Inalienable rights you say? Eighteen-century English Philosopher, John Locke's theory is that of universal humanistic individuals should share fundamental "natural" rights, asserting, "we can neither give them up nor take them away from anyone else," presents colliding and conflicting thoughts with previously raised, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill's ethical theory: utilitarianism. We will provoke fundamental ideas of the past to pursue applied theory upon political and governmental hierarchical structures of modern-today.
Michael Sandel in Chapter 4 of Justice, raises the question on the lines of, "if you can get away without paying taxes, would you do it?"With the exception of specific taxes, income taxes--majority of taxes--are pooled together and relocated to
pay/fund government expenditures. Controversial ones are:
foreign aid,
military operations/occupations, subsidies,
programmes, etc. that not everyone agrees.
Adhering to the principles of libertarianism, does paying taxes into the "system" that you may not completely agree to all segments/sectors of (the government), constitute as a violation of individual, naturalistic rights? Is it okay for the government to bear the position of being the de facto facilitator of redistributing wealth?Current-day protests/riots take stance at the wealthiest, and particularly, the wealthiest of wealthiest: do wealthy owe it to the greater good, to be arbitrarily taxed of their wealth, to in effect, distribute it to the less wealthy?
- On the flip-side: is it okay for the powers of be--elites--to arbitrarily tax those of the non-wealthly "common-man (persons)" category?
--------------
Introspect: wouldn't the redistribution of wealth, continue to fund the utilitarian government expenditures in the future? After all, the majority of tax receipts are pooled together and reallocated--much like having a sole primary checking account. However, we have seen, and continue to see, political administrations/parties whom have exponentially ran, and continue to run, deficits to fund their agendas.
How far does one allow the utility of taxes to consume the fruits of their own labor? Is it possible to lose our incentive system (market capitalism), and transition into a declining stagnation (see: communism/socialism)? Introspect within an introspect: Does utilitarianism in the context of communism/socialism serve the greater whole? Contrast the differences of: East/West Germany; North/South Korea; USSR/Eastern Europe, Russia.--------------
Investigating the conflicts of individual rights by way of utilitarianism in the reading of Organs for Sale reading by Sally Satel.A kidney may save your life, or another person's. Perhaps more. The evidence is favorable. Is it okay for our society to object (regulate; disagree) to a
market based incentive system (marketplace) for monetarily valuing (buying/selling: trading) organs?
On a fundamental scope: a individual buyer and individual seller consents (agrees) to a determined price for a good/exchange of service (in this case: organ(s); is this morally just?Prohibition for organs. Is utilitarianism counter-intuitive in this context? Does it truly maximize the "greater good" to deny an incentive system for consenting buyers and sellers to alleviate, with the high likeliness of meeting the demand of, the ever increasing, waiting list of organ-doner-seekers out there?
--------------
Extrapolating this further: is it wrong for someone who is in desperate need of a kidney (see: death) to [no pun intend] operate under the guise of a black market organ system, and/or to travel to another country--one with a organ marketplace un-prohibited?Introspect: Should we object and shun the person for doing something that our utilitarian laws deem lawful? Or, is it justifiable? If justifiable, in this context and/or as an absolute, does it shatter the utilitarianism theory; when majority rule does not confer favorably (see: saving lives; cost/productivity benefit analysis) for the universal human whole?Until next time,
Pre-Gamers
