It's in their DNA too. The country was founded by people who fled European style statism
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Will you be subscribing to the new Disney+ R49 streaming package?
Stop patronising poor Americans
- Thread starter Nom Chompsky
- Start date
It's in their DNA too. The country was founded by people who fled European style statism
The unofficial rate is nearer to 20%, but yes, in relative terms (to a place like Africa) the poor in America are better off. However, their country is now bankrupt primarily because of government largesse. All the post-war prosperity was pissed away in five or so decades.
People worked towards prosperity because there were no state alternatives- welfare came from religious and civic organisations and tremendous social stigma was the price for being a recipient of it. The birth of America's welfare state in the 30's (and later massively expanded in the 60's) crowded-out the private, non-coercive charitable welfare and created a vast constituency of people totally dependent on ever increasing government largesse. They are living with the consequences of this today.
Theft maps DIRECTLY, 1 to 1, to taxation. Hence the ducking and diving.
Okay. You say A requires B. Then you say that using LOGIC, that means that A requires B.
You realise that's just an appeal to authority and you haven't gone into any depth about why A requires B? Best I can figure out is that you're saying that if producers didn't have to meet arbitrary regulations or subject themselves to embarrassing audits or have to follow rules, they would sell their stuff cheaper.
Are you sure that's automatically a good thing?
I can tell you are having great difficulty with this. Let me try put it in a more intellectual manner so you cannot strawman it, and then I'm going to tell you how you may go about falsifying this, like Einstein did. (This basically precludes you from strawmaning or ad hominem attacks)
I am trying to prove or demonstrate, that voluntary exchange is mutually benificial. I.E. When two parties voluntarily exchange goods, then both parties gain, and thus there is a net gain.
Mathematically it is expressed as follows:
X > 0
Y > 0
Thus...
X + Y > 0
That is what I am trying to prove. In order to do this, I simply need to demonstrate that the parties in a voluntary exchange, X and Y, both "gain". If I prove that, I prove my claim.
Now there are 2 ways, or claims of how we can measure this. There are 2 mutually exclusive ideas that form a dichotomy. (There is no alternative, either the one is true or the other is true).
These 2 ideas are Subjective Theory of Value and Objective Theory of Value.
If I can demonstrate that value is subjective, then we can infer from the actions of the individuals/parties, that they PREFER what they are getting from the exchange, more than what they are giving up. (Otherwise why do it?)
So if I demonstrate my premise, my conclusion is true.
There are 2 ways to demonstrate subjective theory of value. The logical way and the empirical (Or scientific method) way.
The logical way is a bit of a mind-bender so pay attention.
If you attempt to argue that the "Subjective Theory of Value is incorrect", then by your actions, you are demonstrating a preference for another theory. If you don't have a different preference, or if you don't value another POV, then why argue? So logically, the act of arguing demonstrate you have different preferences or values to me.
(I'll give you an example of this: If think sound doesn't exist and wish to communicate this by shouting in someones ear, "Sound waves don't exist." In order to do that you first must assume that which you are rejecting, thus the attempt is invalid.)
Empircally, your observations of the difference choices and different likes and dislikes of people of the real world should give you plenty of evidence that subjective theory is true, as that is your much beloved "scientific" method. Just look around!
So subjective theory is true, thus voluntary trade is mutually benificial. There is a "net gain".
Now, we cannot measure the precise gain or rather we cannot quantify the gain, but I don't have to quantify anything to prove the statement. I can simply show that a; [Positive] + [Positive] = [Positive]
Now if the exchanged is coerced, then what are we saying. We are inferring that one party DID NOT WANT to give up their goods in exchange. In terms of their SUBJECTIVE VALUATIONS, they prefer to keep their goods as opposed to trading. Meaning by taking away their property, they themselves, perceive a loss or negative, whilst we accept that the person gaining the goods, wanted them and perceives a positive.
So involuntary or coerced exchange results in the following equation. [Negative] + [Positive] = ?
Or in algebraic terms
X < 0
Y > 0
Thus X + Y <=> 0 (In other words, we don't know, we cannot measure this)
Thus my position is the rational one, backed up by logical evidence and yours is not.
ANY CLAIM, that we are better off because the state does X, Y, or Z is unsubstantiated garbage, as you would then be assuming that value is objective and measurable, and would thus be required to demonstrate the truthfulness of your assumption.
Happy!
So now, you are bit stuck, the reality is in order to prove any claims of government being benificial to society, you would have to prove value is objective and demonstrate an objective way to measure value.
Last edited:
So does my drivers licence. Bastard commies!
The bastards, against my will, FORCE me to get a drivers license if I wanna drive. Inconsiderate thieving bastards
So does my drivers licence. Bastard commies!
The bastards, against my will, FORCE me to get a drivers license if I wanna drive. Inconsiderate thieving bastards
Im not sure if the above is a Red Herring or Fallacy of ignorantio elenchi.
Either way, first you have to know what theft is, before you can recognise whether or not an action is theft or not.
So you need to develop a moral framework and lets see if it is contradictory or rational and then we can test it.
Is your driver’s license the equivalent of mugging? You do have a choice. Whereas with taxation you are forced to cough up by being intimidated by the apparatus of state (police, prison, etc.). Legal mugging. And it recurs. At least if you are mugged in the conventional way, it only happens once. Not every year.
I have a choice to drive without a drivers license, but they`ll arrest me, just like as if I live in SA without paying South African taxes
Bastard commie thieves! If you dont like paying South African taxes you have the choice to move to a country where they have taxes more suited to your needs (if such a country exists).I cant handle taxes I tell ya. The worst is when they take the tax money like all other thieves do, and build roads... and schools... and hospitals. We all know thats maps directly to theft! Theyre creating educated, healthy and happy people with MY money! OMG! How the heck can I create a miserable, unstable, selfish and greedy society if my money is being spent... helping other people! Its the crime of the century I tell ya. Theyre only thinking of greater good when this should all be about me
Last edited:
So does my drivers licence. Bastard commies!
The bastards, against my will, FORCE me to get a drivers license if I wanna drive. Inconsiderate thieving bastards
Worse, they socialize the entire road system so even if you don't wanna drive it's unavoidable.
I have a choice to drive without a drivers license, but they`ll arrest me, just like as if I live in SA without paying South African taxes
So you admit you pay for fear of reprisal? That is robbery at worst, extortion at best.
If this is really true then why are taxes mandatory? Wouldn't contributions be voluntary if they were doing such a good job? If you're happy making contributions why should I, or anyone else, be forced to as well?
I have a choice to not take a drivers license, but they`ll arrest me for breathing, just like as if I live in SA without paying South African taxes
I cant handle taxes I tell ya. The worst is when they take the tax money like all other thieves do, and buy BMW's... and Mercs... and booze parties. We all know thats maps directly to theft! Theyre creating corrupt, entitled, scumbags with MY money! OMG!
Fixed.
No, I think you need to google "satire".
Wouldnt it be nice if no people were forced to go to jail for breaking the law and it was volunteer only based. I mean seriously, we all know how humans come together like that. Why should people be forced to comply with the law? like forced to get a fishing permit, or forced to get a drivers licence. We all know people wont over fish, will all contribute and will never drive badly. So whats all this enforcing about?!!?!?
Drivers licences and fishing permits should be volunteer based cause everyone will get them and everyone will sing koom-ba-ya together in a drum circle.
So you're a legal positivist then. Taxation, and reprisals for not submitting, are justified because it’s the law. So then you have no problem with Apartheid, right? How about women not voting? Slavery? All of those were "legal" at some time or another.
(As an aside, you do realize that order and law are emergent; they are not presupposed on the existence of a territorial monopoly called the government)
Okay, now thats just bat poo crazy speak.
Apartheid was great, you could catch waves all the time. Woman and voting? Bah, when did they put a voting booth in kitchens? Slavery! LOoooooooooooove it! Free profit!
Last edited:
So do you agree or disagree? Why or not? Or would you just like to find a corner?
Agree or disagree what? About slavery? Just told you, its profitable, and wouldnt it be great if I had no government to stop me from slavery and there were no taxes to pay on my slaves? Oh my word, how I miss dictatorship feudal systems
Explain your framework of rights/justice/freedom etc.
You can't simply judge one area as being free when choice is granted, and judge another as being free when choice is taken away.
Theft is wrong.
Legal theft (Taxation) is not.
So then WHAT IS YOUR THEORY? Is it justified if LEGAL? How so?
You have no theory, you just arbitrarily judge each individual instance based on whatever you want and they you try and justify.
PRESENT YOUR THEORY OR FRAMEWORK and lets see if it meets the most basic logical tests, before we can test your framework on real world examples.
Its like an architect designing a bridge. When he draws up his plans, the mathematics and angles and tensiles are logically tested BEFORE we build the bridge. But without a framework we cannot know if the bridge is right or wrong, we cannot know if an action is good or bad.
So sorry, you may not arbitrarily judge each instance as you see fit and then argue YOUR judgements are correct. Give us your moral theory or framework and lets test it.
For a man who LOVES esousing scientific method, when it comes to economics and morals you are TERRIBLE. You simply make claims that this is A or B and when we ask how to you determine that (What is your theory) you cannot give us one.
Agree or disagree what? About slavery? Just told you, its profitable, and wouldnt it be great if I had no government to stop me from slavery and there were no taxes to pay on my slaves? Oh my word, how I miss dictatorship feudal systems
You do realize that slavery was legal, meaning the government enforced its practice. It did not stop people from practicing it. In any case, I'm tired of having to derail the focus of this exchange by responding to your non sequiturs.
Do you consider yourself to be a legal positivist?