3 ms·
Not commenting on this specific case, but there is such an amount. There's a difference between what's actually just and what can be proven in court.
by marcoperaza 10y ago
Not commenting on this specific case, but there is such an amount. There's a difference between what's actually just and what can be proven in court.
- stouset 10y agoNo two people are going to agree on what that "just" amount is, and there's no way to otherwise empirically determine it. In other words, it doesn't exist.
- marcoperaza 10y agoSo let me guess, you think OJ didn't do it? What an absurd ontology, truth by legal procedure. There's a difference between the process we use to ascertain facts for purposes of administering force, and what the actual truth is.
- stouset 10y agoIn the scenario of "What a company owes to the IRS", the outcome of legal procedure is the absolute source of truth. There's no definition of that amount outside of any legal context. OJ killing his wife is an event that occurred independently of the existence of our legal system. A company owing taxes to the IRS is a matter that literally only exists within the context of the United States legal code.
- tdaltonc 10y agoJust because you cannot precisely identify the location of an electron, that does not imply that it does not exist.
- stouset 10y agoIn fact, an electron does not have a precise location. We can, however, detect electrons' presence based on their observed effects. There are no equivalent "observed effects" of some hypothetical "just" amount that Facebook should owe to the IRS.
- jerf 10y agoTax law is so complicated and vague that there isn't even an objective measure of what an individual owes, let alone a corporation. There's a lot of discretion in the deductions. I believe over the past ~10 years the IRS has really been cracking down on home office deductions, for instance, and it was all interpretation of existing laws, not new ones. And that's just one example.