Should Superman Intervene?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I don't make that argument against socialism.

It's not even an argument against socialism. It's a defense against the claim that under socialism, everybody will take up laziness as a profession. It's a valid defense against that false claim. I don't claim that everybody becomes lazy under socialism. I don't claim that a socialist economy is a vanishing one.

Scribbles,

Your argument for voluntary taxation is an interesting one.

I've often thought that, even within a system of compulsory taxation, citizens should be given some choice about how to allocate their tax contribution. For example, if given the choice here in the UK, I would choose to give less to the military, and none at all to ID cards. Of course, the problem of deciding what the categories of tax contributions should be would arise, and who would make that decision. Nonetheless, I think some choice, even with relative broad categories, would be better than none at all.

However, the fact that most people underreport their taxable income where they can probably means that, under a voluntary system, less tax would be collectable than under a compulsory one, because most would undercontribute, and some not contribute at all. Nonetheless, I suspect, as you do, that the majority would still choose to pay a substantial proportion of what they ideally should pay in tax, particularly if they had some control over how it was allocated, and if they could identify the scope of their contribution relative to others. I further suspect some sort of semi-systematized culture of philanthropy could develop, and that the intrinsic rewards of doing good would have a cultural benefit.

However, it may be the case that, form a purely logistical point of view, centralized executive government is in a better position to plan and spend usefully. Too much democracy, in terms of choosing whether or how tax contributions would be allocated, might handicap effective decision-making and enterprise. This is also an argument, by the way, against anarcho-syndicalism: too many levels of representation, in a series of hierarchical councils, may stymie government. However, as neither voluntary taxation nor anarcho-syndicalism have, as far as I know, been tried out on a large scale, my fears may be unfounded.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Scribbles,

Your argument for voluntary taxation is an interesting one.

I've often thought that, even within a system of compulsory taxation, citizens should be given some choice about how to allocate their tax contribution. For example, if given the choice here in the UK, I would choose to give less to the military, and none at all to ID cards. O ...[text shortened]... -syndicalism have, as far as I know, been tried out on a large scale, my fears may be unfounded.

I'd have to strongly question your views on anarcho-syndicalism.

But at any rate, the anarchists ran large parts of Republican controlled Spain during the Spanish Civil War with great success.

From Wikipedia:

Much of Spain's economy was put under worker control; in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was as high as 75%, but lower in areas with heavy socialist influence. Factories were run through worker committees, agrarian areas became collectivized and run as libertarian communes. Even places like hotels, barber shops, and restaurants were collectivized and managed by their workers...

...The anarchist held areas were run according to the basic principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." In some places, money was entirely eliminated, to be replaced with vouchers. Under this system, goods were often up to a quarter of their previous cost.

Despite the critics clamoring for maximum efficiency, anarchic communes often produced more than before the collectivization. The newly liberated zones worked on entirely libertarian principles; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy.

Originally posted by Palynka
I'm sorry if I've helped his hijacking of this thread, which I was following with some interest. I will not continue to do so.

Edit: Helping the hijacking, I mean.

No worries about the hijack as I have unintentionally done my fair share of it. Conversations go in all directions and I am aware of that but it just seems boring now 🙂

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Mr. Fist, this is hardly my claim. My claim is that [b]forcing people, via threat of imprisonment for not paying taxes, to feed, house and cure the poor is an unjust ideology.

I myself have been known to help those less fortunate. But I have never embarassed myself by stooping to the level of forcing others to help them.[/b]

That's great Scribs. What does any of that have to do with the original point of this thread? Although I am not the "thread police" why don't you take your reoccuring mantra:

My claim is that forcing people, via threat of imprisonment for not paying taxes, to feed, house and cure the poor is an unjust ideology.

And create your own thread? I don't believe you directly answered my questions of whether or not a person endowed with superhuman powers should use them to make the world more enjoyable. Rwingett made the remark that (to paraphrase and sorry if I get it wrong but) we could do a great deal of these superhuman things if we all shared a more world view as oppose to an individualistic one and from there, you have ran with the "Down with Socialism" football and scored a touchdown.

This entire thread was started because of a conversation Starmann & I were having in General and he thought it would be an interesting topic in Spirituality. At least for me, it has now become something I am totally uninterested in and if there were a thread created in Debates (which is now where this really belongs) called, "Should Taxes be Mandatory" or whatever, I would most likely steer clear of it.

Superman really has nothing to do with any sort of Spirituality but I think it worked in the sense in the context of the original question asked, should he intervene and, in essence, play "God".

Originally posted by Joe Fist

Superman really has nothing to do with any sort of Spirituality but I think it worked in the sense in the context of the original question asked, should he intervene and, in essence, play "God".

I am answering this question. I thought the argument was clear.

Is Superman obligated to use his powers for good? No. No more than any citizen is obligated to use his powers for good. I think we should not force the citizen's hand, and I think we should not force Superman's hand.

There are two choices: we either force Superman or we don't. If we don't, what he should do is entirely up to him, and thus we cannot say that he should help us out.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I am answering this question. I thought the argument was clear.

Is Superman obligated to use his powers for good? No. No more than any citizen is obligated to use his powers for good. I think we should not force the citizen's hand, and I think we should not force Superman's hand.

There are two choices: we either force Superman or we don ...[text shortened]... 't, what he should do is entirely up to him, and thus we cannot say that he should help us out.

BUT we can say " HEY, Souperman;; stop hogging in the trough"

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I am answering this question. I thought the argument was clear.

Is Superman obligated to use his powers for good? No. No more than any citizen is obligated to use his powers for good. I think we should not force the citizen' ...[text shortened]... rely up to him, and thus we cannot say that he should help us out.

If Superman could easily intervene, but did not, then, even though he might not strictly be morally obliged to intervene, it would be inappropriate to label him "good", or at least, "very good". There is more to being good than doing the moral minimum, one's duty.

God--to whom Superman might be compared by way of analogy--is supposed to be morally perfect. That means more than just doing the moral minimum. In addition, God, having created us, presumably has a duty of care towards us, which might mean doing more in the way of mitigating natural catastrophes in which the blameless suffer, for example.

Hence, establishing that Superman is not duty-bound to help us in our time of need is hardly a promising step towards developing a coherent and convincing theodicy. But perhaps that is not at all your intention: you have earthly comparisons in mind instead.

Originally posted by rwingett
I'd have to strongly question your views on anarcho-syndicalism.

But at any rate, the anarchists ran large parts of Republican controlled Spain during the Spanish Civil War with great success.

From Wikipedia:

Much of Spain's economy was put under worker control; in anarchist strongholds like Catalonia, the figure was as high as 75%, but lowe ...[text shortened]... ; decisions were made through councils of ordinary citizens without any sort of bureaucracy.

That's interesting to learn.

Do you think anarcho-syndicalism could efficiently on a transnational level too?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I am answering this question. I thought the argument was clear.

Is Superman obligated to use his powers for good? No. No more than any citizen is obligated to use his powers for good. I think we should not force the citizen's hand, and I think we should not force Superman's hand.

There are two choices: we either force Superman or we don ...[text shortened]... 't, what he should do is entirely up to him, and thus we cannot say that he should help us out.

Okay, you have brought an interesting spin to what I think was the original intent of this arguement. I agree with you in the sense that nobody should be forced to do or obligated to do anything. On the other hand, those who choose not to participate also suffer the consequences of not reaping the benefits of being in a "society" (financial aid in severe situations, disaster relief, etc). I misinterpreted what you wrote and I apologize.

Now in a purely spiritual sense, without any thought of obligation to society. In the sense of having the power to make dramatic change in the outcome of disastarous events and unfortunate lives, do you think he should? I understand if you answer with the same statement as it is valid and logical but I am looking more for the emotional response.

Originally posted by Joe Fist

Now in a purely spiritual sense, without any thought of obligation to society. In the sense of having the power to make dramatic change in the outcome of disastarous events and unfortunate lives, do you think he should? I understand if ...[text shortened]... alid and logical but I am looking more for the emotional response.

Now it sounds like you're asking a different question, namely, What would you do if you were Superman?

I don't know. I wouldn't want to be Superman. It sounds like a trivial existence. I thrive on challenges. Would you want to be a chess grandmaster if everybody else was rated 1000?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Now it sounds like you're asking a different question, namely, What would you do if you were Superman?

I don't know. I wouldn't want to be Superman. It sounds like a trivial existence. I thrive on challenges. Would you want to be a chess grandmaster if everybody else was rated 1000?

Is the grandmaster obligated to bring their ratings up? Hell no!

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Now it sounds like you're asking a different question, namely, What would you do if you were Superman?

I don't know. I wouldn't want to be Superman. It sounds like a trivial existence. I thrive on challenges. Would you want to be a chess grandmaster if everybody else was rated 1000?

Well I think it would only be as "trivial" as you determine it would be. Earlier on in this thread, I described what I would do if I was Superman:

Make the earth at very least a comfortable place for all inhabitants then I would take off and visit other planet and what not. I guess in time that might become trivial but who knows?