Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktHypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have, according to wiki.
Greg Sargent, at PL, could not understand why conservatives would call Ms. Warren “hypocritical”. He wrote:
“Ta-Nehisi Coates skewers the latest conservative attack on Elizabeth Warren: That her own personal wealth somehow makes it hypocritical to seek higher taxes on the wealthy , i.e., on herself.
Not clear how it’s ‘hypocritical,’ if Warren is also agreeing to pay the higher tax rates.“
In this instance, Mr. Sargent understands that a prospective legislator who can support legislation against her monetary interest is serving, in her mind, a greater good, her perception of the public good, as opposed to her own.
However, he could not understand the same principle when Ms. Bachmann supported repeal of agricultural subsidies, against her monetary interest. When I criticized his reasoning then, a crowd of commenters chimed in that I did not understand “hypocrisy”, whose name was “Bachmann”.
Yes, I tried dictionary definitions and many examples. I did not read PL closely enough to recall if anyone commented in agreement, but I never saw it.
So when QB explained at PL why Ms. Warren could be called a hypocrite [she should voluntarily pay more taxes if she thinks taxes should be higher], I thought it would be a good time to discuss “hypocrisy” and what it means, among adults, here.
In my view, there is no perfect or absolutely correct formulation of either revenue expenditure or of taxation. There could be evil formulations, but assume with me that they are outside the bounds of this discussion. Thus I can support higher taxation as a goal or lower expenditure as a goal, or vice versa, especially when it will be to my monetary detriment to do so, without hypocrisy. By contrast, in my view, marital fidelity is an oath I took seriously, in front of God and everyone, and were I to visit prostitutes I would be a hypocrite. Warren Buffett is not a hypocrite for supporting higher taxes, and John McCain is not a hypocrite for attacking wasteful defense contracts, and Ms. Bachmann is not a hypocrite for opposing ag subsidies she receives, but Sen. Vitter and the former NY AG are hypocrites. Period.
If we extend the definition of hypocrisy beyond the moral and religious bounds to include anyone who votes against her personal monetary interest we will have defined selfless legislating as out of bounds, and we would be begging for all legislators to vote only their personal monetary interests. Is that not obvious?
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Mark, interesting post. I'm looking forward to some interesting comments and will be mulling this today.Michi/Mark/FB, I posted a report on the lamb stew/eggplant recipe back in that thread. Loved it!!!
LikeLike
Mark:I don't know what argument EW is actually making, but if she is making a moral argument, ie it is a moral imperative that wealthy people pay more to the government, yet she is not voluntarily doing so herself, then she is an hypocrite even under your entirely reasonable definition of it.
LikeLike
I can think of other examples of hypocrisy having been thrown out erroneously. For example, Republican governors who used funds from the stimulus package in 2009 and 2010.It makes me think of wedding receptions. Let's assume you don't think there should be an open bar at the reception. It's too expensive and will lead to people get drunk and behaving badly. [We had two bottles of wine on each table of 8 at mine with some extras and a keg of beer. There was also a cash bar for those who wanted something stronger.] That doesn't mean you're obligated to pay for every drink as a matter of principle. Please tip, even if you're not paying for the drink.I think I can cite what I consider to be political hypocrisy. Standing on a point of principle and then flipping on it when circumstances change. The use of the filibuster comes to mind. If it's a matter of principle, then you don't become a supporter of its indiscriminate use when you find yourself in the minority. Likewise, a frequent user of it, say prior to 2006, can't suddenly find majority rule religion and not be subject to significant rolling of the eyes. Both Republicans and Democrats are guilty, though I consider Mitch McConnell Hypocrite in Chief in this regards.Likewise, the debt vote. Now, one might have openly said that one is making a protest vote and be done with it. As a matter of principle, don't vote against it and then suddenly realize that it's important a few years later.The Iraq war resolution is a grayer example. Obama probably won the nomination on that one vote. Without the authorization to use force, Bush would have had no leverage over Hussein. The ability to use force was necessary. That didn't mean that the invasion had to happen, but that the Senate gave him carte blanche. Those who voted for Obama in the primary probably see it as a distinction without a difference. We Hillary supporters think otherwise.BB
LikeLike
Mark…this, BTW, is precisely why Warren Buffet is a hypocrite of monumental proportions. His (dishonest) argument about his tax bill vs that of his secretary is that it "just isn't right". Well, if it just isn't right, why is he not voluntarily correcting it? Why does he need to be compelled through government coercion to do the right thing?Must be something about the name "Warren". 😉
LikeLike
I edited this post to adjust type sizes so they'd be in the default…. not a big fan of the argument that wealthy people should voluntarily pay more taxes, if they think higher taxes is a good idea. One is essentially an individual charitable donation, while the other is a policy position on how to best raise revenue. We can disagree about how that is to be done, but it is not hypocritical to think everyone who makes over $250k should pay higher taxes, even when that would include you, if you personally aren't doing it voluntarily ahead of time. I may think it's a good idea to add an exit to the express way, but even if it were permissible, it would be better that the Department of Transportation handle that, rather that I show up one day with a jackhammer and a backhoe and get to work. Nor should I have to do that to justify my position on adding an exit to the express way without being referred to as a hypocrite. If we extend the definition of hypocrisy beyond the moral and religious bounds to include anyone who votes against her personal monetary interest we will have defined selfless legislating as out of boundsWe're also arguing that it's bad for people to make good policy decisions, even if they have made poor personal decisions.
LikeLike
Mark:This was Warren's defense of raising taxes on the wealthy:I hear all this, oh this is class warfare, no! There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there–good for you.But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory.Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea–God Bless! Keep a Big Hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.This is clearly a moral argument. If, as she seems to think, this obligation is not fulfilled by paying current tax rates and therefore they must be raised, then she herself has clearly not fulfilled her obligation by simply paying current tax rates. So she is plainly pretending to hold as a virtue that which her actions show she does not actually hold.
LikeLike
Kevin:One is essentially an individual charitable donation, while the other is a policy position on how to best raise revenue.No. It is not simply a policy position on how to best raise revenue if one is claiming that moral obligation requires one to pay more.It is one thing to say "We need more money, and this is the most practical way to get it."It is quite a different thing to say "Rich people owe us more money. They have a moral obligation to pay more, not as a practical matter, but as a matter of justice."Both Watrens (Buffet and Elizabeth) are making the latter argument. They are undeniably hypocrites.
LikeLike
Scott, I fully agree with Kevin's comment above and his analogy therein about conflating individual voluntary contributions and policy. Do you have any other arguments on this issue? I do not find "just voluntarily pay more in taxes" to have credence, but you keep flogging it.Have to get to work but should be able to check in a bit later today and am interested in your response.
LikeLike
Interesting that Mark brought this "over." Here was my reply to his thoughtful comment at PL:"Mark, that is good, but there is a difference I see, and it is the one reflected in the language I used in my comment. "The claim of Warren and others on the left including Obama about taxing "the rich" is one of justice. It isn't merely that "tax breaks for the rich" are not a good idea or a bad policy but that the rich pay unjustly low taxes. "If it really is a matter of justice and fundamental "fairness" that people in their bracket do not pay more, then indeed I think they do have a problem in not living up to their own claims. You can hear it in Warren's scornful tone of voice when she denounces business owners who resist higher taxes; these parasites on society–that's how she makes them sound–owe their wealth to society, and she wants to make it "perfectly clear" to them they they have a moral duty to pay up. These moralistic claims are not consistent with not paying up to the level she thinks is just, because she effectively puts the miscreant "rich" on the level of thieves who need to make recompense. "Perhaps they have some good counterargument, but I have not seen any of these folks make it. A while back, some wealthy liberals organized themselves to donate their "tax cuts" to charity. This of course does not satisfy the claim of government to their money that their position assumes. Either the moralistic "fair share" claims that are being made are wrong, or these people's behavior is inconsistent. If they would like to stop claiming this is a matter of justice and fairness, I'd be happy to stop calling them hypocrites."As you can see, I am completely in agreement with Scott on this. Way back in time at PL when I made this point, folks like Tena immediately denied that we are allowed to "give" money to the government. After I posted a link to the Treasury page explaining how to do it, the answers started to run out.Btw, the kind of rhetoric and tone of Warren that Scott quotes above is one reason I find her so insufferable and detached from reality. She is economically clueless and out of touch with the fundamental values and principles on which this country was founded. She is also a hypocrite if she does not pay her fair share, because no one is stopping her.
LikeLike
But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.Warren is saying that payment is owed under a social contract. Not charitable contributions. Owed as a matter of contract. To the government.
LikeLike
The current flock of deficit hawks who were nowhere to be seen back when the previous administration was expanding government and spending money hand over fist is another example of situational hypocrisy.
LikeLike
okie:I fully agree with Kevin's comment above…Kevin is not addressing the argument the Warrens are actually making. I am.Do you have any other arguments on this issue?Which issue are you talking about? I think I have proved that, under Mark's definition of hypocirsy, Warren is engaging in it. Why would I need another argument? Especially in the absence of anything countering the one I have made?Let's take a different example. Imagine a news story about a person who was found on the side of a busy road, dead from injuries sustained in an accident. It turns out that the person was actually alive for quite some time after the accident, and would have survived had they gotten medical treatment. But survellience video shows that several pedestrians callously walked by the dying person, not helping, not calling for an ambulance, not doing anything to help at all. The newspapers get a hold of this story, and it goes viral. A certain politician is morally outraged at this unwillingness to help a dying person. He begins to campaign for a Good Samaritan law, requiring passersby to aid someone who is in trouble. He gives speeches condemning the people who refused to help, and rages with moral indignation at the state of our callous society. It becomes the cornerstone of his campaign to get elected. We must pass a law, he says, to right this terrible wrong that is occurring.But then, a closer look at the surveillance vidoes show that, in fact, this very politician was one of the pedestrians who actually walked right by the dying person. In fact, as he walked by, he slowed, glanced at the person on the side of the road, looked at his watch, and then carried on.Now, are you seriously telling me that this politician is not a hypocrite? It doesn't matter whether or not you agree that the law is a good idea, or whether or not you agree with the moral claims he is making. The fact that he refused to voluntarily undertake the very action which he claims is so morally obligatory that the law should mandate it makes him, by definition, a hypocrite.These people who demand higher taxes on the wealthy as a matter of morality and justice, but who themselves do not willingly pay their so-called fair share, are quite plainly being hypocrites. I don't see how one can deny it.So far the only defense I have seen requires one to ignore the actual (moral) argument they are making, and portray them as making strictly a practical one. And that is no defense.
LikeLike
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness. 2. An act or instance of such falseness.I pretty much agree with Mark on this one. I don't believe either of the Warrens or Bachmann are being hypocritical by endorsing public policy that would affect them adversely. If they were suggesting that something was good for the common that they would benefit from by giving themselves some sort of carve out, that would indeed by hypocritical. It's good for you but not for me.I think there is a difference between public good and personal good and morality is more of a personal issue than public one. I believe we have an obligation to fellow citizens but I wouldn't necessarily call it a moral one. I mean if I had to live strictly by my individual sense of moral purpose, at all times, for the public good I would be more akin to a Mother Theresa than a business owner. That's neither practical nor useful. I think as individuals we do what we can for the needy and then publicly we advocate for policies that help the common, and if we're willing to live within those policies ourselves then we're hardly being hypocritical.
LikeLike
I have not seen this before, but according to this blog a reporter actually had the sense to ask Buffett this tough question last month, and Buffett had no answer.http://www.dailymarkets.com/economy/2011/10/01/reporter-asks-buffett-you-support-higher-taxes-so-why-not-just-write-a-check-to-the-government/I don't see a link to the actual video, though.
LikeLike
lms:I pretty much agree with Mark on this one. Mark, like Kevin, has not addressed the actual argument that Warren is making. Mark explicitly says that:If we extend the definition of hypocrisy beyond the moral and religious bounds…But we are not doing so. Both Warren's are claiming that it is a matter of justice that the wealthy be required to pay more. You cannot ignore this fact, as both Mark and Kevin do, when analyzing whether or not they are engaging in hypocrisy.
LikeLike
Here's the vid.http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/10/bloomberg-reporter-asks-buffett-since.htmlHe just deflects by saying voluntary giving won't solve the deficit. And the reporter doesn't really ask him the hard follow-up: if it is wrong for you not to pay more, shouldn't you pay more rather than just say you should be required to pay more?
LikeLike
qb:I would love to see that. CNBC regularly has Buffet on and treats him with more deference than the Pope would give to Jesus Christ himself. They allow him to spout this tax drivel and never, ever, ask him the obvious question (nor, of course, many of the not so obvious but equally difficult questions). Drives me crazy, and I end up screaming at the TV.
LikeLike
lms:I think there is a difference between public good and personal good…What's the difference? (Just to be clear, I do too, but almost certainly no in the way that you do. Hence my question.)
LikeLike
To be clear, I don't like the moral argument, but the moral argument is often made to counter the opposite moral argument, not as the actual basis for the policy. I'm not entirely sure Warren (although she might be) is arguing to the rich should pay more because they make use of public assets as much as she is countering the opposite moral argument: that the rich pay enough, or too much, because it's their money, they made it, and nobody has any right to it (which I also think is a perfectly reasonable argument). While these moral arguments are interesting, one can thrust, parry, and riposte in making a rhetorical case while not using that as the sole or primary justification for policy. More to the point, I may feel we have a collective obligation, as a group, that needs to be filled collectively, and vote for policy on that basis , without being a hypocrite because I'm not acting solo. To whit: let's say there is a item before the city council to use existing funds to build a gazebo in the park. I think this is an excellent idea. I even think it's a moral good, because the people in the wealth side of town already have two gazebos in their park. So, I vote for it. I'm not a hypocrite because I haven't already started building one myself, or donated the money for it. If I say you are a bad person for not voluntarily paying more to the government, yet I don't do so myself, them I'm a hypocrite. If I say I think it's a good idea to raise the tax rate on people that would include me, but yet I don't currently set fire to a given amount of money in order to feel the pain of not having that cash . . . this is not hypocrisy.If I think we all need to pitch in and put on a show to raise money for the orphanage, yet I don't start painting the sets until Mickey has committed to do a song and dance with Judy, and Mike has promised to do his juggling act . . . that's not hypocrisy. That's a belief that we need to all be in this together to make it work.If I don't believe it's going to help unless we all have skin in the game, it's not hypocrisy to argue for higher taxes while not voluntarily throwing a drop into the bucket, it's a rational decision. If I'm in a group of people, all of who have a debt to pay, I may feel an obligation to get everybody to pay up, but I'm going to want George and Jack and Richard to pay their share, along with me, before I pony up my cash. Was Michelle Bachmann a hypocrite for not voluntarily refusing ag subsidies? That may be wrong, or that may be right, but it's not hypocrisy.
LikeLike
Scott: "and never, ever, ask him the obvious question"Yeah, it is an obvious question, and someone ought to ask him. I think people would generally be interested in the answer.Also, if Warren turns out to be voluntarily paying extra taxes (somebody does), does that validate her argument for higher taxes? Does that change anybody's vote? If not, then the hypocrisy argument is, at best, entirely irrelevant. Same for Bachmann. If it turned out Bachmann had refused ag subsidies she was entitled to, would she get credit for that? Probably not.
LikeLike
Sam Donaldson was a famous critic of farm subsidies and he freely admitted he would take all the money the government gave him for his family goat farm as long as it was legal.
LikeLike
Kevin:No one is saying that a rich person cannot make a non-hypocritical case for higher taxes without voluntarily paying more himself. We are saying that the specific cases that have been made, in this case by Elizabeth Warren but also in the past by Warren Buffet, are hypocritical.So, specifically, when you say this:If I say I think it's a good idea to raise the tax rate on people that would include me…That is not what they are saying. They are not simply saying it is a "good idea". They are sasying it is a matter of justice that rich people pay more. Was Michelle Bachmann a hypocrite for not voluntarily refusing ag subsidies?Unless she was arguing that to accept ag subsidies was immoral, then obviously not. The problem with the Bachman/Warren equivalence is that Warren is claiming that the demographic of which she is a part (rich people) are rquired by justice to act in a particular way. Bachman is making no such claim. She is not saying that ag subsidy receivers are required to refuse such subisidies. She is saying that it is bad policy for the government to offer them.In other words, there is no equivalence.
LikeLike
I see Scott's and QB's point about the framing of the Warrens' arguments. And I admit that I do not take the tone of indignation in their arguments seriously. If they are indignant, on moral grounds, they should give more, regardless of the law, as anti-slavery Texans refused to own slaves in Texas from 1836-1865, even if it put them at a competitive disadvantage.Frankly, I took the Warrens' arguments as simple pandering – makeweights for arguing that our revenues are too low compared with what we want in services and expenditures and that we get revenue where we can. These are the only real arguments for raising taxes, IMO, and Scott is right to say Ms. Warren should just call it that way.Doesn't change my view on whether we should use the term "hypocrisy" loosely.QB, I thought your comment at PL was very worthwhile in that setting because no liberals could even see how you got there, and thanks for expanding that to point out the tone of indignation that Scott alluded to.Take away the tone of indignation and you do have some real policy arguments that can be made without pandering. Arguing that strong infrastructure and healthy educated citizens allow for individual talent to rise and make its own way is a policy argument. Couple that with the argument that taxation is the cost we pay for civil society and the argument that we collect the revenue where we can get it, removes the indignation factor, which is what I see being argued as hypocritical.
LikeLike
Scott: "But we are not doing so. Both Warren's are claiming that it is a matter of justice that the wealthy be required to pay more. You cannot ignore this fact, as both Mark and Kevin do, when analyzing whether or not they are engaging in hypocrisy."Well, let's say we confine Warren to just making an argument for raising taxes on the rich, not deflecting morality-based opposition arguments, and she says: "Well, it's an efficient way to raise more revenue to do important things and fund important programs, and based on my analysis, will not negatively impact the economy, and may even stimulate it." Yet, at the end of that, she is still not paying voluntary taxes. Is she still a hypocrite?But a collective obligation, moral or otherwise, is still distinct from individual obligation. I believe that we, as a nation, have an obligation to defend the country, and even defend our allies. I, personally, have never done this. At this point, I really can't join the army. I pay taxes, but that's simply not the same thing as being in country, having people shoot at me.Does that make me a hypocrite?
LikeLike
Scott: That is not what they are saying. They are not simply saying it is a "good idea". They are sasying it is a matter of justice that rich people pay more. I think this is a poor argument, but sometimes good policy ideas have poor defenders. I, personally, still think a more progressive tax structure is a good idea, and would support voting for one, and might support a politician who wanted one. I am not interested in any changes to the tax system (including the repeal of the Bush tax cuts) that adversely effect the income levels of the poor and middle class, not as a matter of justice but as a matter of where money gets spent in consumption, and stays broadly in local markets, rather than going overseas. Which involves a number of value judgements on my part, I confess.
LikeLike
Should have been "coupling".
LikeLike
Scott: She is not saying that ag subsidy receivers are required to refuse such subisidies. She is saying that it is bad policy for the government to offer them.In other words, there is no equivalence.Well, there's clearly an equivalence. In addition to asserting that the rich must pay more as a social justice, is she not also asserting that, at a basic level, our current tax structure is bad policy? Otherwise, she'd be arguing that our current tax structure is good policy, but that she opposes it solely on moral grounds.Bachmann referred to ag subsidies as "outrageous pork" . . . are we sure there's no moral judgement there? Bachmann also said her farm had never received a penny in federal money, when public records indicate that it has. Was Warren suggested that she's been paying voluntary taxes, when it turns out, she did not?
LikeLike
Kevin:Well, let's say we confine Warren to just making an argument for raising taxes on the rich…Is she still a hypocrite?Naturally, if we assume away the hypocrisy, she is not a hypocrite.But a collective obligation, moral or otherwise, is still distinct from individual obligation…How so? What does a "collective obligation" even mean if not simply a collection of individual oblivations?
LikeLike
BTW, I pose this is a question, not to provide an answer: But then, a closer look at the surveillance vidoes show that, in fact, this very politician was one of the pedestrians who actually walked right by the dying person. In fact, as he walked by, he slowed, glanced at the person on the side of the road, looked at his watch, and then carried on.Was the Good Samaritan law a good idea before this revelation? Does the revelation change the quality of the law in any tangible way? If so, how? If the Good Samaritan law is a good idea, should we vote against it because it's main proponent is a raging hypocrite? If it's a bad idea, should we vote for it because it's main proponent is not a hypocrite? If so, what does the relative hypocrisy of the person matter to the policy? Although I would say I have an intuitive sense that is materially different, both quantitatively and qualitatively, to pass by someone with potentially fatal injuries and do nothing, than it is to not voluntarily pay more taxes, even when you feel people of a certain level, such as yourself, share a collective obligation to pay more in taxes. If there is an equivalence, it doesn't communicate well.
LikeLike
Scott: How so? What does a "collective obligation" even mean if not simply a collection of individual obligations?What is a beach if not a collection of grains of sand? Yet, clearly, we do not regard a single grain of sand as a beach. What is a person but a collection of cells? Yet, clearly, a single blood cell does not a person make (though it may contain a genetic blueprint of much detail). I can support the defense of our country without enlisting in the army. I can argue that we collectively have an obligation to defend our country and our allies without personally ever having been in the military. Sometimes, things will not work unless everybody is rowing in the same direction. It doesn't matter how hard you row, if you're the only person doing it. If you can get everybody to row in the same direction, you've got something. So, you spend your time convincing them to row in the same direction, you don't just sit in your own little corner and row has hard as you can, pointlessly, getting nowhere until you die of a heart attack. If you believe we should be rowing in the same direction (providing for a defense of the country, for example), whether for moral or practical reasons, there is a sense that "we" as a group have an obligation to provide for the defense of the country, even if "we" as a group will not all be enlisting in the military and going to have people shoot at us.
LikeLike
So no rich person can advocate higher taxes on the fellow rich unless they immediately sign over all their wealth to the government and wear sackcloth? That is an absurdly high standard to hold people to. Or is it just enough that they give equal to the rate they think people in their bracket should pay? Buffett has pledged to give 95% of his wealth away upon his death. That makes a good case that the inheritance tax on billionaires should be 95%.
LikeLike
Let's flip it. Herman Cain is a hypocrite for paying 28% income tax when he thinks it should be 9%. Yes, I know the IRS would then prosecute him to get the money, so it just means he doesn't stand by his principles. He also thinks there should be a 9% national sales tax. HYPOCRITE! I don't see him writing checks to the government every time he goes to the grocery store.Those calling others hypocrites are hypocrites by their own definition unless they think that their tax rates are currently exactly what they should be. Q.E.D.Charging Buffet or Warren with being a hypocrite is simply an ad hominem attack. Buffett has made the argument that the capital gains tax rate should be the same as the personal income rate. [I make allowances for indexation and after that, income is income.] Rather than answering this critique, let's attack Buffett for not paying at a higher rate.BB
LikeLike
"still think a more progressive tax structure is a good idea"I think it's a bad idea because it results in these "fair share" discussions instead of focusing on "what size government do we want and how much will it cost." those issues seem to get lost in the but i think taxing income is poor policy too. and you'll all be shocked to know that this morning I voted against the county issuing bonds for school infrastructure improvements.
LikeLike
Kevin:In addition to asserting that the rich must pay more as a social justice, is she not also asserting that, at a basic level, our current tax structure is bad policy? Sure. But it is not the assertion of simply bad policy that leads me to call her out on hypocrisy. Her hypocrisy derives not from her advocacy of a given tax policy, but rather the (moral) reasons she claims for doing so. You can't ignore this, although you seem to be trying. 😉Bachmann referred to ag subsidies as "outrageous pork" . . . are we sure there's no moral judgement there?There may well be, but not the equivalent to the moral judgement of Warren. The equivalent would be if, say, Bachman condemned legislators as immoral for doling out ag subsidies, but then voted in favor of them herself.As I said, Warren is clearly claiming a moral obligation on the part of a demographic of which she is a part…rich people. It is this that is the source of her hypocrisy. Bachmann, on the other hand, has made no such moral claim about the demographic of which she is a part…ag subsidy receivers. So there can be no equivalence of the kind you are trying to draw.Bachmann also said her farm had never received a penny in federal money, when public records indicate that it has.That would make her at the very least wrong, and perhaps even a liar, it seems to me.Was Warren suggested that she's been paying voluntary taxes, when it turns out, she did not? I don't understand your point/question.
LikeLike
"lost in the shuffle" — sorry
LikeLike
Scott: "You can't ignore this, although you seem to be trying. ;)"I'm not ignoring it, I just disagree with you. There is a difference. 😉 NoVa: "and you'll all be shocked to know that this morning I voted against the county issuing bonds for school infrastructure improvements."You are now my sworn enemy. Gore my ox, will you? 😉
LikeLike
yello:So no rich person can advocate higher taxes on the fellow rich unless they immediately sign over all their wealth to the government and wear sackcloth? Did you even read the thread? I've explicitly said that that is precisely not what we are saying.Buffett has pledged to give 95% of his wealth away upon his death. That makes a good case that the inheritance tax on billionaires should be 95%Huh? Warren Buffet will only drink Dr. Pepper when he has a softdrink. That makes a good case that Coke and Pepsi should be banned from the market.
LikeLike
FB: "Those calling others hypocrites are hypocrites by their own definition unless they think that their tax rates are currently exactly what they should be."Where am I? I think my tax rates are fine, but think folks making $100k (households $175k) ought to paying progressively more, and that the top marginal rates on $1m should be higher than they are on $750k which should be higher than on $500k. And that most of that money should go to NASA. ;)I don't think they all collectively need to donate to the treasury, I think it would be a constructive way to raise revenues. Also, closing loopholes that end up sending money out of the country, both personal and corporate. I may not be a hypocrite, but I'm certainly a flibbertyjibbit.
LikeLike
great Kevin. i'm racking up sworn enemies at an unhealthy rate.
LikeLike
Fairlington:Wrong. Cain is not making a moral argument, as is Warren. And, to whatever extent he is making a moral argument (eg "it is unjust for the government to have such high tax rates), the moral obligation he is asserting rests with the government, not individual citizens.
LikeLike
"making $100k (households $175k)" why the household at 175k and not 200k?
LikeLike
FB: "Let's flip it. Herman Cain is a hypocrite for paying 28% income tax when he thinks it should be 9%. "Hell, his 9-9-9 amounts to a VAT tax. He could have been calculating what is VAT would have been (higher than corporate income), up and down the supply chain, and pain that as an extra to the federal treasury. Since he did not, he's not really a hypocrite, I guess, if he's not making it a moral argument, but he still skipped out on a great opportunity to illustrate of awesomeness of a 9% VAT.
LikeLike
NoVAHockey: "why the household at 175k and not 200k?"Because daddy needs a new re-usable space vehicle, and a grant for research into nanotech. 😉
LikeLike
NoVA: "great Kevin. i'm racking up sworn enemies at an unhealthy rate."Shouldn't keep goring people's oxes! 🙂
LikeLike
NoVaH, we had our bond elections today and I voted for all but one. Did you vote against because you thought the school infrastructure was unnecessary?My one "no" vote was an obvious attempt to make it easier raise money for eminent domain to be used by one county to redevelop open land in private hands, a la Kelo.I vote at the YMCA and went to vote after working out. Renee, a 62 yo trainer at the Y, triathlete, weight lifter, black belt who looks great in spandex and only looks her age in her face, asked me what the election was about. I told her. She said she never voted in elections like those. But she was going to vote against Obama b/c he is a "Muslim". I grinned and said "why does that make a difference?" She said b/c she was a Christian. I smiled and said "See? it made no difference."She didn't get it.
LikeLike
Scott: "the moral obligation he is asserting rests with the government, not individual citizens"Isn't this a collective obligation, then? For what is the government, but individual citizens?
LikeLike
Fairlington:Buffett has made the argument that the capital gains tax rate should be the same as the personal income rate.You can't just say he's "made the argument". You have to address the argument he has actually made, which is that it should be so as a matter of justice. If he truly believed that (he almost certainly does not) then he would pay more without being compelled to do so.
LikeLike
Mark: "Did you vote against because you thought the school infrastructure was unnecessary"School infrastructure is always necessary. At least, until people stop having children. 😉 "But she was going to vote against Obama b/c he is a "Muslim""You're very patient. I get the impression that Obama is an agnostic, or an atheist. How you can come away with the impression that he's a Muslim . . . that doesn't compute with me.
LikeLike
Kevin:Isn't this a collective obligation, then?As I suggested above, I don't know what a "collective obligation" is apart from a collection of individual obligations. In this case it would be the obligation of the individuals that create government policy, ie elected representatives.
LikeLike
"Did you vote against because you thought the school infrastructure was unnecessary?"Yes. Although satire, this piece by PJ O'Rourke pretty much captures my thoughts on publicly administered education. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/end-them-don%E2%80%99t-mend-them From the article: "Enough, however, of outrageous statistics. Let’s generate some pure outrage. Here’s my proposal: Close all the public schools. Send the kids home. Fire the teachers. Sell the buildings. Raze the U.S. Department of Education, leaving not one brick standing upon another and plow the land where it stood with salt."Mark, they never do get it.
LikeLike
for those who may be interested, there's a new thread…
LikeLike
Both Warren's are claiming that it is a matter of justice that the wealthy be required to pay more.scott, as long as they include themselves in that group, I frankly just do not see the hypocrisy. And I don't see it in Bachmann either. Public officials should be advocating for public policy or against public policy that goes too far, but not for their own personal benefit from said policy. As neither Bachmann nor L. Warren are advocating a carve out for themselves I just don't see any difference. The rest is just political verbiage to gain an advantage over your opponent or the opposing party. As usual, I understand your argument, I just don't agree with it. Now, if I were calling Bachmann a hypocrite but not Warren, then I think you could possibly call me a hypocrite. I actually thought this was the original premise of Mark's characterization of some of the "liberals" at the Plumline. Perhaps I'm wrong but that's one of the reasons I left, the hypocrisy there is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
LikeLike
lmsinca: "As neither Bachmann nor L. Warren are advocating a carve out for themselves I just don't see any difference."I agree. A carve out that magically makes them immune to what they are arguing for, for everybody else, is hypocrisy. If they are arguing for something that would apply to everybody equally, no matter what the basis for the argument is, I think it's a stretch to call that hypocrisy.It occurs to me that the moral argument and the practical argument have certain similarities. In both cases, I'm arguing that we should do x because x "is right". What do I mean by right? I'm arguing that we should do it because it is just, or because it is practically beneficial. What do I mean by practically beneficial? I mean that it helps us do good things that benefit people, or help the underserved. Which essentially becomes a moral argument.
LikeLike
lms:scott, as long as they include themselves in that group, I frankly just do not see the hypocrisy. It is precisely because they include themselves in that group that it is hypocrisy.As usual, I understand your argument…Your counter to me suggests to me that perhaps you don't. The charge of hypocrisy has nothing to do with anyone enacting a policy that benefits or does not benefit them, or carves out anything. It has to do with their alleged justification for adovacting the policy.A person who proclaims that behavior X is obligatory as a matter of justice and morality, but it turns out that they themselves refuse to engage in behavior X unless compelled to do so by the force of law, is plainly engaging in hypocrisy. If that is not hypocrisy, then nothing is.
LikeLike
lms:I think there is a difference between public good and personal good…What's the difference? We've had this same discussion many times but to be clear again, I believe I do have a moral obligation to my family, friends and fellow citizens. That doesn't mean that I expect public policy to follow my own personal moral commitment. I also am aware that as one individual I can only make a minimal contribution because of both time constraints and financial obligations. But I think collectively, especially in a country as resourceful and prosperous as the United States, we have an obligation to maintain at least a minimum standard of living and health within our borders. What that standard is and how much it costs is certainly open for debate as well as how much it infringes upon individuals. Isn't that really the crux of the matter and where we disagree? In other words, I don't perceive a financial transaction tax as a moral imperative, but I do see it as adding value to something that has little, if any, intrinsic worth to the country as a whole. I find it odd that it's even open for debate. Where that money goes as far as either decreasing unemployment, bringing down the deficit or starting another war is where the debate should be IMO.
LikeLike
Also from that P.J. O'Rourke column:"Perhaps it’s possible to spend too little on public education, and 47th-ranked Mississippi is trying to prove it. The District of Columbia aside, Mississippi’s proficiency levels are the worst in the nation—17 percent in reading; 14 percent in math."
LikeLike
scott, I disagree. That would be like me saying "we should feed the poor" and then advocating for a public policy to do just that. You're saying if I don't actually feed the poor myself to some level that you find acceptable, I'm a hypocrite.
LikeLike
Kevin:A carve out that magically makes them immune to what they are arguing for, for everybody else, is hypocrisy. Sure. but pointing out that they are not engaging in hypocrisy in one instance doesn't mean they are not engaging in it in another.However, let's take this formulation above and try to apply it to the Warren situation.Warren claims that a certain demographic is not contributing their "fair share" into government coffers. Necessarily, this means that these people are subverting "fairness" or justice by not doing so. She is a member of this demographic. Necessarily, then, she is subverting "fairness" and justice by not paying more. Do you think that Warren believes, or would admit, that she is subverting "fairness" or justice by not paying more?If she doesn't believe or admit it, then she is plainly "carving out" a moral exemption for herself that does not apply to any others.If she does believe or admit it, then the obvious question is…why is she not correcting this obvious subversion of justice? She does not need a law to do so.Even worse, BTW, is that, many people who are not paying their "fair share" actually rely on the government to tell them what their "fair share" is, and so can't really be blamed for this subversion of justice…they have been led to believe that what they are paying is their "fair share". But Warren herself knows that she isn't paying her fair share, and yet still won't pay it unless the government compels her to. Which, in my mind makes her worse than anyone even by her own moral standards.
LikeLike
lms:Isn't that really the crux of the matter and where we disagree?No. Our primary disagreement is over the coherence of the notion of "collective" moral obligations. To me it only makes sense if understood as a collection of individual obligations. To say that "we have a collective obligation to do X" means to me that each person has an individual obligation to do X. To you it means, well, something I am not quite sure of, but it is somehow disonnected from individuals. Except, of course, those individuals who you expect to actually fulfill the obligation. BTW, this:but I do see it as adding value to something that has little, if any, intrinsic worth to the country as a whole.Hmmm. How odd that so many people are willing to pay so much money for something that has so little "intrinsic worth".How much "intrinsic worth" does a song have? Perhaps we should place a tax on songs each time they are played on the radio. Times two if it is played live.How much "intrinsic worth" does an actor provide? Perhaps we should place a special tax on each scene in a movie or TV show. Multiplied by the number of actors in the scene, naturally.The "worth" of any given thing, lms, is exactly equal to what someone else is willing to pay for it. No more, no less.Where that money [from a financial transaction tax] goes as far as either decreasing unemployment…I hate to tell you, but such a tax would only lead to higher unemployment. And that is the least of the reasons why it would be horrible policy.
LikeLike
Sorry scottYou'll never convince me that we don't have a common purpose here in the US. The fact that you don't seem to understand the difference between the needs of the individual vs the needs of the population is the basis for our difference in political philosophy. I don't believe in yours and you don't believe in mine, so be it. I consider my moral obligations as an individual generally separate from our obligations as a country. Sometimes, I feel disenfranchised because of it, much the same as you seem to. At times, I am also forced to bend to the will of the majority whether I agree with the consensus or not. It's the price we pay for living in a representative government.And sorry, I don't happen to find much intrinsic value in moving paper around at the click of a mouse. Obviously there is worth to most financial transactions but much of the stuff being promoted is out of reach of most Americans and really doesn't service the overall economy, so tax it. If the alternative is forcing more seniors into poverty, I don't have a problem with a NVAT or a change in the capital gains taxes to consider short term profits as income. It doesn't mean I think we should use the money to set up a new government program, just fund the government we have now.
LikeLike
lms:The fact that you don't seem to understand the difference between the needs of the individual vs the needs of the population….The population, lms, is an abstract concept. It is not a living, sentient being in anything other than a symbolic or metaphorical sense. As such, it does not have "needs" apart from the needs of the actual, literal beings of which it is comprised. If, when you say that the population "needs" X, you do not mean that the actual, living individuals within the population need X, then what do you mean?And sorry, I don't happen to find much intrinsic value in moving paper around at the click of a mouse.Nothing, apart from perhaps life itself, has "instrinsic value". Anything that is said to be "of value" necessarily requires an outside agency doing the valuing. You think your business has "intrinsic value"? I don't even know what business you are in but I can say without a doubt that it has no value apart from the value that 1) you get from doing it and 2) your customers get from having you do it.In this respect, your business is no different at all to the one(s) you are so contemptuous of for lacking "instrinsic value".
LikeLike
A couple of days ago Krugman already went after the faux-definition of hypocrisy. Today he answers critics of that posts and provides a link to a Politico story which has some breadcrumbs on where the Warren Is A Hypocrite talking point is coming from.
LikeLike
yello:Today he answers critics of that posts…What in that post do you consider to be an actual "answer" to critics, and what critique is it answering?
LikeLike
a) "And we’re supposed to disapprove — rather than praising her ability to transcend narrow self-interest — because she favors policies that would raise her own taxes?"b) "that Elizabeth Warren may not be credible in her campaign against economic injustice because she’s personally affluent."It was all of a three paragraph post.
LikeLike
An immediate problem with the Krugman piece: "Michael Lind wrote an essay that has stuck with me, pointing out that nobody involved in the picture seemed to know what patriotism means. The Gibson character was presented as a man who refused to get involved until his own family was hurt — then, he went to war for personal revenge. And this was supposed to show his patriotism."That's not right. He did go to war for personal revenge, but that was not meant to show he was a patriot. What patriotism he exhibited came afterwards. Indeed, it was his children who were anxious to fight . . . I'm not going to rehash the whole plot, but Krugman (and perhaps Lind) is just stupid wrong if that's how they took the film. At most, Gibson's character's arc was the Rhett Butler arc–if you recall your Gone With the Wind, Butler was not popular amongst the southern gentleman, telling them without compunction that in a civil war, the North would win and the South would lose. But he ended up joining the fight at the very end, after Sherman burned Atlanta, when it was pretty clear the South was lost. Anyway, that sort of thing: if you're not actually going to pay attention to the movie, don't talk as if you did. It's not that deep, it's not that byzantine, it really wouldn't take any effort, at all, to get it right. But Krugman can't be bothered. Ugh."Wait — it’s not just about me and the wingnuts. If you remember the 2004 election, which unfortunately I do, there were quite a few journalists who basically accused John Kerry of being “inauthentic” because he was a rich man advocating policies that would help the poor and the middle class."Kerry was not also very wealthy, but could not have been more out-of-touch, Thurston Howell, III if he had tried. It's one thing to be wealthy and advocate for higher taxes and more government spending, quite another to be Marie Antoinette. The hypocrisy charge may have been unfair, but Kerry was an unusually poor standard-bearer for the concerns of the poor and middle class (from a class of people–that is, politicians–that don't have very many good ones)."So to say what should be obvious but apparently isn’t: supporting policies that are to your personal financial disadvantage isn’t hypocrisy — it’s civic virtue!"Or maybe it's neither! That's always a possibility. That being said, I see Lind's point about That Patriot, and it's not a deep movie, but, even then, he misses the point. Mel Gibson's character argues against revolution, and doesn't want to fight when it comes, and only does so out of self-interest–because, despite the ironic title of the movie, Benjamin Martin is not a patriot–but was, in previous military battles where he did a lot of bad things and is of the not unreasonable opinion that war in the name of patriotism is not what it's cracked up to be. I should watch the movie again sometime, and I recall that it was not a deep and probing movie by any stretch. But still . . . I know it wasn't saying that Benajmin Martin was a patriot because he was finally motivated to fight by the British killing his family.
LikeLike
yello:Neither of those are answers to his critics. They accused him of attacking a strawman argument. Simply repeating the same strawman arguments is not an answre to this critique. It is odd that you think it is.
LikeLike
Scott: "It is odd that you think it is."It's strange that you think that odd.
LikeLike
The absence of the strawman is the existence of the Politico article and the critics of Warren quoted within it.
LikeLike
"And we’re supposed to disapprove — rather than praising her ability to transcend narrow self-interest — because she favors policies that would raise her own taxes?"I'm guessing Scott would say that's not why we should disapprove. I don't personally know Ms. Warren, but while her financial self-interest may be harmed by her proposals, her political self-interest probably is not. So let's not make her a saint quite yet. I do agree that this is whole line of criticism is a distraction from the policy question although it is a distraction that is somewhat of Warren's own making given that she and Buffet have added the moral argument to the debate. I had never thought about the inappropriateness of the movie title "The Patriot" given the reason Mel Gibson finally joined the war.
LikeLike
scottI get it, you consider financial speculation in the same light as any other business. I really don't and see no harm in taxing it on at least a small scale. I'm pretty doubtful it will lead to a loss of jobs. And most businesses we work with do contribute to the economy and jobs so there's that.
LikeLike
Kevin:It's strange that you think that odd. Perhaps you know him better than I do.yello:The absence of the strawman is the existence of the Politico article and the critics of Warren quoted within it. No one in the article makes the arguments Krugman says are being made.
LikeLike
NoVA:I'm guessing Scott would say that's not why we should disapprove.You're a good guesser.
LikeLike
No one in the article makes the arguments Krugman says are being made. They aren't?“I don’t begrudge her own personal wealth. I begrudge her hypocrisy of trying to play the demagogue against those who have achieved and who have created wealth,” said Rick Manning of the conservative group Americans for Limited Government.Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67716.html#ixzz1d9IXQzsbI really don't know where you are going with this cross-examination.
LikeLike
lms:you consider financial speculation in the same light as any other business.With respect to its "intrinsic value", absolutely yes.I really don't…What "instrinsic value" does a songwriter have that a financial speculator does not?What "intrinsic value" does a baseball player have that a financial speculator does not?What "intrisic value" do you as a owner/manager of your business have that a financial speculator does not?…and see no harm in taxing it on at least a small scale.Are you aware that many, perhaps even most, financial transactions are not "sepculative" at all? And what would a "small scale" be in a business where margins are as thin as .25 of a basis point? And how many people put out of work would it take for the harm to be more than just "little"?I'm pretty doubtful it will lead to a loss of jobs.Doubt all you want. And when banks close down operations in New York and start booking transactions in Hong Kong and other places where no such tax exists, putting not just highly paid "financial speculators" out of a job (who will probably get transferred to Hong Kong anyway) but also the tens of thousands of moderately paid support staff (who in any other context would constitute the enamored Main Street) who have now been replaced by local staff overseas, no doubt there will be some way to blame Wall Street greed for the hike in unemployement rather than blaming the very legislation that actually caused it and which you supported, doubting that it wouldn't lead to a loss of jobs.
LikeLike
yello:They aren't?No, they aren't. The quotation you provide makes plain that the source of her hypocrisy is the demagogic nature of her position, not, as Krugman pretends, simply because she has wealth.I really don't know where you are going with this cross-examination..I asked you a single question. I'm no lawyer, but that doesn't strike as much of a cross-examination.
LikeLike
ScottCountries around the world are considering financial transaction taxes on some of the most speculative transactions so I guess they're all wrong too according to you. I'm not going to compare apples to oranges regarding businesses. And I didn't say all transactions, only some, sheesh. I'm not interested in putting bankers out of business, they serve a function in the economy just like all the other businesses you mentioned. I just think if there's no will to regulate the financial industry in a way that protects consumers and the financial system, we could at least get a little revenue out of them. If there's no margin left, then so be it, time to find another line of work.
LikeLike
"doubting that it wouldn't" = "doubting that it would"
LikeLike
lms:Countries around the world are considering financial transaction taxes on some of the most speculative transactions so I guess they're all wrong too according to you.Yes they are. The US does not have a monopoly on foolish political demagogues. I'm not going to compare apples to oranges regarding businesses. .Happily, I didn't ask you too. I asked you to tell me what "intrinsic value" other businesses have that the finance industry does not. It was you, afterall, who broght up this notion that financial transactions have no "intrinsic worth". I'd like to clarify just what that means, because, as I noted above and as far as I can tell, everything said to be of value requires an outside agency as a valuer, so nothing has "intrinsic value".And I didn't say all transactions, only some, sheesh.Which ones?I just think if there's no will to regulate the financial industry in a way that protects consumers and the financial system…The finaincial industry is hugely regulated. If those regulations are not accomplishing what you would like them to, then adovcate getting rid of them. I will not protest.…we could at least get a little revenue out of them. If there's no margin left, then so be it, time to find another line of work.That is truly an unbelievable statement. Especially coming one sentence after proclaiming that you have no interest in putting bankers out of work.Truly unbelievable.
LikeLike
Scott,Then your beef is with Krugman. He claims people are improperly accusing Warren of being a hypocrite and then provided an example of someone calling her a hypocrite. I accurately conveyed the gist of his post and we have now about doubled its word count discussing it.
LikeLike
scottI'm truly sorry you're so incensed. I don't consider bankers in the traditional sense of the word financial speculators. There's a difference between investment and speculation. It's the speculation side that needs either tighter regulations or regulators and ratings agencies that actually perform, or if not that, then a small tax may be just the thing to keep them away from some of the worst business practices. Remember, I'm the one who posted "bankers are people too". You're the one generalizing my criticism, if that's what it is, to all bankers, not me.
LikeLike
lms:Remember, I'm the one who posted "bankers are people too".Apparently, it seems, you meant only some of them.You're the one generalizing my criticism, if that's what it is, to all bankers, not me.Actually, I am not. My question to you stands, based on whatever it was that you meant. You referred to financial transactions that have no "instrinsic worth". Regardless of what transactions you were talking about (although it would be great if you would clarify), I'd like to know what "intrinsic worth" transactions that you engage in for your business have that these other transactions don't have. I don't think there is any difference.
LikeLike
yello:Then your beef is with Krugman. Well, he's not here trying to bring attention to his strawman argument. So I'm focusing my efforts on the one who is.
LikeLike
ScottHere's a piece I read almost two years ago regarding this and similar ideas. Simon Johnson comments as well in the first part of the discussion. It was one of the first comments I'd ever read from him and I've followed him ever since. Not everyone agrees, I get that, but I think it's not nearly as nefarious of an idea as you think and quite mainstream as far as economists go. In September 2009, 28 business leaders recognized that tax policy can be instrumental in curbing “short-termism” in the financial markets. They signed the Aspen Statement, which dealt with tax policy as a key leverage point for rewarding long-term holders and penalizing churning.The group, which includes investors, sitting and former C.E.O.s and the deans of the corporate governance bar — Warren Buffet, John Bogle, Lou Gerstner, Ira Millstein, Marty Lipton and John Whitehead, among them — encourages a serious look at market incentives to separate real long-term ownership over trading.The goal is to restore greater balance to capital markets and to discourage shareholder short-termism. Among the ways to encourage “more patient capital” they suggested are skewing the capital gains tax to favor longer-term holders as well as some kind of tax on trading.
LikeLike
scottThe population, lms, is an abstract concept. It is not a living, sentient being in anything other than a symbolic or metaphorical sense. As such, it does not have "needs" apart from the needs of the actual, literal beings of which it is comprised.If corporations are people, then so is "the population" with needs apart from the actual literal beings of which it is comprised. You can't have it both ways. And I made it clear above I wasn't talking about all financial transactions, maybe you missed it.
LikeLike
lmsinca: "If corporations are people, then so is "the population" with needs apart from the actual literal beings of which it is comprised."Oh, snap!It's gettin' hot in this kitchen.
LikeLike
It's always hot in the kitchen when scott and I are cooking up a meal.
LikeLike
Scott – You are incorrect. I have heard Republicans make a moral case for revising the tax code. It seems like nearly every Republican presidential candidate (Huntsman excepted) makes the case that it's "wrong" that half of Americans don't pay income tax. If that isn't a moral argument, I don't know what one is. The argument is a red herring anyway. Hypocrisy is not solely on moral grounds. Warren Buffet makes an argument based on fairness. So do Republicans. So, yes, if you think there should be a consumption tax and aren't paying it voluntarily, you are a hypocrite. [On these ridiculous grounds.]Kevin – you are exempted from being a hypocrite. Everyone else, j'accuse!BB
LikeLike
lms:If corporations are people, then so is "the population" with needs apart from the actual literal beings of which it is comprised.Corporations are not people. They are legally defined entities. The "population" is not. It is, as I have said, an abstract concept. I'm not at all sure what relevance the legal meaning of a corporation has to do with your philosophical notion of the population. Please do edify me.You can't have it both waysWhat are you talking about? I have said nothing at all about corporations. You have introduced them into the discussion, not me.And I made it clear above I wasn't talking about all financial transactions, maybe you missed it.Clearly I didn't miss it, since I explicitly asked you which transactions you were talking about. Notably, you still have not revealed which ones you are referring to.
LikeLike
FB:You are incorrect.About what?I have heard Republicans make a moral case for revising the tax code.Me too. In fact, I have made such a case myself. It seems like nearly every Republican presidential candidate (Huntsman excepted) makes the case that it's "wrong" that half of Americans don't pay income tax.So…???The argument is a red herring anyway.Which argument are you talking about?Hypocrisy is not solely on moral grounds.Perhaps, but that is irrelevant. Warren has made a moral argument, and based on that argument she is a hypocrite. Whether or not hypocrisy can also be charged on the basis of non-moral arguments doesn't matter in the slightest to whether this is an incidence of hypocrisy.Warren Buffet makes an argument based on fairness.Um…"fairness" is a moral concept. Arguments based on the notion of "fairness" are moral arguments.So do Republicans. Sometimes, sure.So, yes, if you think there should be a consumption tax and aren't paying it voluntarily, you are a hypocrite. Who said there should be a consumption tax? Beyond that, who said that paying a consumption tax is a moral imperative? What are you talking about?
LikeLike
Definition of hypocrisy1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.2. An act or instance of such falseness.Scott and qb are trying to confuse the hypocrisy issue with their impression that the Warrens are making a moral argument. Sorry you guys, it's just not that compelling to me. As a matter of fact I think it's pretty much a bait and switch game. I agree that Bachmann also isn't being hypocritical regarding the ag subsidies and I don't believe either side gets to turn the definition of hypocrisy on it's head.ScottI've always believed here in the USA that our total is slightly greater than the sum of our parts. The "common" seems to be a foreign concept to you so we'll never really agree that we have an obligation to the whole. Sorry you didn't understand my reference to "corporations", I thought it was pretty clever after what you said, but c'est la vie.
LikeLike
There is obviously a difference between "one" and "many". A corporation has general obligations and goals, etc., that are different or exist independently of the obligations and goals of each individual employee. Additionally, I might argue that, as a high tech company, we should embrace open source and release some of our code into the open source community. I may not be a programmer, or (and this is certainly true) I simply have never written any code that would be of value to the open source community. I'm not a hypocrite for arguing that we ought to release some of the code that is owned by our corporation into open source. And again, I make the argument that what is possible or useful for an entire nation, state, or city to do is clearly different, in many ways, from what is possible or useful for an individual to do, whether or not our substantiating argument is moral. I may think we have a moral obligation to future generations to make our city something special, and a tall, modern skyscraper where an old abandoned warehouse stands might be just the thing. If I can get a large group of people behind me, and helping me, put it together, then I will make the case for the skyscraper, and do my part.If it's only me, there's no point. I'm going to start clearing out the old warehouse with a hammer? Even if I have money, I don't have skyscraper building money. What good would it do for me to pour the foundation if nobody else is in to help complete the skyscraper? I don't think the distinction is that complex. If your moral obligation is to give back in order to make a difference, why are you going to personally give back if you believe your single contribution isn't going to make the difference you seek? It's a simple if/then equation.If x>y then $resultWhere x are the resources available to accomplish a task, y are the resources required to accomplish the task, and $result is the desired outcome from the task. If you don't have the required resources, the function stops being evaluated there. Similarly, if you believe everybody collective needs to be paying higher taxes, for whatever reason, there's nothing hypocritical about not voluntarily contributing more if it is your belief that the morally obligated outcome will not occur with just your donations, and that everybody has to participate in order for the morally obligations to be met.
LikeLike
lmsinca: So, yes, if you think there should be a consumption tax and aren't paying it voluntarily, you are a hypocrite.Who said there should be a consumption tax? Beyond that, who said that paying a consumption tax is a moral imperative? What are you talking about?I really find the logic that if you think something should be policy, for whatever reasons, that if you aren't personally behaving as if that thing is already policy, then you are a hypocrite, is extremely tortured. Almost as tortured as my constant typos. Almost, though not quite. If I think we need to raise sales taxes in order to fund education, which I think we have a moral obligation to do, then if I am not personally paying another 2% every time I shop, I'm a hypocrite? How would they even get that money to the state?By that standard, everyone is going to end up with fists and behinds feet stuck in dat dem der hypocrisy tar baby.
LikeLike
lms:Scott and qb are trying to confuse the hypocrisy issue with their impression that the Warrens are making a moral argument.First, it is not a "impression" that she is making a moral argument. It is a fact. Any argument that is based on the notion of fairness or justice is a moral argument. You can ignore that fact if you want, but that is a reflection on your thinking, not mine or qb's.Second, we are not "confusing" anything. By the very definition you have provided, she is a hypocrite. She professes to believe something (rich people should, as a matter of justice, contribute more than they are currently being told to contribute for government projects) that her actions (she is rich but does not pay more than she is currently being asked to pay) suggest she does not really believe.You haven't really refuted any part of that analysis. You simply say that you disagree. Perhaps this is another of those cases where you think logic doesn't work for some reason.The "common" seems to be a foreign concept to youNo, it is not foreign to me at all. I understand it quite well. What I don't understand is your apparent belief that it is an actual, sentient being, with wants, needs, and desires wholly distinctive from the wants, needs, and desires of its individual parts, rather than simply an abstract concept. I've asked you to explain this belief, and you seem to be either unwilling or unable to do so.Sorry you didn't understand my reference to "corporations"…I'd like to understand it. Please explain…what relevance did your reference have? Particularly given that I never said anything about corporations being people, your assertion that I can't have it "both ways" is particularly puzzling.
LikeLike
I really find the logic that if you think something should be policy, for whatever reasons, that if you aren't personally behaving as if that thing is already policy, then you are a hypocrite, is extremely tortured.Luckily, that isn't the logic. I am amazed that this concept apparently is so elusive to you (collectively). The logic is that Warren Buffett has claimed that the law should require him to do X, as a matter of justice, fairness, and public morality. It is unjust, he claims, to "pay less" than his secretary in taxes (although of course he doesn't).I don't preclude the possibility that someone could have a nonhypocritical argument for why he fails to do X even though he claims the law should require him to do X as a matter of justice (or not to do X), but no one has even hinted at what thta explanation could be here.If I think we need to raise sales taxes in order to fund education, which I think we have a moral obligation to do, then if I am not personally paying another 2% every time I shop, I'm a hypocrite? How would they even get that money to the state?If you went around publicly arguing that it is unjust and unfair for you not to pay another 2% for that purpose, yes, you would be, except that you would have no way to do it absent the law being changed, so, no, your example still doesn't work. You can go to treasury.gov and find the web page giving instructions how to donate extra money to "Obama's stash," as one of his supporters famously put it.
LikeLike
I'm not a hypocrite for arguing that we ought to release some of the code that is owned by our corporation into open source.No, you aren't if you don't control the corporation, at least. But that is where the point made by Scott is salient. A corporation is a defined legal entity. Its property by law belongs to it and not you. You would be stealing or misappropriating intellectual property if you released the code.PRESIDENT OBAMA: It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million.Scott and qb are trying to confuse the hypocrisy issue with their impression that the Warrens are making a moral argument.Cosign Scott's response. It is explicitly a moral argument. When Obama invoked Buffett, he said "[i]t is wrong" for ordinary people to pay higher taxes than the rich (and of course it is a huge lie that they do).
LikeLike
Except the definition of hypocrisy requires falseness, not fairness. People make moral arguments all the time, on both sides of the aisle. As long as they are willing to live by the same sense of morality to the best of their ability, it is NOT hypocrisy.Changing a law or a tax code that you find unfair, may be a moral argument, but as long as you include yourself in the group that lives with the consequences of said change, I hardly find that to be hypocritical. You're the ones adding morality to the definition.scottI have answered your questions, you just don't like my answers. I believe the United States is a nation that is more than just the sum of its parts. And yes, because we are a representative government the needs and sometimes rights of the individual are superseded by the majority. I don't always like it either but I don't understand how you can deny we exist as a nation with an inherent identity in "common". Some people call it patriotism, protectionism, isolationism, us against the world, whatever, it's a real phenomena that goes beyond adding up 300M individuals to get to 300M.
LikeLike
Kevin:A corporation has general obligations and goals, etc., that are different or exist independently of the obligations and goals of each individual employee.Two points. First, the relevant constituent parts are owners, not employees, and a corporation's goals and moral obligations are not different and do not exist independently of the moral obligations and goals of each individual owner. To say that a corporation has a moral obligation to do X is to say that its owners have a moral obligation to make sure X is done. The obligation rests with individuals, not with an abstract concept (or a legally defined entity).Second, while it is true that corporations have legal obligations that do not adhere to individual owners, that is merely an artifact of legislation, which can say anything anyone wants it to say. Indeed, one of the complaints against the legal environment in which corporations exist is that the legal liability of owners for actions undertaken in the name of the corporation is limited. Implicit in this complaint is the understanding that owners are not being held legally responsible for things which they are indeed morally responsible for.I really find the logic that if you think something should be policy, for whatever reasons, that if you aren't personally behaving as if that thing is already policy, then you are a hypocrite, is extremely tortured.It is not for "whatever reason". It is for a specific reason, and it is precisely that reason that indicates the hypocrisy. Her hypocrisy is not found in the policy stance she is taking. It is found in the moral belief she is professing…a belief which her actions demonstrate are not sincerely held.If I think we need to raise sales taxes in order to fund education, which I think we have a moral obligation to do, then if I am not personally paying another 2% every time I shop, I'm a hypocrite?This is not at all comparable to what Warren is saying. First, your are introducing the collective "we" problem that I have been discussing with lms. You are claiming that the abstract entity "we" has some moral obligation, and from what you've said above I know that by that you don't actually mean any particular individuals. Warren, however, is asserting an individual moral obligation…individuals who are rich have a moral obligation to pay more than they are paying. Also, the moral obligation you are asserting is not related to the sales tax. It is related to the provision of education. The sales tax is, presumably, simply a practical way of achieving that. As I repeatedly explained yesterday, Warren's is not advocating for higher taxes on the rich as a practical means of fulfilling some collective moral obligation. She is asserting that paying more is in and of itself an individual moral obligation of rich people.You have not provided a proper analogue to the claims we are making against Warren.
LikeLike
lms:I have answered your questionsI must have missed them. Please direct me to the post where you explained:1) How it can be that an abstraction has needs and desires that are distinct from the needs and desires of the actual, individual entities of which it is comprised.2) What relevance your corporation and having it "both ways" reference had to our discussion.Thanks.
LikeLike
Giving up, lms. I don't think the point can be made any clearer than it has been. Your answers don't deal with it imo. But no point beating a dead horse.
LikeLike
lms:Except the definition of hypocrisy requires falseness, not fairness.I have no idea what you are addressing here, but yes, it does require falseness. And both Warrrens are professing beliefs which their actions suggest they do not actually hold. That is precisely the falseness which leads to the charge of hypocrisy.People make moral arguments all the time, on both sides of the aisle.Yes, they do. And sometimes they do so hypocritically, as in the case of the Warrens. As long as they are willing to live by the same sense of morality to the best of their ability, it is NOT hypocrisy.And quite plainly Warren is not willing to live up to her own professed sense of morality. Hence the charge of hypocrisy.You're the ones adding morality to the definition.Really? This, from the very last sentence of Mark's post, which started this discussion:If we extend the definition of hypocrisy beyond the moral and religious bounds…The word "beyond" clearly indicates that Mark understands the definition to encompass morality. That you think moral beliefs are not subject to charges of hypocrisy is strange to me.
LikeLike
QB: It is wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker who earns $50,000 should pay higher tax rates than somebody pulling in $50 million.That argument is wrong, not hypocritical. 😉 It's simply not hypocritical to argue that there can be systemic moral wrongs. The argument itself may be incorrect, or even absurd, but it's not hypocritical to say that even though I'm not voluntarily paying more taxes on my lonesome, it is morally wrong for us, as a wealthy nation, to have a tax system that does not require the wealthy to pay more than they currently do. It's a systemic (or, if you wish, nationally corporate) argument, not an argument about individuals. It's not even hypocritical to say something like the government needs to do more to take care of the elderly, while neglecting your own elderly parents. It may be morally repugnant, but the position is not hypocritical. Arguing that there needs to be a systemic general solution, rather than depending on specific, individual solutions–even if you aren't so great at specific, individual solutions in your own life–is not hypocritical, if you concede to exist by the same general system you advocate. Politicians rarely do that, so if we're looking for hypocrisy from a politician, it shouldn't be that difficult to find. But this is not it, in my opinion. Quoth the Limbaugh: "Words mean things." All I'm sayin'. QB: Its property by law belongs to it and not you. You would be stealing or misappropriating intellectual property if you released the code.I could, arguably, be authoring my own code and releasing it in my own time. Because I chose to spend that time eating nachos and playing World of Warcraft, it doesn't make me a hypocrite if I'm arguing that the company, as a company, ought to be releasing some of our code as open source. I may be wrong for other reasons, but that's not hypocrisy. Scott: How it can be that an abstraction has needs and desires that are distinct from the needs and desires of the actual, individual entities of which it is comprised.I have work goals that are part of my work. If I stopped working at my work, those goals would evaporate, and I would have new work goals, based on my new work.Many of these goals would be group goals I share with the group. I would work in tandem with others on these goals, but I would not work by myself, hoping everybody else would do their part. We would agree on what would be done as part of our work goals, who would do what, and then we would all move forward. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to be slaving away on my part of the project while everybody else loafs. ;)A corporation has many corporate goals that we may all contribute to, but are macro-goals that many who work for the corporation don't ever think about or associate with their own micro-goals. A company needs to stay in business. I need to stay employed–but not necessarily at that company. We have related but independent goals, and at no point is my need for the corporation to stay solvent as pressing to me as it is to the corporation. I work for a company for a paycheck. I like the paycheck, but I otherwise dislike the company, and would not care if it went out of business. In fact, I'd get some pleasure in that. Thus, I have almost entirely independent wants and need from the corporate entity I am a part of. They may not be entirely distinct, but it's pretty damn close. And I know from experience, such an arrangement is entirely possible.
LikeLike
But no point beating a dead horse.Thank god! Parsing it endlessly is pointless and is a red herring. If we must not only agree on a policy change but also must agree with the stated reason for the policy change, we are in deep poop. Think we have gridlock now? Nothing would ever happen! lms and kevin, I am in agreement with both of you.
LikeLike
I give up……………..again. BTW, that's different than conceding. I don't have time to give a million examples of what I'm trying to explain. If my words don't make sense to you for some reason, both of you, I don't have time to keep repeating them in a different way. Maybe my language skills aren't up to snuff or something, but I've found that most people understand my point even though they don't necessarily agree with me all the time.
LikeLike
okie, you corked me. lol
LikeLike
Scott: It is not for "whatever reason". It is for a specific reason, and it is precisely that reason that indicates the hypocrisy.I said "whatever reason" for a reason, as I believe that my point is valid, whether the justification given is a "moral" one, or not (because, frankly, if I think something is a good policy, it's because I think it will be beneficial to people that it should be beneficial to, and there's a moral component to that, as well). Indeed, one of the complaints against the legal environment in which corporations exist is that the legal liability of owners for actions undertaken in the name of the corporation is limited. Implicit in this complaint is the understanding that owners are not being held legally responsible for things which they are indeed morally responsible for.This is an interesting point. Should individual owners be held legally responsible for what their company does, even if the illegality is done by employees (who may own stock, or something, but are not "the owners") operating autonomously? Should the owners be responsible for everything any employee does in the name of the company, even if they cannot practically be aware of everything that may be done in the name of the company? I'm digressing for the argument at hand, but it's an interesting question. You are claiming that the abstract entity "we" has some moral obligation, and from what you've said above I know that by that you don't actually mean any particular individuals. Warren, however, is asserting an individual moral obligation…individuals who are rich have a moral obligation to pay more than they are paying.. . . as a part of our system tax code. At least, that's how I read it. That the rich have an obligation to pay more and the way that needs to be done is by a shared obligation handled through the federal tax code. If I'm misunderstanding her, then, yes, you're right.That being said, can I argue that we have a moral obligation to have a system that puts more of the financial burden on those more able to bear it, and so we should thus have a more progressive tax system, without being a hypocrite, even if I'm not personally paying more voluntarily (not rich, this should get me out of that) and I'm not going around trying to force rich people to pay more, even though that's arguably what I'm saying the federal government should do? As I've noted before, I think there is an obvious material difference between the individual and collective, and we can have shared goals and needs that make little or no sense, on the individual level, without the context of the group. Yet, clearly, I can have individual goals that make perfect sense with or without the context of the larger groups of which I am a member. Thus it's entirely reasonable to assert a collective moral (or otherwise) obligation that is different from your individual obligations (or wants, needs or goals). I share goals with my wife, and have family goals, that I would not have without my family. There are many (if not most) things that I do in the context of my family, that would be very different if I were single. Very, very different. 😉 And I go back to my example of national defense. I think we have a national obligation to defend the nation, even though I have never picked up a weapon in defense of our country, or joined the armed services. I am not a hypocrite (the proverbial chickenhawk) because I believe in a strong defense, that I believe we have an obligation to defend both our country and our allies, yet I myself have not personally enlisted.
LikeLike
So we must continue the beating.KW,Whether or not you think the justice/morality argument is wrong, it is what Buffett, Warren, and Obama have all asserted. They are far from alone. It is the contradiction between their stated belief and their actions that raises the question of hypocrisy. The misguidedness of their belief is totally irrelevant.It's not even hypocritical to say something like the government needs to do more to take care of the elderly, while neglecting your own elderly parents. It may be morally repugnant, but the position is not hypocritical.The correct analogy would be that I assert that the law should require me to care for my parents but don't do it, since the law doesn't require it. That would be hypocrisy. You could make your hypo more analogous by saying, I should be required to pay more in FICA to care for the elderly, but I fail to pay more since it isn't required.Arguing that there needs to be a systemic general solution, rather than depending on specific, individual solutions–even if you aren't so great at specific, individual solutions in your own life–is not hypocritical, if you concede to exist by the same general system you advocate.I think you are confusing a sort of utilitarian argument with the one Buffett et al. have made that critiques like us are targetting. He undoubtedly does think or at least claim that higher taxes on the rich would help render some better solution to some set of policy issues, but the moral argument that the rich should be paying more is a different argument.
LikeLike
okie: "But no point beating a dead horse."But what if by beating the horse you were administering CPR, and you revived the horse, and it went on to win the Kentucky Derby? Then there would be a point to beating a dead horse. 😉
LikeLike
qb: The correct analogy would be that I assert that the law should require me to care for my parents but don't do it, since the law doesn't require it. That would be hypocrisy. You could make your hypo more analogous by saying, I should be required to pay more in FICA to care for the elderly, but I fail to pay more since it isn't required.We're just gonna have to agree to disagree. As stated, this just does not meet the dictionary definition of hypocrisy as I read it. but the moral argument that the rich should be paying more is a different argument.Not if you stipulate, which they clearly do because it is fundamental to their argument, that the rich should all be paying more via the mechanism of the federal tax code. If there argument were that the rich should voluntarily be sending additional arbitrary amounts to the federal government, then they would be hypocrites. But I do not understand that to be their argument.
LikeLike
kevin, your point about my point about qb's point is pointless. LOL.
LikeLike
BTW, 109 posts and counting. Good job, Mark!
LikeLike
"Thank god! Parsing it endlessly is pointless and is a red herring. If we must not only agree on a policy change but also must agree with the stated reason for the policy change, we are in deep poop."I couldn't disagree more. This is not parsing, and I don't think examining the reasons people argue for policies is pointless. Moreover, we don't agree on the policies or the reasons given. Since people like Buffett do not behave consistently with the reason he gives for what he advocates, we are challenging the policy and the reasoning for it.
LikeLike
We're just gonna have to agree to disagree. As stated, this just does not meet the dictionary definition of hypocrisy as I read it.We will, it appears. If John Doe said, it is wrong and unjust for people not to care for their parents in old age, and the law should require them to do it, but John Doe left his own parents destitute, I doubt that 1 in 10 persons would deny that he was a hypocrite.Not if you stipulate, which they clearly do because it is fundamental to their argument, that the rich should all be paying more via the mechanism of the federal tax code.First, you are filling in for them, and second this is just another layer of hypocrisy or an excuse for it. If I claim that doing X of failing to do X is unjust but then say I'm not doing it unless everyone else does, I am a hypocrite who makes lousy excuses. Liberals love to misuse the Good Samaritan story as government policy. If one of the passersby said, it is wrong not to help that guy, but I won't unless everyone else does, or the government makes me, that would be hypocritical.
LikeLike
What crystallizes this issue, btw, is Buffett's very specific and personalized claim that it is wrong for himself to pay lower taxes than his own secretary.That's a wrong that he can very easily rectify, and that's what he can't explain. From there, the problem with his position becomes obvious (to some of us at least).
LikeLike
qb: I doubt that 1 in 10 persons would deny that he was a hypocrite.Then only one person would have their definitions right. ;)It would not be the first time.Liberals love to misuse the Good Samaritan story as government policy.Agreed, but that's a whole 'nuther argument. 😉
LikeLike
Kevin:but it's not hypocritical to say that even though I'm not voluntarily paying more taxes on my lonesome, it is morally wrong for us, as a wealthy nation, to have a tax system that does not require the wealthy to pay more than they currently do. Warren is not being charged with hypocrisy for suggesting that it is morally wrong for us to have tax system X . She is being charged with hypocrisy for suggesting that rich people have a moral obligation which they are not currently fulfilling. If you think she has suggested no such thing, then fine, you should say so, and we can debate that. But coming up with all kinds of ways in which the charge of hypocrisy is not applicable is no defense against the way in which the charge is actually being applied.Suppose the CEO of a bank claims that banks have an ethical obligation to disclose up front to its customers any fees it might charge them, and on the basis of this belief he lobbies for the passage of laws to compel such disclosure. But it then turns out that the CEO is, at the very same time as his lobbying, knowingly charging his customers hidden and undisclosed fees. I say he is engaging in hypocrisy. Do you agree?If not, why not? If so, how does the behavior of the bank CEO differ at all from the behavior of Warren? re "group goals"As I said, the relevant constituent part of a corporation is not the employees, but the owners (or their proxies, ie directors). As an employee, your goals may well be very different from the goals of the corporation. But the goals of the corporation are defined by the goals that theowners seek to accomplish. And there is no actual collective mind from which springs the goals. Each owner has his own mind, and comes up with his own goals. When all the owners, or at least a majority of them, have the same goal in mind that they wish to achieve through the corporation, it becomes a corporate goal. It is easy shorthand, and very common, to imagine any group/collective of people, as an existent and material thing in and of itself, and then to attribute to this thing the characteristics of people…wants, needs, desires, thoughts,e tc. But it is just shorthand. It is not literally true. Any group or collective is an abstraction. To the extent that such human characteristics can be attributed to the group, it can only mean that the individual people within the group, or at least a dominant portion of them, retain that characteristic themselves. And a failure to incorporate this fact into one's thought, and to truly believe (as apparently you and lms do) that abstractions are real, material things with human characteristics, leads to all manner of contradictions and incoherencies.
LikeLike
okie:If we must not only agree on a policy change but also must agree with the stated reason for the policy change…I don't think anyone is saying any such a thing. qb and I have simply been arguing that Warren's stated reason for supporting higher taxes on the rich is hypocrisy.
LikeLike
On the point of a consumption tax, the current Republican front runner talks about the need for one. There is nothing in the meaning of hypocrite that restricts in such a way. Boehner says the government spends too much and frames the deficit in a moral argument. He then reaches a deal for modest deficit reduction. HYPOCRITE.This is simply an effort to use a loaded word, change the definition, and try to retain the emotional baggage. The term racist has been used similarly. So, if you want to claim that Warren and Buffett are hypocrites, fine. You have altered the meaning of the word to the point that being a hypocrite is no big deal. Yeah, I think everyone here (excepting Kevin) is a hypocrite by that definition.I will close with a quote from the legendary Inigo Montoya. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."BB
LikeLike
lms:If my words don't make sense to you for some reason, both of you, I don't have time to keep repeating them in a different way.Maybe I am just too dumb to grasp what is apparently self-evident to you .
LikeLike
qb: I couldn't disagree more. This is not parsing, and I don't think examining the reasons people argue for policies is pointless. Moreover, we don't agree on the policies or the reasons given. Since people like Buffett do not behave consistently with the reason he gives for what he advocates, we are challenging the policy and the reasoning for it.Well, it is parsing (don't make me argue definitions on "parsing" as well as "hypocrisy"!), as parsing is a process of examining words, language and semantics for meaning, and letting context inform meaning, as well. This is more the point of view of a kid who wrote a natural language parser in Microsoft Basic in 1984, but still, I think Webster's can come to my defense here, as well, even if common parlance since Clinton has associated a negative value with parsing.But examining the underlying arguments for a particular policy makes good sense. As does the logistical strategy for the charge of hypocrisy. If you can establish that someone is not living by their own advice, you can make the argument that they are not doing so because, at some level, they know that they are wrong, or that it's a bad idea. Ergo, if it's such a good idea, why aren't they doing it? It's a reasonable question to ask, and they should have a good answer for it.
LikeLike
FB:I asked you several questions above based on your previous post. Any chance you might respond to those?As for you latest:This is simply an effort to use a loaded word, change the definition…What is the proper definition of the word, and how have I changed it?
LikeLike
Scott: Maybe I am just too dumb to grasp what is apparently self-evident to you .Communication is difficult. We make an assumption that because we share a similar context and speek the same language that we communicate meaning at a high level, where as if we were trying to talk to someone who spoke a language that no normal, right-thinking person would ever want to speak (say, French). Sometimes, however, we simply do not share certain concepts, or certain aspects of concepts (that is, we may understand a concept like God in theory, but if we do not accept it, it's hard to deeply discuss God with someone who does and truly communicate, because it's like we're both starting out the conversation with opposite opinions about what the word "is" means) . . .When you accept something as self-evident (that there is a material different between individual and group obligations, or that that group obligations are always individual obligations distributed across individuals, thus the idea of group obligation, or goals, etc., has no real meaning) . . . and the other side does not, and the discussion revolves around that point where we simply see such things differently, then it's tough. I don't think it's because anybody is dumb, however. 🙂
LikeLike
BTW, changing the definition of a word, and asserting that something meets that definition by selective interpretation, are two different things. As is, arguably, saying that something doesn't meet that definition, by similarly selective interpretation.
LikeLike
Kevin:When you accept something as self-evident…Do you accept as self-evident the notion that abstract concepts can double as actual, material and sentient beings with human characteristics? Is there any philosphical literature on this subject that you could direct me to to possibly enhance my understanding of it, and make it more evident to me?
LikeLike
Scott: "Do you accept as self-evident the notion that abstract concepts can double as actual, material and sentient beings with human characteristics"Not as such. My point is, that there are differences, and it makes rational, functional sense to speak of corporate goals as goals of and for the corporation, and understand them as being separate from individual or department goals, and that there are obligations and goals, or can be, that only make sense in the context of a larger group. The city has an obligation to fix the potholes. Although I live in the city, I do not personally have the obligation, and thus when I demand the city fix the potholes, I'm not being hypocritical, even though I have not, myself, gone to plug a pothole. Is there any philosphical literature on this subject that you could direct me to to possibly enhance my understanding of it, and make it more evident to me?I don't have anything in mind, I'm really operating out of my own thought on the subject, over many years. Not to discredit the influence of what I've read, I just can't think of anything specific at the moment. Also, I should be clear, the onus is as much on me as anybody to either be clearer, or work harder to see the other side. It is at least equally likely the problem rests with my own limited semantic resources, if not more so.
LikeLike
Well, it is parsing (don't make me argue definitions on "parsing" as well as "hypocrisy"!), as parsing is a process of examining words, language and semantics for meaning, and letting context inform meaning, as well.Now you are just parsing about parsing. I will not be drawn into your semantic trap of parsing parsing.Is there any philosphical literature on this subject that you could direct me to to possibly enhance my understanding of it, and make it more evident to me?Scott, if it were possible to drill down, I'm not sure we would find that all of our opponents here share a common philosophical premise for their position, or at least whether they would agree, but arguably what their claims fall into the notion of communitarianism. It has been a long time since I formally studied such ideas, but this is a notion that tries to explain rights and duties in group terms. Thus, we all have rights to … things, and duties to provide them on a collective basis. Michael Sandel is a prominent philosophical communitarian. A very decent guy, too.In politics, it another word for collectivism in my book, and ultimately isn't a coherent world view. Something that is confusing about it is that communitarianism supposedly stands against individualistic liberalism of people like Rawls, but this to me is rather a false dichotomy, as can be seen by the fact that in popular discourse we see people like our friends on the left make arguments that can be viewed as either Rawlsian or communitarian, or both. They both end in a set of collectivist conclusions.
LikeLike
Kevin:Not as such.That is reassuring to hear. My point is, that there are differences, and it makes rational, functional sense to speak of corporate goals as goals of and for the corporation, and understand them as being separate from individual or department goals, and that there are obligations and goals, or can be, that only make sense in the context of a larger group.While I agree that it can sometimes be useful to imagine or speak of things in this way (especially for the sake of brevity), I absolutely disagree with the idea that the presumed differences are real in any way at all, or that an obligation can be sensibly be said to literally belong to a group but not the (real) constituent parts of a group. And your example does not advance your case. It just shows that your premises are wrong, or you are using imprecise language. Consider the first sentence:The city has an obligation to fix the potholes.What exactly does "the city" here refer to? It surely does not refer to the group of all people who reside in the city. What it actually means is something more like the city government, or even more specifically the department of transportation or even more specifically the person(s) in charge of managing the DoT. Since you are not in charge of the department of transportation, or in charge of directing the functions of government (of which the DoT is one), the obligation of course does not adhere to you individually. Yes, you are a part of "the city", but in a totally different context and meaning from "the city" which holds an obligation to fix potholes. So pointing out that the obligation does not adhere to you individually does not imply in the slightest that it therefore doesn't adhere to any individuals. It absolutely does adhere to the individuals in charge of the department of transportation, or, more generally, those individuals in charge of directing the functions of government. And at its root it cannot coherently be understood to mean anything else, even if for the sake of quick and easy communication/illustration we don't go into all of the presumptions that ground the concept and are assumed to be understood.Using "the city" here in this respect is convenient and useful shorthand. But it is neither convenient nor useful if one goes on to believe that it is literally true, that some obligation is attached to "the city" as understood in any context, and that it isn't attached to any individual. Someone, not some disembodied abstraction, is responsible for making sure the potholes are fixed.BTW, you never responded to my bank CEO analogy to the Elizabeth Warren hypocrisy. Is the CEO engaging in hypocrisy? If so, how is his behavior any different from Warren's?
LikeLike
Scott – I've been up at a research lab for a couple of days this week, which means a commute to work (get samples, check email) a drive up to Gaithersburg (~1 hour), a full day of work there, and then another ~1 hour drive back home. And there's that paper I'm hard at work on. So, I've had really limited time to comment on anything or to follow the discussion. Sorry for doing drive by comments, but that's all I've had time to do.As for changing definitions, I see it here Hypocrite is a pretty loaded word. It carries some significant baggage with it. As an example, I commented that a consumption tax is being advocated by some, but they aren't paying it voluntarily. Au contraire, I hear. Only if one advocates something as a moral position can it be hypocritical. Um, yeah. Right. The word is being shmushed around so that it can only be applied to certain people and certain policies. No sale.I think my proposition is far more consistent. If one advocates a certain policy and doesn't follow it regardless as to current law, that's hypocritical. I also didn't see anyone comment on Boehner. He's made a moral argument about the government running large deficits and then pushed to pass a bill that has large deficits (even if slightly less deficits). By this definition, anyone who warns about the immoral deficits and votes for any budget with a deficit is a hypocrite. I'd rather not have the country run by Bachmanns.I'll try to take some time later to respond to specifics. In my case, it was get home, make mac&cheese for the kids' dinner, deal with a tantrum because Secondo wanted pie first (and, no, simple discipline does not work with autism), and we've got a friend coming over for dinner tonight as I scored some amazing bluefin tuna. To finish off with another quote from the Princess Bridge, I've got my country's 500th anniversary to plan, my wedding to arrange, my wife to murder and Guilder to frame for it; I'm swamped. BB
LikeLike
FB:Take your time responding. I fully understand about real world responsibilities. But when you do have time to post, it would be great if you made your answer responsive to the question asked.For example, you say:As for changing definitions, I see it here…And then you say lots of things, none of which actually demonstrate how I have changed anything. You do assert (and dismiss) an argument – "Only if one advocates something as a moral position can it be hypocritical" – but of course I haven't made any such argument. So I'm not sure of its relevance.I think lms has provided a definition of the term that is quite reasonable:1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.2. An act or instance of such falseness.I am happy to work with this definition. Warren professes to believe that rich people are not currently paying a fair or just amount towards the upkeep of the government. Yet her actions – she is rich but has failed to pay what she herself declares is a fair or just amount – suggest that she does not actually believe what she says she believes. Hence, by lms' definition, Warren is a hypocrite.Do you disagree with lms' definition? If so, what is wrong with it? If not, what is wrong with my analysis of how the definition applies to Warren?Enjoy your tuna, but again, when you do have time to respond, please try to address the things I have actually said.
LikeLike
I like the definition too, but it apparently doesn't mean the same thing to you and now FB that it does to me. You see an inconsistency that I don't in L Warren's statements. She's advocating for a change in public tax codes that she believes in for whatever reason, moral or otherwise, and is willing to live within those new parameters herself, even though they would adversely affect her financial situation slightly. Where is the falseness? To me it sounds more altruistic than hypocritical.
LikeLike
lms:She's advocating for a change in public tax codes that she believes in for whatever reason…No, not for "whatever reason". For a very specific reason, and that reason is essential to the charge. I don't know why you guys insist on ignoring that point, which I have repeatedly made.Also, as I have repeatedly said but which you apparently have still not heard, it is not her advocacy of a policy that is hypocritical. It is her profession of a belief which her actions show she does not believe. That belief was expressed in the process of advocating for a policy, but the policy itself is irrelevant. It is the belief, and her plain failure to express that belief through her actions, that makes her a hypocrite. This is nothing I haven't already said, and so, alas, I fully expect you to ignore it yet again, and continue to argue against a point I haven't made. Ignoring my actual argument seems to be your only means of defending Warren from the charge.BTW, on this:To me it sounds more altruistic than hypocritical.Her position is about as far from altruism as one can get. Altruism is willingly sacrificing one's interests for the interests of another. Her position is obviously that she will not pay any more money until the government forces her to do so by law. That is not altruism. Nor is demanding that other people sacrifice their interests for things she values.Again, about as far from what altruism is as one can imagine.
LikeLike
Scott, I'm not ignoring it, I'm saying it's your interpretation of the definition of hypocrite that's getting in the way. She's running for a US Senate seat and is advocating "public policy", she could read 20 passages from the bible to explain why it's good "policy" (there's your moral argument), and as long as she's willing to subject herself to the same policy, "in my opinion" she's not being hypocritical. If that's the criteria you use for hypocrisy there will be almost no one unscathed by your condemnation.
LikeLike
lms:I specifically said:That belief was expressed in the process of advocating for a policy, but the policy itself is irrelevant.And how do you respond? By talking about the policy. So, yes, you have ignored my argument. Again. As predicted.I can only shake my head in bemused wonder.
LikeLike
I can only shake my head in bemused wonder back, why the hell is the policy irrelevant? This is clearly a moral argument. If, as she seems to think, this obligation is not fulfilled by paying current tax rates and therefore they must be raised, then she herself has clearly not fulfilled her obligation by simply paying current tax rates. So she is plainly pretending to hold as a virtue that which her actions show she does not actually hold.The virtue is obviously in being willing to subject herself to the same change in policy or sacrifice she is asking of others. You can disagree with the moral argument for said policy or you can disagree with the policy but I don't think you can call her a hypocrite. You can try of course, but your arguments are ringing on my deaf ears, bemusing as they may be.
LikeLike
lms:why the hell is the policy irrelevant?Because it is not her policy preference that is the source of her hypocrisy. It is her professed beliefs about the moral obligations of rich people that is the source. Really, lms, I don't know how much clearer I can possibly make this.You can try of course, but your arguments are ringing on my deaf earsClearly.
LikeLike
You don't have to make it clearer, you simply haven't convinced me. As I said, she is advocating a change to public policy or tax rates, and whether she makes a moral argument or an actuarial one, as a hopeful public servant, as long as she subjects herself to the same change I find the charge of hypocrite ludicrous. So I guess that's it then on this subject. I'm sure you don't agree but I think we've at least drilled down to the essence of where our paths diverge.You have an odd habit of accusing people of not answering your questions or not understanding your argument (intentionally even) when in actuality we don't agree to the premise in the first place. I'll watch for that in the future.
LikeLike
lms:BTW, on this:…sacrifice she is asking of others.She is not asking for a "sacrifice". She is claiming that what she asks for (demands is a better word) is owed, as a matter of justice. That is not a "sacrifice". That you don't recognize this fact goes some way towards explaining why you don't see the point I am making about her hypocrisy.
LikeLike
No scott, I see the point, I don't agree with your point. Sacrifice, justice, confiscation, forced, are words that add little meaning to the charge. The key word is falseness and as long as she's willing to succumb to the same justice (or take your pick of words) as she's asking from others, there is no hypocrisy.Why can't you just admit that I understand your point, it's not exactly rocket science, but I simply disagree with your point? Quit trying to paint my opinion as lacking in understanding. I may be wrong in your opinion, but that doesn't mean I don't get it.
LikeLike
lms:So I guess that's it then on this subject. I'm sure you don't agree…Wrong. I fully agree with you that her advocacy of higher taxes is not in and of itself hypocritical. You have an odd habit of accusing people of not answering your questions…I don't find it odd at all when, in fact, they haven't.…or not understanding your argument (intentionally even) when in actuality we don't agree to the premise in the first place.Certainly in this instance I have not seen you object to any of my premises. But I am happy to entertain such an objection if you have one.
LikeLike
lms:Why can't you just admit that I understand your point…Because a lack of understanding is the most generous interpretation I can place on your position.
LikeLike
ScottC: "Because a lack of understanding is the most generous interpretation I can place on your position."Now, come on. There are much more generous interpretations you can place on her position, including the possibility that she's right and you're wrong. You may not choose to interpret her position thusly, but you can place a more generous interpretation on her position. In fact, a much more generous position. 🙂
LikeLike
ScottC: "No, not for "whatever reason". For a very specific reason, and that reason is essential to the charge. I don't know why you guys insist on ignoring that point, which I have repeatedly made."The "whatever" reason is another way of saying "whether or not" the rational is moral or practical or logistical, the position as stated isn't hypocritical, and would not be. It's not trying to suggest there is not a specific argument Warren or Buffet uses in justifying their practical position, only that there's really not a substantive difference in justifications (in the end, they are all "moral" justifications) and that irrespective of the justification provided, it's not hypocritical to advocate for higher taxes on the wealthy as a matter of policy, and yet not volunteer to pay more of your own money to the Federal government ahead of achieving that policy as a matter of law.
LikeLike
Kevin:True. I should have said "honestly place".
LikeLike
Kevin:it's not hypocritical to advocate for higher taxes on the wealthy as a matter of policy, and yet not volunteer to pay more of your own money to the Federal government ahead of achieving that policy as a matter of law. True. But it is hypocritical to profess a belief that one's actions suggest one does not actually hold. And Warren has professed a belief which her actions suggest she does not hold. Ergo, she is engaging in hypocrisy.To refute this argument logically, you must do one of the following:1) Object to the premise that it is hypocritical to express a belief that one does not hold.2) Object to the notion that Warren has professed the belief it is claimed she has professed.3) Object to the notion that Warren's actions show she does not actually believe it.No one here has done any of these things from what I have seen. Hence my claim that you are not addressing the argument I am actually making.
LikeLike
I have to confess that my mind is boggling a little that kw et al. still, after all this, seem unable to grasp the point. Say I am a politician who says, we need to strengthen laws requiring child support and their enforcement, because it is wrong for parents not to support their children, and too many fathers are not paying what they owe. But I fail to pay my own child support.Am I a hypocrite?
LikeLike
qb:I have twice now provided hypothetical analogues to the Warren situation. I think you did at least once yesterday as well. No one seems willing to address those examples. Hopefully your latest will entice someone to respond to it, but I am doubtful.
LikeLike
"unable to grasp", lol.You guys keep digging a bigger hole IMO. qb, if there is a law on the books already demanding child support and the person advocating strengthening those laws, while at the same time breaking those laws, is obviously he is being a hypocrite. L Warren is advocating a new requirement in the future to which she will also adhere to as a matter of public policy, justice, shared sacrifice, coercion, or simple math and as such the only hypocritical avenue for her would be to worm out of it once it becomes law, policy or code.
LikeLike
Sorry, that first paragraph should be revised some how, I'll leave it to your imagination.
LikeLike
lms:if there is a law on the books already demanding child support and the person advocating strengthening those laws, while at the same time breaking those laws, is obviously he is being a hypocrite. So I guess you need to revise your own definition of the term:1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness….provided there are already existing laws in place based on the belief.
LikeLike
lms:Sorry, that first paragraph should be revised some how, I'll leave it to your imagination. Well, if you are leaving it to our imagination, I imagine it should be revised thus:Eureka! I get it now. It's her professed beliefs you guys are talking about, not her advocacy of a policy. I see. Perhaps you are correct after all.
LikeLike
lms, your distinction doesn't work, because my hypo is also based on strengthening the law and its enforcement.But let's change it to make it better. We can do that in several ways.First, suppose there is no law for child support. I am a politician who loudly argues that it is wrong for parents not to support their children, and we need a law to require support. But I pay no child support, and I excuse myself by saying that I would do it if the law required everyone to do it.Second, suppose the support law quantifies the required support. I'm no family lawyer and don't know how these laws actually work, but suppose I am a politician who says the required level of support is too low. It is wrong for a divorced father not to pay more than that. But I am a divorced father who pays only the required minimum, and I excuse myself by saying it is all the law currently requires, and I choose not to pay more unless everyone is required to pay more.Am I a hypocrite now, and if so how is this different?
LikeLike
scott1) She clearly believes the wealthy at some level should be paying a little more in taxes, where's the hypocrisy?2) She seems quite honest about her beliefs to me. We have plenty of evidence from her position over the last couple of years that she holds very strong beliefs from which she as yet to back down.3) As she's obviously running for office and advocating a change in policy or code that would also affect her, I assume she believes it. You apparently choose not to because she isn't already living up to some future obligation.I've answered all those questions already in one form or another.
LikeLike
I think what blocks your thinking on this is the idea paying extra to the government as a an act of personal conscience. It just doesn't feel right that we would expect people to do that. But that is just what makes the moralistic claims about unjustly low taxes hypocritical. None of these rich people had to accept their unfair and unjust tax rates. DOT happily takes extra payments.
LikeLike
Mangled: the idea of paying extra to the government as an act of personal conscience
LikeLike
Ugghhh…I can't believe I am about to agree with Scott and QB. I've been doing this far too much lately. And by far too much, I think this is the second time this week. I think you guys are talking past each other a bit. Scott has said a couple times that Warren's failure to pay additional money is evidence of hypocrisy. The key word is evidence and that seems right to me. Since hypocrisy would require that Warren not actually believe the rich aren't paying their fair share (or whatever moral argument she made) it's hard, if not impossible, to definitively say she is a hypocrite. I don't really know what Warren actually believes, but her failure to volunatrily pay additional money is evidence that she is a hypocrite. If Warren believes this is a policy position and not a moral position, she has either expressed herself poorly on accident or has made it into a moral argument when she does not believe it is a moral argument. If it's the former, she should clarify, if it's the later, she is a hypocrite. If she truly believes there is a moral obligation for the rich to pay more or pay their fair share (or whatever) and she is not doing so, she isn't technically a hypocrite (she may believe what she is saying), but it doesn't speak well of her.
LikeLike
lms:Before I respond, I need to ask: Are those numbered responses intended to correspond to the numbered options I presented above for logically refuting the argument I have made?
LikeLike
ashot:Hallelujah!
LikeLike
I suppose if you are volunatrily giving money to the government after having paid all your taxes, you aren't really paying taxes anymore. If that is the case and if Warren is only arguing the rich have a moral obligation to pay more in taxes then volunatrily giving the government money isnt' technically a fulfillment of that moral obligation. That's obviously a bit (or more than a bit) absurd, but if we're going to get super technical, the only way for the rich to pay more in taxes is to raise taxes. If the moral obligation is to contribute more to the government coffers, then voluntarily paying off our national debt with a big check to the US treasury would be sufficient.
LikeLike
Ugghhh…I can't believe I am about to agree with Scott and QB. I've been doing this far too much lately. And by far too much, I think this is the second time this week. Exxxcccellennnnnt. [insert Mr. Burns] The mind control techniques we learned from Rush are working, working!I tend to think your explanation is close to the right one. The failure of Warren or another low-tax protester to pay more could mean they don't actually believe the moralistic claims they make, which would make them dishonest and demogogic. But I don't really agree with that definition of hypocrisy that limits it to actions inconsistent with true beliefs rather than stated beliefs.One of the other pieces of reinforcing evidence to me is that there is the movement of low-tax-protesting to donate their "tax cuts" to charity. They think this puts their money where their mouths are, but in fact it does just the opposite, because the claim the make is that that money should go to the government. By distributing it to charity as they see fit, they are actually demonstrating disbelief in their own claims about taxes and government.
LikeLike
qb, my thinking is not "blocked", I don't believe she is a hypocrite for not voluntarily paying in advance a higher rate that doesn't exist yet. She's advocating for a new rate and whether her argument is a moral one or not doesn't affect my judgment on the issue. I strenuously disagree. I "understand" that because she is making a moral argument, you are holding her to a higher standard, but I don't agree with that.I don't know how many different ways you want me to say it, or why that isn't clear. You can call me wrong or stubborn, but to say my understanding of your "argument" is lacking or blocked is starting to piss me off.Obviously, others here do agree with you, but I don't see your standard in the definition of hypocrite the way I understand it.
LikeLike
ashot:If the moral obligation is to contribute more to the government coffers…That seems to be her claim. She refers to what is owed due to the "social contract", and she obviously thinks that the "contract" is not being fulfilled or honored at current tax rates. The obvious implication is that the obligation exists independently of whatever tax rates are at the moment.
LikeLike
lms:I don't believe she is a hypocrite for not voluntarily paying in advance a higher rate that doesn't exist yet. I agree with you.But she is a hypocrite for not voluntarily paying what she professes to think she is morally obligated to pay.
LikeLike
lms, I'm sorry if I've offended you and certainly don't intend that, but I could be equally annoyed by the fact that you (and KW) imo have steadfastly mischaracterized the argument even while saying you understand it. I'll just leave it at that.
LikeLike
"She's advocating for a new rate and whether her argument is a moral one or not doesn't affect my judgment on the issue."Does it make me a hypocrite to agree with lmsinca here after agreeing with Scott and QB above? Where I disagree with Warren and others is where they add the moral component. Make the policy argument.QB- I agree that generally people focus on the actions of an individual when calling someone a hypocrite and compare them to their stated belief, like in your child support hypothetical. Scott- I agree that the claims are generally broader than paying more in taxes. But occasionally I like to make slightly absurd arguments just for the fun of doing so. I mean even if she had always only talked about the moral obligation to pay more in taxes, my argument isn't particularly compelling.
LikeLike
The obvious implication is that the obligation exists independently of whatever tax rates are at the moment.Obviously, this is not obvious to me. We have an issue here locally that is similar. Many of us believe the horse owners, and there are a lot of them, who use the trails, parks and emergency services quite a bit more, or at least as much, as the rest of us should pay a license fee per horse, much the way dog owners do. Assume I am a horse owner advocating for the fee and even claim that it was a "fair" avenue to increase city revenue and offset some of the costs to the city. You're saying that unless I voluntarily pay a fee myself in advance of the fee being passed by either the city council or the voters, that I'm a hypocrite. Correct? I disagree. I would be a hypocrite if I suggested that maybe only cat owners should actually pay more or perhaps because I only have one horse, the people who have two or more horses should be the ones paying more.
LikeLike
you (and KW) imo have steadfastly mischaracterized the argument even while saying you understand it.I am not mischaracterizing the argument, I disagree with the premise. I do agree with ashot, that there's probably too much "morality" thrown around by advocates of policy changes, but I think both sides do that in one way or another. If you said, she shouldn't be making a moral argument for higher taxes, I might agree with you.
LikeLike
qb:But I don't really agree with that definition of hypocrisy that limits it to actions inconsistent with true beliefs rather than stated beliefs.I agree. In fact, I wonder if the charge is applicable at all for actions inconsistent with true beliefs.For example, consider a person who truly believes that, say, drinking alcohol is a bad vice and argues vociferously against it, but is an alcoholic who simply cannot resist the urge to drink. Is he a hypocrite or simply someone with a human weakness?I think the charge of hypocrisy is most apt against people who, for whatever reason (political opportunism is an obvious one), profess to some strong conviction which they don't actually hold. As ashot points out, it is impossible to really know someone else's mind and what they "truly" believe. But if, for example, Warren announced that she thinks rich people owe more to the rest of society, herself included, while also admitting that the reason she herself has not honored that obligation is because she is personally greedy and can't resist the urge to cheat society out of what she owes it in the absence of a law, I would be less inclined to charge her with hypocrisy.In other words, an admission of a moral failing goes some way towards ameliorating the instance of hypocrisy.
LikeLike
"Assume I am a horse owner advocating for the fee and even claim that it was a "fair" avenue to increase city revenue and offset some of the costs to the city."This is why I don't care much about these hypocrisy charges because techically what Warren is saying is different than what you are saying. However, the difference to me is not all that significant. Warren is saying the wealthy have a moral obligation to make a larger financial contribution to the government. The equivalent of your hypothetical would be Warren saying raising taxes is a fair way to increase the contributions of the wealthy to the government. If in your hypothetical the equivalen to Warren would be if you were a horse owner and said horse owners have a moral obligation to contribute more to the costs of maintaining these trails and parks, then failed to do so. I see a difference.
LikeLike
ashot:Does it make me a hypocrite to agree with lmsinca here after agreeing with Scott and QB above?Nope. Even I have agreed with what lms has said is not hypocrisy.
LikeLike
qb: but I could be equally annoyed by the fact that you (and KW) imo have steadfastly mischaracterized the argument even while saying you understand it.I may not have read everything lmsinca has written, but I wonder how I have mischaracterized your argument. I may not have always communicated clearly, or diverged upon a tangent relevant to me and no one else, but I don't believe I've mischaracterized the argument. Is it possible, do you think, to understand an argument and still disagree with it? lmsinca: If you said, she shouldn't be making a moral argument for higher taxes, I might agree with you.I argue that all policy justifications can be reduced to moral arguments, so the attempt to distinguish between them is not terribly meaningful. Although I suppose there is a difference between arguing for a certain policy because certain people are bad people, and arguing for a policy because a policy would have the maximum possible benefit for the greatest amount of people. Both these are fundamentally moral arguments, in that we are arguing for a particular policy because it is the right thing to do. It would be unlikely that we would argue for a policy because it's the wrong thing to do, so I think most expressed or articulated arguments for a given policy are going to be moral arguments.Thus, we're usually incensed by the type of moral argument that was made, not simply that a moral justification was used.BTW, on the child support argument, if you had a reason to expect that your child would get the money with the presence of the law you were advocating for, but had strong reason to believe that he would not if you just wrote a check to that boozing, irresponsible hag you divorced (this tests the limit of the analogy, admittedly), then I'd have a hard time seeing the advocate of the law as being a hypocrite.
LikeLike
ashot:I see a difference.You've just become my favorite ATiM liberal. I knew there was a reason I wanted to get you over here.
LikeLike
Kevin:then I'd have a hard time seeing the advocate of the law as being a hypocrite. But, in the absence of your addition, you wouldn't have a hard time seeing it?
LikeLike
ashotI used that example because Warren also claimed that corporations and very wealthy individuals have benefited from the infrastructure and emergency services provided to them that have increased or protected their wealth. This is in much the same way horse owners have benefited from our infrastructure of carving out and maintaining horse trails and even extra training for our fire department in the use of large animal rescue equipment etc. etc. Whether I make a moral claim to fairness or not, I believe as a hypothetical horse owner I would be within my rights, as say a potential city council member, to advocate for such a fee or tax without actually paying it in advance. For someone to call me hypocritical for that advocacy, especially as I would also be subject to said fee or tax, is stretching the imagination, IMO.
LikeLike
Scott,Totally agree. I'll say more later.
LikeLike
"I argue that all policy justifications can be reduced to moral arguments, so the attempt to distinguish between them is not terribly meaningful."I am with you that I don't see the distinction as terribly meaningful. However, others clearly do and, acknowledging that, I can see why they would call her a hypocrite and be bothered by here making her argument in the manner that she has.
LikeLike
"You've just become my favorite ATiM liberal."And to think a week ago I was at your throat. Although that comment may get me in trouble with my fellow liberals. "I knew there was a reason I wanted to get you over here."Had I not validatd that decision prior to now? ;)lmsinca- I don't disagree with anything you just said. Like I said before, I see a difference between what you are saying and what Warren said. I, like you, don't place a whole lot of import on that difference.
LikeLike
lms:Obviously, this is not obvious to me. Well let's see if we can hash it out then. Morality exists independently of law, and the whole point of many, probably most, laws, is to put in place a practical, legal enforcement mechanism for moral injunctions that are presumed to exist independently of law.To use qb's analogy, it is morally wrong for a father not to provide financial support to his kids, even if there are no laws forcing him to do it. And it is this very notion of existing morality that leads us to support laws forcing him to do so. We want a law to compel him to do what he morality obligates him to do anyway.Warren's justification for higher taxes is the same. Warren's claims that rich people are obligated by the "social contract" to provide a certain amount of financial support to the government, and it is this obligation that drives her quest to make a law requiring them to pay. Obviously she thinks the obligation exists independently of existing law, because she wants to change the law so that it enforces this obligation in a more complete manner than it does already. The only way the introduction of a new law can be justified on the grounds that an obligation is owed is if the obligation exists independently of the law itself.
LikeLike
Kevin:I argue that all policy justifications can be reduced to moral argumentsPerhaps, but by your own admission, you do not think that all moral obligations attach to individuals. You think that some moral obligations attach to groups but not any individuals in particular. On that basis, a justification that "we" as a society are morally obligated to do X, or that policy Y is a moral good for "us", is not at all an equivalent to the claim that individuals are obligated to do Z. Since the former claim does not attach itself to an individual, it is pretty much impossible that anyone could be said to be a hypocrite for making the claim, because the claim, by (your) definition, does not apply to him as an individual. But that doesn't negate the fact that other moral claims which do attach themselves to individuals are therefore immune from the charge of hypocrisy.Again, I urge you to see the simple logical formulation of the argument I have made. Which of the three statements in the argument do you object to?
LikeLike
ScottNow you're confusing me with law vs tax policy. I understand the law and morality issue and that laws are based in large part on issues of right and wrong. I understand that tax policy is debated in terms of fairness, by both sides I might add, but as long as someone is not advocating a change to "public" policy that they benefit from rather than suffer from, I don't buy the hypocrisy charge. I realize you don't see this distinction yourself.
LikeLike
I said the precise opposite of what I meant:"But that doesn't negate the fact that other moral claims which do attach themselves to individuals are therefore immune from the charge of hypocrisy."should say…"But that doesn't mean that other moral claims which do attach themselves to individuals are therefore immune from the charge of hypocrisy."
LikeLike
ScottC: Perhaps, but by your own admission, you do not think that all moral obligations attach to individuals. If the obligation cannot be fulfilled by a single individual, how would it?
LikeLike
Perhaps the difference in our perspective is the difference between degrees of moral issues. Is there a difference between right and wrong vs. fairness? I don't know but maybe it's a matter of degrees? Or maybe it's just that tax policy goals cannot be fulfilled by a single individual unless we say the single person with the highest income level is obligated by fairness to forfeit 90% of his wealth for the greater good? I think I'm probably getting punchy now so I'll quit and get back to work.
LikeLike
lms:but as long as someone is not advocating a change to "public" policy that they benefit from rather than suffer from, I don't buy the hypocrisy charge.Consider:A catholic priest delivers a sermon in which he condemns homosexuality as immoral. Later that afternoon he is discovered sodomizing a fellow priest. Is he a hypocrite?Please note, before you answer, that the priest has not advocated any change in or any introduction of any public policy regarding homosexuality that will benefit him or exempt him. Is he a hypocrite?
LikeLike
Kevin:If the obligation cannot be fulfilled by a single individual, how would it? .My very short answer is that if a moral obligation cannot sensibly be attached to an individual, it cannot sensibly be said to be a moral obligation.But this is a separate discussion, which I am happy to have (indeed, we started it yesterday and I left you with something to ponder last night which you have not responded to). For the purposes of this current discussion, I am willing to accept your claim that such "group" moral obligations exist. Assuming they do, then I am simply saying that an advocate of a public policy based on such a group obligation could never be said to be a hypocrite for not fulfilling the obligation because, by definition, the obligation does not attach to him as an individual. However, pointing out this tautology does not mean that advocacy for a policy based on any claim of moral obligation is exempt from the charge, as you seem to be arguing. Even if you believe that some moral obligations attach not to individuals but to groups, you still presumably agree that some moral obligations do attach to individuals, thus rendering those indidivuals open to the charge of hypocrisy if they profess belief in it but fail to act in accord with that belief.
LikeLike
scott, seriously? That's your comparison, it sounds like quite a few members of the Republican Party to me, but okay. He's a hypocrite based upon the distinction of falseness. I don't find that level of falseness in L. Warrens policy advocacy which is a change to current policy.
LikeLike
lms:He's a hypocriteExcellent. So we have established that a person can be a hypocrite without having advocated for a policy from which they are exempted or from which they will benefit.And so pointing out that Warren has not advocated for such a policy is no defense against the actual charge against her.
LikeLike
And so pointing out that Warren has not advocated for such a policy is no defense against the actual charge against her.Except that she is advocating for a policy she finds fair, that will put her in the same boat as others, who will pay a little more in taxes. Aren't tax issues generally decided or debated on issues of fairness? And do you consider that exactly the same as legal decisions based upon the moral distinction of right and wrong or even taken out of context to the extend that you did above with the priest?We're still going around in circles, and again, I understand that you don't believe she can raise the fairness issue without first individually contributing what she believes to be a fair amount to the government coffers without being a hypocrite. I still see a distinction on several fronts, all of which I've already mentioned. I'm not a student you need to convince, I can agree with some of your scenarios for obvious reasons and still disagree on the differences that I perceive to be valid.
LikeLike
lms:Aren't tax issues generally decided or debated on issues of fairness?Certainly politicians will often frame the question in the context of fairness, yes.And do you consider that exactly the same as legal decisions based upon the moral distinction of right and wrong…On a conceptual level, of course I do. Appeals to fairness, justice, right/wrong, etc are all appeals to the same notion, morality, no matter the particulars of the underlying situation. or even taken out of context to the extend that you did above with the priest?I'm not sure what this means. I didn't take anything out of context. I simply presented an invented hypothetical to establish a point of agreement between us, namely that hypocrisy does not require the advocacy of a public policy at all, much less one that benefits the person doing the advocating.I can agree with some of your scenarios for obvious reasons and still disagree on the differences that I perceive to be valid. You can do pretty much whatever you want, lms. There is no ultimate authority here to establish who/what makes sense and who/what does not. I wish there were.
LikeLike