12th Book on Ability to Reason, Right to Consent; Proposition, Problem & Poem No. 242

Most likely to be published later this summer of 2022, my 12th book entitled appropriately; Propositions, Problems & Poems on the Peculiar Human ABILITY to REASON, Singular Human RIGHT to CONSENT & Other Neglected Matters. The following will probably be included upon further editing, and front cover a slightly modified yet appropriate version of the 10th and 11th books...

PROPOSITION, PROBLEM & POEM No. 242

~ Preferring Unfairness Even Injustice / 2nd Reprise ~

So propagandized the citizen even politician, thus enticed then seduced the peculiar human ability to reason towards distortion, the nearest to any fair tax concept is the aforesaid flat version per a consistent percentage, yet still falling gravely short of fairness actual, logical, ethical. For only two scenarios can be observably (historically), logically, consistently, ethically determined as fair; no tax, or fixed tax. That is to say, the same or exact amount paid by each citizen regardless of economic status.

If 10 social services are unanimously determined, also calculated the average cost per average usage per average taxpayer as $500.00 per service per year, then hypothetically each taxpayer regardless of salary/wage would be levied the same fixed amount of $5000.00 annually. This of course is merely approaching a bit nearer to absolute fairness thus remaining still as unfair. For it would be unacceptable and unfair to apply the same methodology to all goods and services in the marketplace whether patronized or not, hence unacceptable and unfair for every person to pay $3.50 for bread every week whether purchased or not.

Absolute fairness would dictate however for all services offered by government to be priced and paid only by those who patronize. Consequently, only those who use the public library pay for the service, just as only those who want or need bread pay for the $3.50 as priced. Yet this absolute fairness is not only rejected, but criticized as unfair, unjust even immoral.

If to understand the absolute definition of fairness, there could still be a fairness (if you will) achieved by logically understanding popular though misguided definition(s) of fairness as nothing more than plans, arrangements, proposals of arbitrary conditions. In this way, the only means to ethically justify as fair or just is per mutual or unanimous consent. If to depart from the absolute fairness of all goods and services, even those provided by governments, to be patronized and paid voluntarily, individually, then any other system of taxation would ethically require unaminous consent to achieve and maintain fairness and justice.

---

O sincere the mobocracy therefore endearing the monocracy

And so devised incivility upon guised idiocy aft’ revised history

(Per propaganda’s gin mills, suited cowboys thus mulling lush

Such daily fuss o’er goddamn maddening cuss and media thrush

Swilled to odd quell then unwanted thrill, odder still the pell-mell

Details as floods, rather, thistles bred amid delicate buds swelled

Lulled the blood in mud, ergo rutted the mind uninspired, tired

Unable to conspire, earlier speculations hung well on old wire)

---

Come let us Reason. Peace is always a Choice.
Study, Ponder, Labor, till last Breath.

Copyright © 2022 by D.C. Quillan Stone