with itself - but, then you no longer have an analogy.
2. You have strong analogies and weak analogies. You're essentially accusing my analogy of being weak - you believe the two situations I compare are too vastly different. However, I wasn't comparing the situations as a whole - thus why I said A is as to B as C is as to D. The reason your school has you answer those "A is as to B" questions is because you're supposed to learn how to isolate and compare similarities between two different situations or objects.
So how is taxation like armed robbery? You explained that taxation is a form of communication and persuasion, but not a form of coercion.
When you point a gun at someone's head and you demand them to pay you money for buying sugary drinks or cigarettes, then you're using coercion to communicate a message to said person and to persuade them to either pay the extra costs, be shot, or to avoid buying things that make you take money from them.
When you apply a tax, the tax MUST be applied to an object. A person MUST pay that tax or they will be fined or arrested (and if the fine isn't payed, arrested). The government is using this coercive thread as a way to communicate a message to the buyer that they shouldn't buy a product, and the government is persuading them with threats of arrest to either not buy a product, or to pay more for it.
You then explain that taxation is NOT coercion because you have a choice not to buy the good. You're using coercion to force people not to buy a product. Of course, there is one difference, the person CAN buy the product if they want, but they would then be forced to pay more money for said product - but your logic assumes that because they made a choice to buy said product, they weren't forced to do anything. WRONG. Those people were FORCED to pay taxes on said product.
You can argue that some means of coercion are acceptable, but you can't argue that taxation isn't a form of coercion. It is.
Let's say you want to cross a bridge, but bandits have it locked down. They won't let anyone pass unless they pay $200. Even though you do have the option of not crossing the bridge, their actions ARE STILL coercive.
To clarify, I never said taxation was exactly like a hostage situation. I claimed that there is a strong resemblance with taxation and armed robbery when you look at the basic principle of the two and you determine why they're both coercive actions.
That is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. That may even fall on "sophistry". You actually make it sound reasonable that by elaborately and intricately defining analogy and repeating the same thing you were saying earlier that you're right.
Oh but wait... then common sense comes into play and I remember that I've known what analogy has meant for a long time and that
your analogy is actually the one that is by far to
vague and that it is exceedingly ridiculous, therefore your analogy is weak.
co·erce
Verb:
Persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats.
Obtain (something) by such means.
Synonyms:
force - compel - constrain - oblige - enforceTaxation is certainly not using force or threats. Except for perhaps to the business owners who have to tax the said items or go to jail. However that is not what we're talking about, we are talking about the regular citizens. Now let me tell you the differences between armed robbery and taxes:
Differences between tax and armed robbery:- Taxation would be parliament/senate approved.
- For tax laws to go into place they follow long and fairly complicated legal procedures.
- Over four different votes have to be approved before new laws can be established.
- Elected officials by the people, who serve the people will have proposed this.
- Armed robbery is illegal.
- Armed robbery is actually coercion (you force your will upon others with threats and physical force).
- Armed robbery is simply and utterly wrong, unconstitutional and unlawful (as defined by the criminal code).
- Tax laws would not be unconstitutional, or unlawful or wrong if officials from your parliament and your elected leader passes this new tax law.
With all these differences you really think that your analogy is a strong one? You accuse mine of being to weak and vague when yours is all around flawed? The same differences can be applied with your bridge comments. The differences between sin taxes and armed robbery/people blocking a bridge is by
far to large to use as an analogy.
Meanwhile sin taxes and car insurance is a stronger analogy because...
Similarities (if these sin taxes are ever passed):- Legal.
- Parliament approved.
- Most importantly it rewards people for good behaviour (which is the basic principle of car insurance).
Meanwhile the basic principle of armed robbery isn't to politely talk and discuss what both parties want (which is what negotiation really is). Therefore my analogy is automatically stronger than yours because mine follows the same basic principle of what I'm comparing the two things to (which all analogies should follow the same basic principle, yours does not).
To clarify, I never said taxation was exactly like a hostage situation. I claimed that there is a strong resemblance with taxation and armed robbery when you look at the basic principle of the two and you determine why they're both coercive actions.
Which is wrong on so many levels for the above reasoning.
This is an example of a weak analogy, because the reason you gave is too vague.
Yes, both systems are similar in that one regard, but one doesn't justify the other because there are other VERY important factors between the two you failed to address (and these factors are important because they serve as the core of this debate).
Insurance is required because it protects people and their property from each other. If one person crashes into another, his insurance will cover the person he ran into. In fact, you don't need to cover yourself when you drive, only other people.
Sin tax is put in place to protect people from themselves. Completely different.
The reason I gave was to vague? That the basic principle of the two are the exact same? That both are an incentive to behave better?
I disagree. Yes there are key differences (as there are in many analogies) between insurance and sin taxes. But the above similarities are certainly close enough to consider it a strong analogy I'm thinking. Meanwhile the differences by armed robbery and taxation is to strong and the similarities to remote to consider your analogy strong.
Although there is such thing as bad parenting, you have to let parents do their thing and intervene only when ABSOLUTELY necessarily.
Oh and you don't consider 22 million overweight (5% of which are obese) children a good enough reason for intervention and you think that it isn't absolutely necessary? I disagree with that statement with every fiber of my being.
Wrong, you still don't understand that having another option doesn't negate the existence of coercion
In this
context it would negate the "existence" of coercion. Since you are not at all forced to buy the foods it isn't coercion. You don't seem to understand that for there to be coercion an entity must be forcing another entity to do something. Seeing as how no one is
at all forcing another person (or people) to buy these foods this
automatically makes it not coercion.
Giving someone a choice doesn't negate the existence of coercion.
You don't understand what coercion is if you say that so repeatedly. Giving someone a choice automatically takes coercion out of the equation.
Essentially, other people's lives are your business because you want to make it your business. The problem is that merely wanting to do something doesn't (shouldn't) grant you the authority to magically intervene.
It does give me the right as a citizen of Canada to try and pass and propose whichever laws I want though.
Westboro Baptist Church wants to help people by banning all gay activities and put an end to any religion that isn't their own. These people might actually want what's best for everyone. Why do we hate them? Because they're forcing their views on everyone else.
Fortunately I'm not forcing my views on anyone, I'm using an incentive. Taxes in this context is an incentive. It is by no means force. This law would be encouraging and motivating people into quitting their unhealthy habits. That is incentive, not coercion.
These are ALL strawmen and a false dichotomies.
In short, you can be against sin tax and still care enough for other people to try and help them. Not everyone who's against sin tax has the mentality that people should be left to kill themselves.
Those are not strawmen and false dichotomies. These are true because people have already tried to explain (with words and facts) the problems with obesity and how to live a healthier life. That obviously hasn't gotten the job done, so we need something a little more drastic (can a tax even be considered drastic?) to get the "job" (so to speak) done.
Suggesting that we should only talk and provide facts as to how and why people should stop committing self-destructive acts is the same thing as simply ignoring these people and leaving them to fend for themselves. This is true
because your method has already been proven to work on such a small scale that we can say it doesn't work at all. Therefore these are not false dichotomies.
No, I didn't agree to these laws. No, I do not give my consent merely by living in an area.
We aren't talking about your consent to laws. We're talking about how it would be right and just for said laws to be passed.
is would justify **** if it were legalized. In many parts of the middle east, it is acceptable to hit your wife and have sex with her whenever you want, it doesn't make it any more right.
False, that would not justify said action or hitting or abusing your wife or raping her. That would contradict to many parts of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (or American constitution) for that law to be ever passed. Taxation doesn't contradict the American or Canadian constitutions in such a horrendous manner.
You're not making them stop, you're making them pay more if they choose to buy something you don't agree with. Still coercion.
The right word to use is
incentive, oh and the right sentence to use is "I'm making them pay a higher tax so as to try and convince them to stop killing themselves and negatively influence their children in such a heinous manner."
You should respond to Strop's post, I'm most curious as to your response to him.
Taxation is a form of coercion insofar as your liberties will be restricted if you fail to comply.
This would have been true if the taxes were taken off of your paychecks, however I clarified that, that is not what I meant at all.
I'm not sure how relevant this line of argumentation is to the broader point of contention
I agree with that. Even if you consider this sin tax coercion (which would be wrong and incorrect I think) it would be acceptable and reasonable "coercion", considering that it is in the best interest of everyone's health and seeing as how the tax money would go back to the country.
however, which seems to focus on whether it is right or not to consider whether or not a person is entitled to act in ways other than their best interests, and what limitations to impose upon them.
My comment to that is that yea, it is right to impose limitations upon people not smart enough to treat themselves reasonably.
This is not the first step towards a totalitarianism or police state society. This is only the first step to rectifying this obesity issue. Nothing more, nothing less.
It's important to consider the relationship and distinction from laws preventing people from behaviours that restrict or infringe other peoples' freedoms. In short, is all coercion necessarily bad, and if not, what kinds are acceptable, and how can one then reach a consensus on restriction of self-liberties?
One can reach a consensus on restrictions and self-liberties via a country wide vote.
P.S. This is not an infringement on other peoples freedoms, nor is it a restriction on freedoms. It is simply a sin tax which should not be considered as infringement upon freedoms.
Besides, "in one's best interests" is nebulous and difficult to define, and what I consider in my best interests may not be what law defines as in my best interests, despite the fact that I consider myself more educated than those who would decide how I should behave if I were behaving in my best interests, and frankly that doesn't make sense.
What doesn't make sense? Others dictating what is in your best interests, or ignoring the law?
Restrictive laws may dictate but they also engender resistive culture, and that's what really needs addressing: education, dissemination, proliferation and assimilation are the steps needed to adopt lasting change. Not some law that unreasonable people will ignore and reasonable people think they're being unfairly targeted because of alleged unreasonable people.
I think that a tax law would only engender a resistive culture to the unreasonable people and that the reasonable people would realize they're not being unfairly targeted. Instead they would realize that this is to make a healthier society. Not bring upon a resistive culture.
