Stop patronising poor Americans

[WilD_CaT]

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.

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 espousing 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.

 

[Hard Rain]

Well, the law does say you should pay for what you use.

If I wash your car without your permission do you owe me money?

 

[WilD_CaT]

Well, the law does say you should pay for what you use.




Reductum ad apartheidum.

But again, he is asking the question because he is trying to find out what your moral framework is, and you guys keep refusing to tell him. By what standard do you determine if an action is more or not? He is trying to understand by what standard are you determining your opinion, you basically refuse to communicate this standard to him, so he has to keep giving example after example after example to try and figure out where you stand.

If you deem any legal action as moral and illegal action immoral, then ANY action (Murder, assisination and yes apartheid) becomes justifiable.

The fact that you cannot communicate your moral framework (because you don't one that stands any logical or empirical tests is my guess) is your problem.

You cannot just judge things and argue your arbitrary judgements are right.

By what standard are you making these decisions? Any RATIONAL human being is able to atleast communicate some standard (Even if it is wrong).

 

[w1z4rd]

Do you consider yourself to be a legal positivist?

I had to google the word, but by the two points mentioned on wiki, I disagree with the first point, but agree with the second point.

So no.

 

[WilD_CaT]

If I wash your car without your permission do you owe me money?

Yes or no answers only please.

 

[Hard Rain]

I had to google the word, but by the two points mentioned on wiki, I disagree with the first point, but agree with the second point.

So no.

So then your argument that the reprisal for not paying taxes is justified because it's the law is moot.

So let me ask you again, do you pay your taxes voluntarily or because you fear repisal?

 

[w1z4rd]

So then your argument that the reprisal for not paying taxes is justified because it's the law is moot.

:erm:, that wasnt my point. My point was that you cant expect people to magically come together to contribute in your utopian world tax free fantasy, because people are people. Just like you cant expect all people to drive correctly and just like you cant expect people to take a fair share. Its the mortality of the commons Dawkins talks about. ( This is the lecture on this subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoIQMRzGtlo To put it in a nutshell, Dawkins talks close to this matter and this is a lecture I think every Libertarian should watch. Dawkins is not a fan of the far right capitalism you are proposing. )

So let me ask you again, do you pay your taxes voluntarily or because you fear repisal?

I pay them because I understand the necessity of them. I understand human nature enough to know there has to be order and we need to build a stable society. I understand there is absolutely no evidence that non of this will be done without taxation. I dont believe that once taxes are cut, everyone will just start magically contributing to a healthier society. People are generally greedy and selfish. As this thread proves.

 

[Hard Rain]

:erm:, that wasnt my point. My point was that you cant expect people to magically come together to contribute in your utopian world tax free fantasy, because people are people. Just like you cant expect all people to drive correctly and just like you cant expect people to take a fair share. Its the mortality of the commons Dawkins talks about.

What do you mean when you say "contribute" to the world?

Our assertion that the state is evil and unecessary does not mean we favour a world without rules or laws; we just do not believe having an entity monopolize the provision of these services is the most desirable or fair way.

I pay them because I understand the necessity of them. I understand human nature enough to know there has to be order and we need to build a stable society.

Why do you conflate taxation with order?

I understand there is absolutely no evidence that non of this will be done without taxation.

Why? The act of taxation is simply the expropriation of funds by a state. It's what the state does with these expropriated funds that will affect society so how do you think the actions of the state will "contribute" to the world?

I dont believe that once taxes are cut, everyone will just start magically contributing to a healthier society. People are generally greedy and selfish. As this thread proves.

But yet you seem to favour governance of "greedy and selfish" people by other "greedy and selfish" people by democratic selection of "greedy and selfish" people?

Milton Friedman demolishes this in a few minutes.

"Things get better because, in order for me to succeed, I have to pay attention to your needs and wants. … I cannot make myself better off apart from making you better off as well. Capitalism, paradoxically, starts with self-interest; but if it’s guided by freedom it maximizes social welfare."

Check this brief video.

 

[w1z4rd]

What do you mean when you say "contribute" to the world?

Your whole tax free donation system (you know, the one where poverty does a Houdini because now there are no taxes) Im talking about your system in that sentence.

Our assertion that the state is evil and unecessary does not mean we favour a world without rules or laws; we just do not believe having an entity monopolize the provision of these services is the most desirable or fair way.

LOL. Love your assertion. Giving morality to a common noun You go boys!

Why do you conflate taxation with order?

Well its common sense. Im only ganna type this glaringly obvious response once so pay attention. Taxes go to paying for common (common as in people share) and essential services. These essential services basically hold our society together and without them, chaos would erupt. These include everything from making roads we all share to law enforcement, to maintaining basic human right, to just about every sphere. Humans have learnt that we need to do certain things together and that working together pays off better than being a selfish greedy prat for most people. To pay for all these common services that are fundamentally important to a healthy society we all contribute by paying taxes. This money is generally then spent by the people we elect to spend it on the stuff we want the government to spend it on. We vote people into power, and pay them to make sure that poverty does not overwhelm our society, that bad people are held accountable and people all play by a common set of rules.

Why?

Why is there no evidence? Because your fantasy has no country with a working existing model to use as evidence. Wonder why...

But yet you seem to favour governance of "greedy and selfish" people by other "greedy and selfish" people by democratic selection of "greedy and selfish" people?

I favor democracy, transparency and accountability. This is why I would vote for Helen Zille (a modern liberal) over a libertarian. Some people are less greedy and selfish than others.

 

[Hard Rain]

Taxes go to paying for common (common as in people share) and essential services.

Who defines how the taxes are used? Who defines what services are "essential"?

These essential services basically hold our society together and without them, chaos would erupt. These include everything from making roads we all share to law enforcement, to maintaining basic human right, to just about every sphere.

Why doesn't the state provide food? There would be major problems without it, and yet the private market handles this incredibly well. Why don't you think the private market can handle the provision of other goods and services well too?

Humans have learnt that we need to do certain things together and that working together pays off better than being a selfish greedy prat for most people.

Please see the two video links I posted. It's interesting that you completely ignored them.

To pay for all these common services that are fundamentally important to a healthy society we all contribute by paying taxes.

No, we clearly don't all contribute. Some do, some don't. Some contribute more than others, some contribute less.

This money is generally then spent by the people we elect to spend it on the stuff we want the government to spend it on.

Interesting that you say "generally". But if we all really need these services then why is the government in charge of them? Secondly, what happens if the government decides something isn't essential? What happens if it decides to spend all the revenue on submarines? Is that fair? Is that a sensible allocation of resources?

We vote people into power, and pay them to make sure that poverty does not overwhelm our society, that bad people are held accountable and people all play by a common set of rules.

Do you think this is working? Do you think they're efficiently allocating the resources to achieve these goals?

Why is there no evidence? Because your fantasy has no country with a working existing model to use as evidence. Wonder why...

Helen Zille has never been president. Does that mean she can't, won't or should not be in the future?

I favor democracy, transparency and accountability. This is why I would vote for Helen Zille (a modern liberal) over a libertarian. Some people are less greedy and selfish than others.

But if people are so greedy and selfish then aren't they going to vote for those who are greedy and selfish enough to make phony promises and be corrupt? How powerful is our vote, in any case? Individually it is virtually meaningless, so how is that a rational trade for our income?

Are you saying that taxation is okay because a group of people vote on it? Is it justified if they voted to spend the taxes on candy? Would you still be willing to pay?

 

[w1z4rd]

Who defines how the taxes are used? Who defines what services are "essential"?



Why doesn't the state provide food? There would be major problems without it, and yet the private market handles this incredibly well. Why don't you think the private market can handle the provision of other goods and services well too?



Please see the two video links I posted. It's interesting that you completely ignored them.



No, we clearly don't all contribute. Some do, some don't. Some contribute more than others, some contribute less.



Interesting that you say "generally". But if we all really need these services then why is the government in charge of them? Secondly, what happens if the government decides something isn't essential? What happens if it decides to spend all the revenue on submarines? Is that fair? Is that a sensible allocation of resources?



Do you think this is working? Do you think they're efficiently allocating the resources to achieve these goals?




Helen Zille has never been president. Does that mean she can't, won't or should not be in the future?



But if people are so greedy and selfish then aren't they going to vote for those who are greedy and selfish enough to make phony promises and be corrupt? How powerful is our vote, in any case? Individually it is virtually meaningless, so how is that a rational trade for our income?

Are you saying that taxation is okay because a group of people vote on it? Is it justified if they voted to spend the taxes on candy? Would you still be willing to pay?

No, reread all my posts and try again.

I think you far right extremists perspective of capitalism is not enabling you to understand the perspective of a moderate left of center persons perspective

 

[Hard Rain]

No, reread all my posts and try again.

I have read all your posts, which is quite clear because I respond to all of them. Please answer the questions I posed in my previous reply.

I think you far right extremists perspective of capitalism is not enabling you to understand the perspective of a moderate left of center persons perspective

Left-right spectrum is a false dichotomy. I am anti-war, but also anti-welfare. What does that make me?

I'm not arguing on that silly spectrum, whether left or right you still condone the actions of a state which funds its enterprises by coercion and theft. What it does with those funds is irrelevent.

 

[grayston]

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.

You're just saying that trade is imperfect unless both parties are completely satisfied with the exchange. I'm not sure that 'proving' this using logic was even necessary. And you managed to miss out the situation where the purchaser is coerced: you seem to imply that only sellers can be coerced.

But anyway, if all of this is subjective, then in order for you to be happy about paying your taxes all that needs to happen is for you to accept that you're actually getting something out of the deal!

 

[Jladan]

I'm no philosopher and have no desire to debate the logic or lack of this argument, however here are my 2c.

Taxation is not theft purely because one pays it in order to be part of a society or civilisation. You are free not to pay tax however then don't expect to be granted access to anything that the aforementioned taxes provided (the civilisation or society included).

The original purpose of taxes / pooling resources was to engage in economies of scale and create a better system / civilisation for those participating in paying those taxes. Unfortuantely over the years this system which works quite well has been corrupted by all sorts of things like charity / sporting events / wars and other things that leaders of these cilvilsations have decided are important for the greater good of all
Also generally the fact that most systems of goverment seem to value short term benefit instead of long term benefit, for example democracies tend to have 4 year election cycles so its kind of hard to explain how 20 year of same serious taxation will be good for the civilisation as a whole in terms of benefits for the people when the competetion is offering a tax cut and the ability to buy an better SUV.

Anyway I'm now completely wandering away from what I'm trying to say, taxation springs from one of the strongest impulses humans have and one of the things that have made us so overly succesful on this plant. We understand and like working together and are thus generally willing to sacrifice quite a lot to maintain these things. Taxation is just a form of sacrifice. Should u not want to be taxed and contribute to society then u are most welcome to go back to living in a cave and hunting for your food alone and without any modern goods. After all they are all products of the collective effort of humanity which you refuse to contribute to in any way.

Reading the above I realise this is kind of a wandering argument, but I hope ppl get what I'm trying to say.

So yes while I (especially in this country and society) do not feel taxation is all that wonderful or fair, especially considering how much is wasted and missappropriated, I still gladly pay it knowing that some of my effort is actually going into maintaining the society that overall I do enjoy living in. If I didn't I would merely move to where I did (an option not available to many I understand)

 

[Hard Rain]

But anyway, if all of this is subjective, then in order for you to be happy about paying your taxes all that needs to happen is for you to accept that you're actually getting something out of the deal!

I washed your car without your permission, grayston, so adjust your subjective expectations and pay me.

 

[Hard Rain]

Taxation is not theft purely because one pays it in order to be part of a society or civilisation. You are free not to pay tax however then don't expect to be granted access to anything that the aforementioned taxes provided (the civilisation or society included).

Once again, if I wash your car without your permission do you owe me?

Should u not want to be taxed and contribute to society then u are most welcome to go back to living in a cave and hunting for your food alone and without any modern goods. After all they are all products of the collective effort of humanity which you refuse to contribute to in any way.

Excuse me, you are conflating all the developments and advances of humanity with the state. Did government invent the iPhone? Did government invent the internal combustion engine? Did government invent soap or shoelaces or pencils?
How dare you say we "refuse to contribute"- no, we refuse to accept that robbery is righteous and necessary. I contribute, and use the contributions of others, every day through voluntary market exchange. My employer compensates me for my labour and I use that compensation to trade with others for goods and services I desire. Where is the state in all this and why do we supposedly "owe" it so much?

 

[Jladan]

No but governments and societies created the enabling environment for inventions like ipods, conbustion engines etc. It is no coincidence that the rise of things like advanced language, mathematics etc occurred as society . civilisation started taking hold. It enabled a portion of society to grow food while another portion was able to pursue other things like mathematics and invention.

Do not however confuse my love for Human society and what it has achieved with a love of State. As I mentioned earlier most leaders of most states do a piss poor job of managing communal resources and I imagine there is a far better way to manage things (This is an entirely different debate tho)

As far as contributing to the whole or comunal supply we do it all the time with our resources, you pay Telkom and or ISP's for data to write on this forum because you gain some benefit from it. Likewise you pay taxes because even indirectly you benefit from it.

Regarding my car, the fact that it is clean or not is not a huge thing in my life so no I wouldn't feel beholden, I might feel obliged to thank you as you have gone out of your way to assist me.
However if you could prove that you were the original inventor and creator of such a wonderful device I would definately go out of my way to provide some (perhaps a lot) of my resources to allow you to carry on doing what you are good at ie: building new awesome stuff like cars .Societies are like that, they provide the enabling environment for great things to happen

 

[grayston]

I washed your car without your permission, grayston, so adjust your subjective expectations and pay me.

I got improved fuel efficiency thanks to my nice clean car. You can have the 4c/100km that I save.

(What's that? A mutually beneficial trade? Gosh!)

 

[w1z4rd]

I'm no philosopher and have no desire to debate the logic or lack of this argument, however here are my 2c.

Taxation is not theft purely because one pays it in order to be part of a society or civilisation. You are free not to pay tax however then don't expect to be granted access to anything that the aforementioned taxes provided (the civilisation or society included).

The original purpose of taxes / pooling resources was to engage in economies of scale and create a better system / civilisation for those participating in paying those taxes. Unfortuantely over the years this system which works quite well has been corrupted by all sorts of things like charity / sporting events / wars and other things that leaders of these cilvilsations have decided are important for the greater good of all
Also generally the fact that most systems of goverment seem to value short term benefit instead of long term benefit, for example democracies tend to have 4 year election cycles so its kind of hard to explain how 20 year of same serious taxation will be good for the civilisation as a whole in terms of benefits for the people when the competetion is offering a tax cut and the ability to buy an better SUV.

Anyway I'm now completely wandering away from what I'm trying to say, taxation springs from one of the strongest impulses humans have and one of the things that have made us so overly succesful on this plant. We understand and like working together and are thus generally willing to sacrifice quite a lot to maintain these things. Taxation is just a form of sacrifice. Should u not want to be taxed and contribute to society then u are most welcome to go back to living in a cave and hunting for your food alone and without any modern goods. After all they are all products of the collective effort of humanity which you refuse to contribute to in any way.

Reading the above I realise this is kind of a wandering argument, but I hope ppl get what I'm trying to say.

So yes while I (especially in this country and society) do not feel taxation is all that wonderful or fair, especially considering how much is wasted and missappropriated, I still gladly pay it knowing that some of my effort is actually going into maintaining the society that overall I do enjoy living in. If I didn't I would merely move to where I did (an option not available to many I understand)

Dont worry mate, the only people who call taxation theft are those that do not know how to read a dictionary and look up the word "taxation". Not one single respectable dictionary defines taxation as theft. The people who argue that taxation is theft play with semantics and other word play to reach their conclusions.

 

[Hard Rain]

No but governments and societies created the enabling environment for inventions like ipods, conbustion engines etc. It is no coincidence that the rise of things like advanced language, mathematics etc occurred as society . civilisation started taking hold. It enabled a portion of society to grow food while another portion was able to pursue other things like mathematics and invention.

I agree, but you're talking about commerce here and the state is inimical to commerce. It seeks to control it. It seeks to interfere with it.

Society, also, has nothing to do with the state. Society is you, me, our families, our friends and the people we do business with. Individuals. Not a homogenous blob with a nationality and a government.

Do not however confuse my love for Human society and what it has achieved with a love of State. As I mentioned earlier most leaders of most states do a piss poor job of managing communal resources and I imagine there is a far better way to manage things (This is an entirely different debate tho)

Glad to hear, and I agree.

As far as contributing to the whole or comunal supply we do it all the time with our resources, you pay Telkom and or ISP's for data to write on this forum because you gain some benefit from it. Likewise you pay taxes because even indirectly you benefit from it.

Well, if you'll kindly pay for my liquor I'll continue posting and you can indirectly benefit from it ;-)

Regarding my car, the fact that it is clean or not is not a huge thing in my life so no I wouldn't feel beholden, I might feel obliged to thank you as you have gone out of your way to assist me.

No, I don't want your thanks and I don't care whether you like your car dirty or clean, I want your money. You benefited from my actions directly so now I want to be paid. Am I justified? Will you pay me?

However if you could prove that you were the original inventor and creator of such a wonderful device I would definately go out of my way to provide some (perhaps a lot) of my resources to allow you to carry on doing what you are good at ie: building new awesome stuff like cars .Societies are like that, they provide the enabling environment for great things to happen

Yes, but you will be doing this based on your own choice. If you didn't think I was helping you in any meaningful way you'd ignore me; you wouldn't utilize my services and you wouldn't trade your resources with me. That's commerce. That's freedom. The state is the opposite.