Basketball.

In basketball, there was once no shotclock. Some people advocated adding the shotclock. If I were advocating the addition to the shotclock, would it be hypocritical of me not to act as if a shotclock were already in place?

No. Duh.

Advocating a change to the rules doesn’t mean one should act as if the rule you want changed has ALREADY been changed.

Hypocrisy applies to ETHICAL/MORAL issues – that is, systems where you are claiming what the ethical/moral rule IS, not what it is should be.

Some decades ago someone found that a relative of Govenor Hugh Cary was cheating on sales taxes from Long Island gas stations. Subsequently it was found that all the gas stations were cheating. The econmics of selling gasoline implied that you could not be the only honest guy. There were two stable states for the dynamic: everybody is honest or everybody cheats.

A terrific benefit of a reasonable rule of law is that citizens are allowed to be honest at great benefit to all.

Without slaves the plantation system of the 15th through 19th centuries could not work. It was very difficult not to be a hypocrit with respect to human rights. It took a change in law to rid us of slavery.

I am not making the point that Fish and Deoxy are claiming I’m making about the tax system. It’s not that I’m required to take the deduction; I could refuse to do so, as randy states, and simply overpay my taxes. I’m arguing that there’s no point in me punishing myself and paying more taxes by refusing to take a deduction that I think is bad public policy for the government to offer and that I am not being inconsistent or hypocritical in doing so.

Actually, this isn’t quite right either. You have the duty to file a tax return and you are entitled to take certain deductions, but that doesn’t mean that you must. What you must ,not do is take deductions to which you are not entitled. In the first case, not taking a deduction you are entitled to, the Treasury benefits at your expense. I’ve never heard of the IRS prosecuting someone for overpaying their taxes and I’m sure it will be a very long time before I do.

Here’s an example of non-hypocrisy (such as what Ted is doing).

Let us say that Arnold is a bodybuilder (name chosen at random – heh).

Arnold’s boldybuilding league (which holds the competitions) allows steroids.

Arnold thinks they shouldn’t. If Arnold doesn’t use steroids (and th others do), HE WILL LOSE.

On the flip side (they don’t allow, and he thinks they should), if he DOES use (and gets caught), he will be disqualified (he will lose).

In our tax system (and business in general), one must play by the rules or lose (or not get caught). Advocating for a CHANG to those rules dosn’t man you shouldn’t play by them until you get them changed.

Now, if you’re talking about a MORAL issue (such as, in the example above, claiming steroid use is morally wrong), THEN you would have a hypocrisy charge.

I don’t claim that people shouldn’t take the Schedule A deduction for state taxes; I don’t even claim that plaintiffs shouldn’t claim non-economic damages available to them (though I certainly admire those who make that sacrifice). I argue that the government shouldn’t offer deductions for state taxes and that the legal system should not award unbounded non-economic damages. There’s no inconsistency there, much less hypocrisy.

Randy is simply wrong.

and i don’t care what nuance you are making when saying that the tax deduction should not exist. what ever happened to “put your money where your mouth is”? i wouldn’t call you an idiot for not taking the deduction, i would call you a principled individual.

But if Dugger wants hypocrisy, he should take note of how, for instance, a certain high-profile securities strike-suit firm is reacting to coming under indictment itself.

[And for kickbacks, no less. NB that I’m not defending Lott; I view Lott’s actions as scandalous, and the lack of reaction to them even more scandalous. I don’t see any indication that the WVCC head has done something wrong, however: he’s suing the responsible parties who injured his daughter, not the BB-gun manufacturer, for example. — TF]

I agree they are not analogous. That’s exactly what I meant when I wrote, “The difference being…”

“Fish misses the point on Lott…”

What point did I miss? I think he’s a hypocrite. You think he’s a hypocrite. We both agree he’s a hypocrite. The fact that he’s guilty of far worse things is completely irrelevant to whether he’s a hypocrite.

I think you missed my point. What difference does anyone being a hypocrite make in the debate on whether the civil judicial system should be reformed?

My point is that that such hypocrisy is only proof that the system does need to be reformed. Is that no longer the focus of overlawyered.com?! The fact that some people are using this hypocrisy against the reform movement is simply ludicrous.