Originally posted by Morbo:
For you, the magic number approaches infinity if it even exists.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Nah.
Originally posted by Lisa:
Sign the petition.
quote:But surely the Constitution does not specify the manner in which Congress should do the coining? Generally, if you have a power, you also have the power to delegate it, no?
Originally posted by Lisa:
Why do you think the Fed is constitutional? As much as I would have phrased a lot of that petition differently, the basic points seem irrefutable (if addressed):
- The Constitution grants Congress the right to coin money
- The Constitution does not grant Congress the right to delegate that power, particularly not to a private institution. While Congress appoints the Fed Board, the fact remains that the Fed banks themselves are privately owned, and are not subject to audit by the US government.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Actually, believe it or not, those things were funded before there was an income tax.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Without taxes how would a country pay for institutions like police, fire men, the army? R&D? Most of these things cant be funded through private enterprise or the open market alone.
quote:This is to me wrong on so many levels.
Originally posted by Lisa:
My partner lived in a place where the fire department was funded by payments. Not run by the government.
One night, a house caught fire. The people who lived there weren't members. So the fire truck came, got everyone out of the house (because saving lives is saving lives), and then hosed down the houses to either side while they waited for the owners to bring them a cashier's check for two years worth of dues, at which point they dealt with their house.
I don't see anything wrong with that at all. The issue with fire is the risk of it spreading, and that was dealt with. Someone who doesn't want to participate in paying for fire protection doesn't have to have fire protection.
quote:Why? This was a place where everyone knew that you paid directly for fire protection. Where you live, Blayne, you pay for it as well. Only you don't think about it, because it isn't your choice. Here, it was everyone's choice. These people chose not to bother. It was an unwise choice. But I think that having the choice is morally superior to being forced.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:This is to me wrong on so many levels.
Originally posted by Lisa:
My partner lived in a place where the fire department was funded by payments. Not run by the government.
One night, a house caught fire. The people who lived there weren't members. So the fire truck came, got everyone out of the house (because saving lives is saving lives), and then hosed down the houses to either side while they waited for the owners to bring them a cashier's check for two years worth of dues, at which point they dealt with their house.
I don't see anything wrong with that at all. The issue with fire is the risk of it spreading, and that was dealt with. Someone who doesn't want to participate in paying for fire protection doesn't have to have fire protection.
quote:The Mob performs stunts like this. They call it protection. The legal term for it is extortion.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Why? This was a place where everyone knew that you paid directly for fire protection. Where you live, Blayne, you pay for it as well. Only you don't think about it, because it isn't your choice. Here, it was everyone's choice. These people chose not to bother. It was an unwise choice. But I think that having the choice is morally superior to being forced.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:This is to me wrong on so many levels.
Originally posted by Lisa:
My partner lived in a place where the fire department was funded by payments. Not run by the government.
One night, a house caught fire. The people who lived there weren't members. So the fire truck came, got everyone out of the house (because saving lives is saving lives), and then hosed down the houses to either side while they waited for the owners to bring them a cashier's check for two years worth of dues, at which point they dealt with their house.
I don't see anything wrong with that at all. The issue with fire is the risk of it spreading, and that was dealt with. Someone who doesn't want to participate in paying for fire protection doesn't have to have fire protection.
quote:Holy Mierda! You have no earthly idea what a libertarian believes!
Originally posted by aspectre:
Shocking really. A true libertarian woulda used an AK-47 on those extortionists, confiscated what was their fire fighting equipment, rallied his neighbors to put out the fire, then sold the equipment to pay for repairs.
quote:No... they put you in jail. Or take your property in payment. Sheesh, people! Are you so used to the fact that the government is entitled to anything of yours that it chooses that you're numb to the fact that it absolutely does make you pay for services, whether you want them or not?
Originally posted by Achilles:
The government doesn't withhold services because you haven't paid your extortion.
quote:Which is better then you oh i don't know DYING from being unable to pay some large insurance firm that all it cares about is the bottom line.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:No... they put you in jail. Or take your property in payment. Sheesh, people! Are you so used to the fact that the government is entitled to anything of yours that it chooses that you're numb to the fact that it absolutely does make you pay for services, whether you want them or not?
Originally posted by Achilles:
The government doesn't withhold services because you haven't paid your extortion.
quote:No wonder the dang farmers are so influential, they've got all those points from the square kilometers! And you have to wonder how the number 1.8 was chosen.
The number of representatives to be elected to the Storting shall be one hundred and sixty-nine.
The Realm is divided into nineteen constituencies.
One hundred and fifty of the representatives to the Storting are elected as representatives of constituencies and the remaining nineteen representatives are elected as members at large.
Each constituency shall have one seat at large.
The number of representatives to the Storting to be chosen from each constituency is determined on the basis of a calculation of the ratio between the number of inhabitants and surface area of each constituency and the number of inhabitants and surface area of the entire Realm, in which each inhabitant counts as one point and each square kilometre counts as 1.8 points. This calculation shall be made every eighth year.
quote:That I would stop contributing to the community? No. I would do so voluntarily, and pay in for the things that I feel are worthwhile. Fire protection, for example.
Originally posted by Achilles:
Are you so opposed to contibuting to the community that you would stop it?
quote:Your very answer betrays you. The majority robs the minority? I think this is not the case, and everyone should pay in an ideal situation.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:That I would stop contributing to the community? No. I would do so voluntarily, and pay in for the things that I feel are worthwhile. Fire protection, for example.
Originally posted by Achilles:
Are you so opposed to contibuting to the community that you would stop it?
I wouldn't pay for public education, because I'm opposed to it. But then, I pay full price for my daughter's school, which goes to pay not only for her, but for scholarship money for other kids there. Which is absolutely fine with me.
I would not pay a penny for general "arts". If there's art that I like, I'll pay. I don't see why I should have to fund someone who's so poor an artist that he needs a government grant.
My problem is that your very question assumes that not being willing to be forced to pay for unwanted services means "being opposed to the community". That's ridiculous. How brainwashed do you have to be to think that the only way to have a civilized society is by letting the majority rob the minority? Civilization at gunpoint isn't very civilized.
quote:And when necessary PEOPLE power comes from the barrel of a gun. See the Second Amendment. That's is one of the tools the people have for keeping the politicians under control. At least, theoretically.
Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
Political Power comes from the barrel of a gun.
quote:Actually, I do help educate children whose parents can't afford an education. As I wrote. So your estimation is demonstrably wrong.
Originally posted by Achilles:
Your very answer betrays you. The majority robs the minority? I think this is not the case, and everyone should pay in an ideal situation.
I believe, according to your logic, that you would not, in fact, continue to support the community. You don't seem interested in educating children whos parents could not afford an education.
Your position seems rather selfish to me.
quote:For the same reason that it's fundamentally immoral for you to take my money away to buy a candy bar without my permission. Stealing is fundamentally immoral.
Originally posted by Threads:
Lisa, why is it fundamentally immoral to force citizens to pay taxes even if they don't support everything that their tax money goes towards?
quote:Actually, I did miss that part of the sentence, and for that I apologize.
Originally posted by Lisa:
Actually, I do help educate children whose parents can't afford an education. As I wrote. So your estimation is demonstrably wrong.
What I want to know is why you think that it's okay for someone like you to force me to support the things you think need supporting.
quote:Isn't that a defining quality of analogy?
Originally posted by King of Men:
Your analogy is not exact, Lisa.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
quote:Are you saying armed robbery is legal and ethical as long as the robber chips in a bit and gives the pot to charity?
Originally posted by King of Men:
You force Blayne to give him money, but you also cough up some money yourselves.
quote:That's a relatively useless definition of stealing. By your definition, a tax is immoral if I don't want to pay it. This leads to the conclusion that all taxes are immoral (you can always find one person opposed to any given tax). That leaves us with what... anarchy? Unless you want a charity supported military as well. You have to wonder why no culture has produced such a society despite the fact that every culture originated in anarchy (ultimate freedom).
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:For the same reason that it's fundamentally immoral for you to take my money away to buy a candy bar without my permission. Stealing is fundamentally immoral.
Originally posted by Threads:
Lisa, why is it fundamentally immoral to force citizens to pay taxes even if they don't support everything that their tax money goes towards?
quote:I think you'll find that it is possible to exit modern society, if you are prepared to live in moderately primitive conditions. Or there's seasteading. Nobody forces you to have a mailing address, electricity, Intertube access, and all that other stuff that lets the law track you down.
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
KoM: Right of exit?
To WHERE? The world is nothing but a buffet of thieves.
quote:Uh, yes they are. There's a high cost to "moving out of the way", as you put it. I don't see why I have the obligation to move out of the way. That's like telling people to move out of high crime areas rather than do something about the crime. It places the onus on the victim. That's not moral.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Your analogy is not exact, Lisa. You and Threads walking down the street, and you see Blayne and a homeless guy - so far it's ok. You force Blayne to give him money, but you also cough up some money yourselves. What's more, you have a bit of a debate with Blayne first, and if he really strongly disagrees with giving the homeless guy money, he has a chance to move out of your way. (Dropping out of the analogy, he can move to somewhere with no taxes.) Taxes are not really very analogous to a simple mugging, as you're presenting it.
quote:Well, that's your problem.
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
Yes, I could move on to the ice cap or something. No place nice. Those places are already crawling with people.
quote:So, in your new community you have a limit on immigration, or a Constitution that forbids handouts, or something. No rule says you have to have a warm-body democracy where you're going. And incidentally, that's a really ridiculous interpretation of the history of immigration in the US.
Thing is, a few of us show up... then a few more.. sooner or later, we'll be prosperous. Then you people will move in and start voting yourselves hand outs. That's what happened here in America. And you keep making us more and more socialist, just like Europe.. and what do you know.. our prosperity is going away too.
quote:Well, I don't see why I should have to let you live in my area. I was here first, and what's more I have all the guns.
There's a high cost to "moving out of the way", as you put it. I don't see why I have the obligation to move out of the way.
quote:Point of order: It is not that I can run away, but that if I truly don't agree, you will let me run away. Under those conditions, as opposed to your strawman version, yes. And let's note, I'm already paying for quite a few things I disagree with, so there's empirical evidence in favour of this.
Because after all, you can run away.
quote:"My share"? That implies a debt on my part. But I don't recognize any imposed debts.
Originally posted by Achilles:
I'm not the one forcing you to support blah blah blah. My taxes support things I do not wish it to support. But I pay my share. This is the way a common government, which has laws and provides services can get the capital it needs to operate.
quote:With the tax burden that we have, it's a miracle that we have such high voluntary giving. If the government wasn't milking us dry, there'd be more of it. That's human nature. It always has been. And services have not declined. I don't know where you got that idea, but the "services" supplied by the government have taken more and more of our money year after year. And there's always someone coming up with some new pet project that they think they have a right to run on the backs of the citizens.
Originally posted by Achilles:
Cutting back on taxes over the years, especially corporate taxes, has led to declining services. This thousand points of nothing is leading to the United States of You're on Your Own.
quote:The government's role in "promoting the general welfare", which is in the preamble, and not in any operative part of the Constitution, is achieved by adhering to the operative parts of the Constitution. Enforcing the laws. Preventing people from harming one another. It is not the place of the government to help people out. Mutual aid societies have functioned in the past. They are inherently moral, because they force no one to do anything.
Originally posted by Achilles:
How should we, then, fund the common good?
quote:Actually, this war is illegal. The government should be forced to adhere to the Constitution. Only Congress may declare war, and it did not. Nor, I think, would it have had the question been put to it, which is exactly why the question was not put to it.
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
How far does not this go, with not paying for things we don't like? Next year we're slated to spend $600 billion on the military. I think half that is a more fair number. Out of a $3 trillion budget, that's 20% of the budget, and since I want to pay half that, does that mean I can get 10% of my taxes back? Defense is generally considered one of the things that we should pay for, despite the many things people (especially Libertarians) think we should be able to opt out of.
I do have a way of fixing all that, and it's to vote for representatives that want to spend less.
quote:Why? Why is it legal and ethical for some people to impose rules and enforce them on others? Why is that any different at all from 10 people robbing 9 people?
Originally posted by King of Men:
No, actually, I was saying that it is legal and ethical for a given community to impose rules and enforce them, so long as it is the same rule for everyone, everyone has a say in the rules, and there is a right of exit.
quote:You honestly want to claim that taxes are a user fee on exchange of money?
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
Let's see if I can build a better analogy. Lisa and Threads are walking down the street, and they see Blayne and a homeless guy.
Blayne has a chicken, but he wants a video game. The video game store doesn't accept chickens for payment. Lisa creates a form of currency which the video store will accept as payment. The currency actually belongs to Lisa, but she's willing to let anyone use it, as long as they obey the rules. One of the rules is that whenever the currency is exchanged, part of it has to be given to Threads, who gives some to the homeless guy, and gives the rest to Lisa, who uses it to pay the people who work in the factory that makes the currency, and gives some more to a lot of other people, based on everybody's input regarding who deserves some and for whatever reason...
quote:You misspelled "unanimity". There is no "magic number". People are people, and they don't magically gain extra rights just because there's a lot of them. Or because they call themselves a government.
Originally posted by Morbo:
For you, the magic number approaches infinity if it even exists.
quote:On the contrary, it can be shown rationally that government is necessary for prevent individuals from harming one another. To put it the most simply, we all have the right of self-defense. If someone steals from me, then I have a basic right to take it back from him. Government exists so that we can delegate that right to an objective body. Otherwise, I hire a private army and go to war against your private army.
Originally posted by Threads:
quote:That's a relatively useless definition of stealing. By your definition, a tax is immoral if I don't want to pay it. This leads to the conclusion that all taxes are immoral (you can always find one person opposed to any given tax). That leaves us with what... anarchy? Unless you want a charity supported military as well. You have to wonder why no culture has produced such a society despite the fact that every culture originated in anarchy (ultimate freedom).
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:For the same reason that it's fundamentally immoral for you to take my money away to buy a candy bar without my permission. Stealing is fundamentally immoral.
Originally posted by Threads:
Lisa, why is it fundamentally immoral to force citizens to pay taxes even if they don't support everything that their tax money goes towards?
quote:Uh, no. You don't have the right to force me to leave. That's like me shooting a gun around wildly and saying, "Well, you could always duck". The onus can't be on the victim.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Well, that's your problem.
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
Yes, I could move on to the ice cap or something. No place nice. Those places are already crawling with people.
quote:You aren't "letting me live" here. And you weren't here first. I was born here, and I own my home. More to the point, I own my life, and the product of that life. I own what I earn. Who are you to take it (any of it) from me?
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Well, I don't see why I should have to let you live in my area. I was here first, and what's more I have all the guns.
There's a high cost to "moving out of the way", as you put it. I don't see why I have the obligation to move out of the way.
quote:So I have to leave my home and go elsewhere if I don't want to accept your bullying and theft. Why?
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Point of order: It is not that I can run away, but that if I truly don't agree, you will let me run away.
Because after all, you can run away.
quote:It's not a strawman, and that's not evidence of anything except for the already stipulated fact that the government is engaging in robbery.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Under those conditions, as opposed to your strawman version, yes. And let's note, I'm already paying for quite a few things I disagree with, so there's empirical evidence in favour of this.
quote:Because you are living on my land. (I think all three questions above come down to this.) If you check the title deed to your house, you will find some small print saying "as long as you live in accordance with the rules imposed by the rest of the population". (In the analogy, that's me.) Whoever sold you the house may have neglected to inform you of this, because it is usually taken for granted.
So I have to leave my home and go elsewhere if I don't want to accept your bullying and theft. Why?
quote:Taxes are part of the system that allows U.S. currency to exist. If you want to live without the benefit of that currency, Ted Kaczynski's shack may be available.
You honestly want to claim that taxes are a user fee on exchange of money?
quote:Earning money is an exchange. Once you have the money, you are entitled to bury it in your backyard and pay no further taxes.
If I don't spend a penny of my earnings, I still have to pay taxes on them.
quote:Are you saying barter is illegal in the U.S.? I didn't know that. Likewise, checking accounts and traveler's checks are illegal? You make it sound like letting anyone create currency is a good idea. The restriction is in place because it caused mayhem.
Even if someone wants to be paid in chickens, they'd be forced, under threat of punishment, to accept my currency.
quote:It's a helluva lot better than yours.
Even as analogies go, that's a bad one.
quote:No, barter is legal. But if you owe me money, and you have no chickens, then I have to accept dollars whether I like it or not, even if I would much rather have delicious, fluffy chickens. I do note that this doesn't actually matter, because after all I'm under no obligation to lend you money in the first place. "Chickens", I'll say. "Pay me in chickens, or no deal!"
Are you saying barter is illegal in the U.S.?
quote:Your qualifications as a human being are in question in my view.
Originally posted by Lisa:
One night, a house caught fire. The people who lived there weren't members. So the fire truck came, got everyone out of the house (because saving lives is saving lives), and then hosed down the houses to either side while they waited for the owners to bring them a cashier's check for two years worth of dues, at which point they dealt with their house.
I don't see anything wrong with that at all.
quote:Of course but those all need to be funded in some manner. I was just pointing out that your definition of robbery would seem to exclude taxes as a moral form of providing that funding. I'm not convinced that private funding would work in practice.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:On the contrary, it can be shown rationally that government is necessary for prevent individuals from harming one another. To put it the most simply, we all have the right of self-defense. If someone steals from me, then I have a basic right to take it back from him. Government exists so that we can delegate that right to an objective body. Otherwise, I hire a private army and go to war against your private army.
Originally posted by Threads:
quote:That's a relatively useless definition of stealing. By your definition, a tax is immoral if I don't want to pay it. This leads to the conclusion that all taxes are immoral (you can always find one person opposed to any given tax). That leaves us with what... anarchy? Unless you want a charity supported military as well. You have to wonder why no culture has produced such a society despite the fact that every culture originated in anarchy (ultimate freedom).
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:For the same reason that it's fundamentally immoral for you to take my money away to buy a candy bar without my permission. Stealing is fundamentally immoral.
Originally posted by Threads:
Lisa, why is it fundamentally immoral to force citizens to pay taxes even if they don't support everything that their tax money goes towards?
Police, army and courts. Police to protect us from domestic violence, army to protect us from external violence, and courts to mediate disputes. Those are valid functions of government. Nothing else is.
quote:Um... no. Actually, my purchase of my house said nothing of the sort. It was value for value. Furthermore, I was born here. What you're describing is slavery.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Because you are living on my land. (I think all three questions above come down to this.) If you check the title deed to your house, you will find some small print saying "as long as you live in accordance with the rules imposed by the rest of the population". (In the analogy, that's me.) Whoever sold you the house may have neglected to inform you of this, because it is usually taken for granted.
So I have to leave my home and go elsewhere if I don't want to accept your bullying and theft. Why?
At some point, presumably, this was no-man's-land; somebody took possession of it; he made some laws, and you have to accept those laws to live on the land, or your legal title is forfeit.
quote:Don't be an ass. That crack was unnecessary.
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Taxes are part of the system that allows U.S. currency to exist. If you want to live without the benefit of that currency, Ted Kaczynski's shack may be available.
You honestly want to claim that taxes are a user fee on exchange of money?
quote:Actually, no I'm not. If I die, you'll take a chunk of it. But that's not relevant to the fact that I'm forced by law to use US currency.
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Earning money is an exchange. Once you have the money, you are entitled to bury it in your backyard and pay no further taxes.
If I don't spend a penny of my earnings, I still have to pay taxes on them.
quote:It's legal if agreed upon by both sides. The point is that if someone owes me a debt, I'm required to accept Federal Reserve scrip in payment of that debt. I can ask to be paid in something else, but if the other party wants to use Federal Reserve notes, I'm powerless to say no. Even though I don't trust them.
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Are you saying barter is illegal in the U.S.?
Even if someone wants to be paid in chickens, they'd be forced, under threat of punishment, to accept my currency.
quote:That's utterly untrue. The restriction is in place because people would abandon the Fed notes like the plague if they had a stable and trustworthy alternative.
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
I didn't know that. Likewise, checking accounts and traveler's checks are illegal? You make it sound like letting anyone create currency is a good idea. The restriction is in place because it caused mayhem.
quote:Um... no, it isn't. Just saying that doesn't make it so. I pointed out why your analogy was appallingly bad. I pointed out all the things you left out. All you did was say, "I know you are but what am I?"
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:It's a helluva lot better than yours.
Even as analogies go, that's a bad one.
quote:Your intelligence is in question in mine. So?
Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Your qualifications as a human being are in question in my view.
Originally posted by Lisa:
One night, a house caught fire. The people who lived there weren't members. So the fire truck came, got everyone out of the house (because saving lives is saving lives), and then hosed down the houses to either side while they waited for the owners to bring them a cashier's check for two years worth of dues, at which point they dealt with their house.
I don't see anything wrong with that at all.
quote:So because you're not convinced that private funding would work, we shouldn't aim for that goal? If a goal can't be reached overnight, or is difficult to achieve, then we make a virtue of a necessity and say, "What the hell, just tax as much as you like, for whatever you like!"
Originally posted by Threads:
Of course but those all need to be funded in some manner. I was just pointing out that your definition of robbery would seem to exclude taxes as a moral form of providing that funding. I'm not convinced that private funding would work in practice.
quote:The difference being...?
Originally posted by Pegasus:
While I have a hard time trying to define the differences between the two, I think that there are some instances of the word moral in this thread that would be better replaced with ethical.
quote:I never said it couldn't. I said that you participate in a system, and if you want to benefit from that system, you have to play by the rules.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Don't be an ass. That crack was unnecessary.
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Taxes are part of the system that allows U.S. currency to exist. If you want to live without the benefit of that currency, Ted Kaczynski's shack may be available.
You honestly want to claim that taxes are a user fee on exchange of money?
To reply to the part of what you wrote that wasn't just obnoxiousness for the sake of obnoxiousness, US currency can exist without an income tax.
quote:If you bury it in the backyard no one will take a chunk of it unless they find it. And even then, your death represents an exchange, since you no longer own it.
quote:Actually, no I'm not. If I die, you'll take a chunk of it. But that's not relevant to the fact that I'm forced by law to use US currency.
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Earning money is an exchange. Once you have the money, you are entitled to bury it in your backyard and pay no further taxes.
If I don't spend a penny of my earnings, I still have to pay taxes on them.
quote:Point taken.
quote:It's legal if agreed upon by both sides. The point is that if someone owes me a debt, I'm required to accept Federal Reserve scrip in payment of that debt. I can ask to be paid in something else, but if the other party wants to use Federal Reserve notes, I'm powerless to say no. Even though I don't trust them.
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Are you saying barter is illegal in the U.S.?
Even if someone wants to be paid in chickens, they'd be forced, under threat of punishment, to accept my currency.
quote:To be clearer. The restriction is in place because the fed had to step in when everybody and his brother was making their own currency, and it caused economic mayhem. As to whether people would "abandon the Fed notes like the plague if they had a stable and trustworthy alternative," that explains why U.S. currency is used so extensively for international trade.
quote:That's utterly untrue. The restriction is in place because people would abandon the Fed notes like the plague if they had a stable and trustworthy alternative.
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
I didn't know that. Likewise, checking accounts and traveler's checks are illegal? You make it sound like letting anyone create currency is a good idea. The restriction is in place because it caused mayhem.
quote:Um... no, it isn't. Just saying that doesn't make it so. I pointed out why your analogy was appallingly bad. I pointed out all the things you left out. All you did was say, "I know you are but what am I?" [/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:It's a helluva lot better than yours.
Even as analogies go, that's a bad one.
quote:It's not, actually. Slavery is when I force you at gunpoint to work, and take all that you produce except just enough to keep you alive. I admit it's a tempting idea, but let's try to keep our terms exact, shall we?
Originally posted by Lisa:
Um... no. Actually, my purchase of my house said nothing of the sort. It was value for value. Furthermore, I was born here. What you're describing is slavery.
quote:How about "I don't think private funding would work."
Originally posted by Lisa:
So because you're not convinced that private funding would work, we shouldn't aim for that goal?
quote:I never expressed a position like the one you quoted. I'm not against private funding because of practicality, I'm against it because I think it would fail in reality. Instead of having the government abuse its power, giant corporations would rape the common citizen. That's essentially what happened in the late 19th century. Corporations banded together and many people were left with no option but to work 7 days a week, sometimes earning so little that they had to live in company barracks. Social mobility was largely a myth. This is still true in parts of the world today. Many corporations that provide us with cheap products in the U.S either own or directly support factories that employ people at dirt low wages and long hours in other countries.
Originally posted by Lisa:
If a goal can't be reached overnight, or is difficult to achieve, then we make a virtue of a necessity and say, "What the hell, just tax as much as you like, for whatever you like!"
quote:So if you sell me your property, you (and anyone whose ancestors ever owned it) still have the right to tell me what I can do with it?
Originally posted by King of Men:
One more time: You bought the house (and land) from someone. He got it from someone who got it from (...) the first man to work the land, who thereby got legal title to it in even the most extreme libertarian theory. He also imposed some conditions on later use of the land, which again was his right, since it was his property.
quote:Since contracts are agreed to by both sides, that's a misuse of the term "force". Enforcing contracts means only requiring sides to abide by what they have explicitly agreed. To compare that to forcing someone to do that which they have not agreed to is wrong.
Originally posted by fugu13:
Of course, private groups use force to enforce their rules of organization as well, even in the libertarian state as described by Lisa at times. Only that force is carried out through a court system for enforcing contracts, much like private groups do now.
quote:Look at the video lem posted. If you don't have the right to force people to pay for the things you want, why do you think your delegates have that right?
Originally posted by scholarette:
The big difference in the analogy is the group of people. Lisa presents them as a gang of thieves, wheras I would view them as a community trying to create the best life style for the group in general. The money they take is the cost of being part of the community.
quote:So I guess Russia has the right to impose taxes on Alaskans? And France still has the right to veto any action that is taken in Arkansas, Missouri, and Kansas?
Originally posted by King of Men:
One more time: You bought the house (and land) from someone. He got it from someone who got it from (...) the first man to work the land, who thereby got legal title to it in even the most extreme libertarian theory. He also imposed some conditions on later use of the land, which again was his right, since it was his property.
quote:Because some of us recognize that we don't have some sacred right to have things go precisely our way all of the time if we want to be part of something larger than ourselves.
Why? Why is it legal and ethical for some people to impose rules and enforce them on others? Why is that any different at all from 10 people robbing 9 people?
quote:There's a story attributed variously to Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw, or Groucho Marx. He asked an aristocratic lady if she'd sleep with him for a million pounds. She agrees. Then he asks if she'll do it for ten pounds. Outraged, she exclaims, "What do you think I am?!" And he replies, "Madam, we've already established that. Now we're simply haggling over the price."
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:It's not, actually. Slavery is when I force you at gunpoint to work, and take all that you produce except just enough to keep you alive. I admit it's a tempting idea, but let's try to keep our terms exact, shall we?
Originally posted by Lisa:
Um... no. Actually, my purchase of my house said nothing of the sort. It was value for value. Furthermore, I was born here. What you're describing is slavery.
quote:No, KoM, there is no such set of conditions. I checked the paperwork last night, because you got me curious. There's no such thing. You're making it up because it serves your argument. That's kind of cheap.
Originally posted by King of Men:
One more time: You bought the house (and land) from someone. He got it from someone who got it from (...) the first man to work the land, who thereby got legal title to it in even the most extreme libertarian theory. He also imposed some conditions on later use of the land, which again was his right, since it was his property. Those conditions included "live by the law of the land."
quote:"Implicit"? That's hilarious. There's no such thing as an "implicit" hidden obligation in a free exchange between two parties, imposed on both of them by a third party against their will.
Originally posted by King of Men:
That clause has been implicit in all exchanges of the land since then; it is the quid-pro-quo for having a law enforcement authority that will enforce the contracts in the first place.
quote:That's your theory? No. On the contrary. When you enter into a contract, you agree to give X in exchange for Y. If you refuse to give X, you have stolen from, or defrauded, the other side. That's an intiation of force against the other side, and is no different in essense from a burglary. The reason the government can force you to abide by the terms of a contract isn't that you've "implicitly agreed to live by the laws of the land". It's that government exists to prevent one or more persons from taking that which belongs to one or more other persons (be it life, liberty or property) against their will.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Let me put it another way: If a contract doesn't include, implicitly or explicitly, a clause saying "enforcement in case of dispute shall be by authority X", then it is useless except in La-La-Land where everybody is nice all the time.
quote:All of that is based on your false argument that there's an implicit agreement to surrender your ownership of your life, of your freedom, and of anything you have earned or otherwise freely received, to the government. Since that's not true, the rest of your argument falls as well.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Being born here is not relevant; the instant you make your first voluntary transaction, you agree to obey the law, or else your contract is worthless. And that's the whole of the law, not just the parts you like. The moral authority for including this in all contracts goes back to the first man to step onto virgin land, with impeccable libertarian credentials. That's why you're the one who has to leave: You are the one who doesn't like the contract imposed by the land-owner.
quote:<blink>
Originally posted by Threads:
quote:I never expressed a position like the one you quoted. I'm not against private funding because of practicality, I'm against it because I think it would fail in reality.
Originally posted by Lisa:
If a goal can't be reached overnight, or is difficult to achieve, then we make a virtue of a necessity and say, "What the hell, just tax as much as you like, for whatever you like!"
quote:Leaving aside your offensive misuse of the word "rape", I've said time and again that the very existence of a "corporation" with government protection that identifies it as a "legal individual" is an offense to the idea of the individual. I've also said that it's the responsibility of the government to protect the individual from the initiation of force by others. That includes companies and corporations.
Originally posted by Threads:
Instead of having the government abuse its power, giant corporations would rape the common citizen.
quote:That's a complete non sequitur, Rakeesh. It's an interesting statement, and one I disagree with, but whether I agree with it or not, it has no relation whatsoever to the question I asked. Why do your delegates have the power to do that which you don't, personally, have the power to do?
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Lisa,
quote:Because some of us recognize that we don't have some sacred right to have things go precisely our way all of the time if we want to be part of something larger than ourselves.
Why? Why is it legal and ethical for some people to impose rules and enforce them on others? Why is that any different at all from 10 people robbing 9 people?
quote:If you want to talk about false arguments, let's examine your claims of government ownership of your life, freedom, and anything you've earned or freely received.
All of that is based on your false argument that there's an implicit agreement to surrender your ownership of your life, of your freedom, and of anything you have earned or otherwise freely received, to the government.
quote:I agree on both counts. That music is lovely. And the animation... I couldn't have said it better.
Originally posted by lem:
I absolutely agree with Lisa in this point. My contribution is a link to the Philosophy of Liberty. This flash animation does a far better job of expressing my thoughts then I could do this late at night.
It matches my value system almost perfectly. Plus I like the music.
quote:*shrug* The answer is necessarily a bit unpleasant. Mostly because I like to live in a society wherein more is accomplished than I can do by myself, thus some means of collecting and concentrating power is necessary. And because you can leave.
That's a complete non sequitur, Rakeesh. It's an interesting statement, and one I disagree with, but whether I agree with it or not, it has no relation whatsoever to the question I asked. Why do your delegates have the power to do that which you don't, personally, have the power to do?
quote:No, because France has recognised that it no longer has jurisdiction over those areas; and the sale of Alaska was certainly completely voluntary, there wasn't even a war on at the time. Please try to pay attention to what I am saying, not a straw man.
Originally posted by Speed:
quote:So I guess Russia has the right to impose taxes on Alaskans? And France still has the right to veto any action that is taken in Arkansas, Missouri, and Kansas?
Originally posted by King of Men:
[qb] One more time: You bought the house (and land) from someone. He got it from someone who got it from (...) the first man to work the land, who thereby got legal title to it in even the most extreme libertarian theory. He also imposed some conditions on later use of the land, which again was his right, since it was his property.
quote:Well, in the first place, I do not agree with your theory of government. Government exists as a means of avoiding the free-rider problem in public works, chiefly infrastructure and defense. But in any case, even under your theory, there is a deal being made: If you want to live under these laws, you have to live under these laws. It's almost a tautology. We, the rest of the population, are willing to enforce your contracts for you, and have set up such-and-such institutions for doing so. In exchange, you must abide by these other rules, or no deal. You are permitted to leave, to go to jail, or to follow the rules. You may also petition to change the rules, because this is a democracy. Take your pick.
It's that government exists to prevent one or more persons from taking that which belongs to one or more other persons (be it life, liberty or property) against their will.
quote:Exactly my point on both counts. Thanks.
Originally posted by King of Men:
No, because France has recognised that it no longer has jurisdiction over those areas; and the sale of Alaska was certainly completely voluntary, there wasn't even a war on at the time. Please try to pay attention to what I am saying, not a straw man.
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
quote:No, of course it doesn't. But damn, if it did, that'd be reason enough to overthrow it. The idea that people can be controlled simply because those who do things begrudge the advantage it might give to them is honestly sick.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Well, in the first place, I do not agree with your theory of government. Government exists as a means of avoiding the free-rider problem in public works, chiefly infrastructure and defense.
It's that government exists to prevent one or more persons from taking that which belongs to one or more other persons (be it life, liberty or property) against their will.
quote:It might be if that was what was being said under my "theory". But it isn't.
Originally posted by King of Men:
But in any case, even under your theory, there is a deal being made: If you want to live under these laws, you have to live under these laws. It's almost a tautology.
quote:No. A person who violates a contract is initiating force against the other side. That is wrong in the same manner, albeit possibly different in degree, as murder and theft. All are of the same character, even if their magnitude differs.
Originally posted by King of Men:
We, the rest of the population, are willing to enforce your contracts for you,
quote:Again, no. Just as you have no right to lock me in my basement, a government has no right to send me to jail unless it's to prevent me from harming others or to penalize me for having done so. Saying that non-obedience to the government harms others is circular reasoning of the worst kind, and again, it sets up government as a primary, which it is not. It exists to serve the people who set it up. The moment government is anything but a servant of individuals, protecting the rights of individuals, it becomes a tyranny that forfeits any right to exist.
Originally posted by King of Men:
and have set up such-and-such institutions for doing so. In exchange, you must abide by these other rules, or no deal. You are permitted to leave, to go to jail, or to follow the rules. You may also petition to change the rules, because this is a democracy. Take your pick.
quote:That's no distinction when there's no place to go. And I'll repeat that the forceable taking of a person's life, a person's liberty or a person's property are all identical in character. You can say that they're different in magnitude, and you'd be right. But that's just haggling over the price.
Originally posted by King of Men:
'Slavery' is just rhetoric. A slave does not have the right of exit, a taxpayer does.
quote:A common argument, and a silly one. It's an abuse of language. There is a difference between being "forced" by ones feelings or needs and being forced, literally, by an external force saying, "Do this or suffer the consequences".
Originally posted by King of Men:
This is likewise the distinction between a slave and an employee, who is 'forced' by his belly to work for pay,
quote:It isn't rhetoric. Maybe I was unclear and you didn't understand it, and therefore concluded that I was engaging in rhetoric. I'll be more explicit. If I steal from you, I have committed an act that is distinguishable from killing you only in its magnitude and my inability to make reparations in kind. If I punch you in the face, I have committed an act that is distinguishable from robbing your house only in magnitude. These acts are the same in character. All of them mean that I am committing an act of violence against you and your life.
Originally posted by King of Men:
but who can leave and go elsewhere. Let us try to keep the rhetoric dialed down to a reasonable level.
quote:Saying that contracts are worthless without an enforcing authority is like saying that murder is only wrong because it's against the law. It's a barbarous statement.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Indeed, without this condition the contract would be worthless, because it wouldn't have an enforcing authority.
quote:No, it is like saying that a law against murder is worthless without police. Unlike you, I don't assume that the Platonic existence of some aprticular morality will automatically make everyone obey it.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Saying that contracts are worthless without an enforcing authority is like saying that murder is only wrong because it's against the law. It's a barbarous statement.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Indeed, without this condition the contract would be worthless, because it wouldn't have an enforcing authority.
quote:Fair enough, but you're missing my point: We generally use the word 'slavery' to denote a particular magnitude and kind of the use of force. So your statement that taxes are slavery is the same as the statement "stealing is killing". It is an inaccuracy motivated by your desire to use others' emotional reaction to the word. Rhetoric.
If I steal from you, I have committed an act that is distinguishable from killing you only in its magnitude and my inability to make reparations in kind.
quote:Yes, I think that's what I said. Perhaps you should read it again?
A common argument, and a silly one. It's an abuse of language. There is a difference between being "forced" by ones feelings or needs and being forced, literally, by an external force saying, "Do this or suffer the consequences".
quote:Granted, but there are plenty of places to go. You just don't like any of them.
That's no distinction when there's no place to go.
quote:...or you agreed to that as punishment for the breach of certain rules. Which I contend that you did. Next you'll be saying a landlord can't evict you for non-payment of rent.
Just as you have no right to lock me in my basement, a government has no right to send me to jail unless it's to prevent me from harming others or to penalize me for having done so.
quote:Mere re-iteration of an axiom on which we disagree is not going to get you anywhere; you'll have to argue in favour of the axiom. But even at that, just stating that "X is wrong" is not a very effective form of protection from X, is it now? If you like, you can read "enforce your contracts" as "protect you from harm".
No. A person who violates a contract is initiating force against the other side. That is wrong in the same manner, albeit possibly different in degree, as murder and theft. All are of the same character, even if their magnitude differs.
Government can only be reasonably argued to have a right to exist for the purpose of preventing such violations of individual rights. Government isn't "doing us a favor" by enforcing contracts. It is merely performing the task which is its sole raison d'etre.
quote:That's not the only reasonable argument for a government's right to exist. As usual, you're arguing as though the assumptions necessary for your beliefs are facts instead of opinions, and demanding that the world conform to your opinions.
Government can only be reasonably argued to have a right to exist for the purpose of preventing such violations of individual rights. Government isn't "doing us a favor" by enforcing contracts. It is merely performing the task which is its sole raison d'etre.
quote:Or, you know, people may just disagree about their self-evidence without being thieves and scoundrels.
the most self-evident moral axioms become impossible to understand.
quote:It is. To say otherwise would imply the converse. That others have a right to that which you create and/or earn. That's what would need to be proven to deny the right of private property. And it can't be. You're placing the burden of proof on the wrong side.
Originally posted by twinky:
"Theft is in the same continuum as physical violence" only holds if we grant an intrinsic right (not legal) to own property. Such a right may exist, but I think more than stating it does is required to demonstrate it.
It certainly isn't a "self-evident moral axiom."
quote:Because there are people here who are honestly interested in the topic, and who have open minds.
Originally posted by Baron Samedi:
I don't know why you're arguing with them anymore, Lisa.
quote:'Twasn't me.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Ah yes, out come the ad homs... It was only a question of time.
quote:What proofs? We are dealing in axioms. To me it is not unreasonable to say that others may sometimes have a moral right to what you produce. For example, if a child were starving, I would say that he had a moral right to steal some bread from me.
To say otherwise would imply the converse. That others have a right to that which you create and/or earn. That's what would need to be proven to deny the right of private property. And it can't be. You're placing the burden of proof on the wrong side.
quote:You're very misanthropic. Does that enhance your life? Make you happy?
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:No, it is like saying that a law against murder is worthless without police. Unlike you, I don't assume that the Platonic existence of some aprticular morality will automatically make everyone obey it.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Saying that contracts are worthless without an enforcing authority is like saying that murder is only wrong because it's against the law. It's a barbarous statement.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Indeed, without this condition the contract would be worthless, because it wouldn't have an enforcing authority.
quote:Do "we"?
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Fair enough, but you're missing my point: We generally use the word 'slavery' to denote a particular magnitude and kind of the use of force.
If I steal from you, I have committed an act that is distinguishable from killing you only in its magnitude and my inability to make reparations in kind.
quote:Nope. It should be obvious by now that I disagree with your assumptions of how words are "ordinarily used", and what "implicit rules" exist in contracts. You make a lot of assumptions, and I don't think any of them stand up to any kind of scrutiny. They're lazy thinking, KoM.
Originally posted by King of Men:
So your statement that taxes are slavery is the same as the statement "stealing is killing". It is an inaccuracy motivated by your desire to use others' emotional reaction to the word. Rhetoric.
quote:Except that you know, if you're being honest, that I wouldn't say any such thing. You're making a bad comparison. You've invented an "implicit agreement" that simply doesn't exist. You can't use that as a jumping board to get to all sorts of conclusions. Or rather, you can, but there's no validity to it. You're wasting your time. You haven't even attempted to explain why you think such an implicit agreement exists. For a man who goes on about "invisible friends", it's kind of funny watching you appeal to "invisible agreements".
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:...or you agreed to that as punishment for the breach of certain rules. Which I contend that you did. Next you'll be saying a landlord can't evict you for non-payment of rent.
Just as you have no right to lock me in my basement, a government has no right to send me to jail unless it's to prevent me from harming others or to penalize me for having done so.
quote:Mere re-iteration of an axiom on which we disagree is not going to get you anywhere; you'll have to argue in favour of the axiom. But even at that, just stating that "X is wrong" is not a very effective form of protection from X, is it now?[/QUOTE]
Originally posted by King of Men:
Government can only be reasonably argued to have a right to exist for the purpose of preventing such violations of individual rights. Government isn't "doing us a favor" by enforcing contracts. It is merely performing the task which is its sole raison d'etre.
quote:The United States isn't the landowner, however. In this case, I am.
Originally posted by King of Men:
If you like, you can read "enforce your contracts" as "protect you from harm".
Let me try to rephrase. Stipulate that I, personally, own a certain chunk of land. I am willing to let you live on it, and also to help you protect yourself from harm imposed by others. In exchange you must agree to follow certain rules, including paying me in proportion to your income, and so on. Your children are likewise permitted to live here, but must leave if they don't agree with the rules. The rules can change under certain circumstances, generally by majority vote of the tenants. This is acceptable, no? I'm the landowner, I can do what I like.
Now, for me personally, substitute "A group of people calling themselves the United States of America". What changes? Nothing, presumably. So then we are left with whether the United States group has legitimate ownership of the land. I think it does, for the reasons I've outlined earlier.
quote:For me it's closer to "where given a choice, some people will do wrong, and those people will benefit at the cost of those who do not". Absent a framework of enforcement, the evil are at an advantage over the good.
Moreover, I'd say the same is true of abiding by the terms of a contract entered into freely. I think that violations of these things are the exception, rather than the rule. And I think that atheist or not, you seem to have internalized a kind of "original sin" outlook, where given a choice, people will do wrong.
quote:Savor the irony. On the contrary, Rakeesh. Saying that the group shouldn't do something is not the same as saying that the group should do something. Yes, I insist that the group not molest me or anyone else. That's not demanding that they do something. It's just saying, "Leave me the frak alone!"
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Not that you'll care - again, because you believe as a member of a group, you have the right to insist the group does exactly what you say it should
quote:Because there are shared interests and responsibilities. If four people are stuck in a life boat and three want to head one direction while the fourth does not, the fourth is welcome to stay behind, but they are going to lose the benefit of the lifeboat.
Since no other individual has the right to own me in such a way, the burden of proof is on you to show why a group of people who lack that right as individuals suddenly gain it as a group.
quote:No, the burden of proof is on you to say why you have inalienable rights in the first place. I think you will fail. Rights and morals are not falsifiable and I don't even see how they could literally exist in an absolute sense.
Originally posted by Lisa:
The burden of proof is on you to say why they should be able to ignore that and do what they want with me, with my life, with my property, with my time, and with my freedom. Who had the right to give them that perogative? Since no other individual has the right to own me in such a way, the burden of proof is on you to show why a group of people who lack that right as individuals suddenly gain it as a group.
quote:So do I. You should pay more attention to my precise words. A law against murder will only bind those who are exceptions to that rule. That is why it is useless without enforcement. A moral precept against murder is not useless, and many people share it. But that is not the same thing as a law.
In point of fact, I think that the vast majority of people will refrain from murder because it's immoral. Even if they think they could get away with it. The same is true of theft.
quote:You are ignoring the point I am making, which is that it is legitimate to impose rules on buyers of land. You haven't owned that land since the beginning of time, presumably. Trace it back far enough and the ultimate seller is some guy who said "as long as you obey US law", and that constraint still applies.
The United States isn't the landowner, however. In this case, I am.
quote:Well, I think it exists, and consider us both bound by it. If you don't, then that's just the point at which we have to settle our dispute by force. And please note: We will both consider the other to be one initiating that force. So perhaps you could avoid your usual name-calling?
You've invented an "implicit agreement" that simply doesn't exist.
quote:Ha! Very well put indeed.
If four people are stuck in a life boat and three want to head one direction while the fourth does not, the fourth is welcome to stay behind, but they are going to lose the benefit of the lifeboat.
quote:So not only does the fourth person have to go with the other three, they can vote to make him be the one who does all the rowing too.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Ha! Very well put indeed.
If four people are stuck in a life boat and three want to head one direction while the fourth does not, the fourth is welcome to stay behind, but they are going to lose the benefit of the lifeboat.
quote:Why is property on this list? Your previous response to my post didn't address this question; you simply stated that in order for you to not have the right to keep your property, others would have to have the right to take it. That seems to me to be a tautology; you didn't explain why they don't have that right, or why they shouldn't. I don't see any reason why that would be the default position, and the only reason you've provided is that the right to property is a self-evident moral axiom, which isn't very convincing.
Originally posted by Lisa:
The burden of proof is on you to say why they should be able to ignore that and do what they want with me, with my life, with my property, with my time, and with my freedom.
quote:First of all, sure, the fourth person has to go with the other three. It's ridiculous to assume it should be otherwise.
So not only does the fourth person have to go with the other three, they can vote to make him be the one who does all the rowing too.
Now it's the perfect metaphore for our tax structure.
quote:I don't know how you extract this from what I've said.
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
KoM recognizes no objective Good
quote:No, this is where the analogy breaks down. Life isn't a liferaft. The cases where Everyone Must or It Works for No One are VERY few. In fact, I've addressed it in this thread (ref: Fire Departments.)
The problem is also that the fourth insists that their individual rights exceed in importance and value everything else.
quote:Actually I agree with that, but like I said, your rights are not always the only consideration. If your neighbor is starving, and you are gorging on a buffet every night and throwing away lots of half-eaten food...well, as far as I'm concerned (me being society), you're gonna be giving your neighbor some food. Tough s@#t if you're upset your rights are being violated. Me as society, I am more willing to tolerate your mild violation of property rights than I am the guy starving to death while there's food in plenty.
Rak: Regardless if you're starving, you do not have the rights to my labour. If I give it to you of my own free will, that's one thing. But you don't, by virtue of your own Need, have a right to what I earn.
quote:Let's get one thing clear right now: it's not slavery, no matter how often you or Lisa repeat it. Slaves don't get to leave. Furthermore slaves don't get to routinely petition their master for an improvement in their working conditions, and if enough slaves do so, the master actually improves those conditions.
You can HAVE a robust charity system without making it the law of the land. Those who wish to give, CAN! No one is stopping them! Those who don't wish to give.. well, under current law, they MUST. They have no choice or men with guns will kidnap them and possibly shoot them if they put up any resistance. But morally, they should never be forced. That IS stealing. That IS slavery. And no amount of gilding it will MAKE it right.
quote:Actually it was me who supposedly "recognizes no objective Good" and it's not a matter of recognition. How can a moral even be objectively true? In what sense do "Good" and "Evil" exist? I don't think you can answer those questions. I've never heard anything more than "just because." Absolute morality seems like such a silly concept to cling onto because it gives us nothing. Try telling a murderer that what he did was "objectively" wrong. Do you think he'll care? Your supposed "objective" morals didn't stop him from doing ****. The only thing you gained was the ability to call him "evil" and get a bunch of people who share your morals to nod their heads and agree. It's a useless concept (unless you believe that people need to be scared into following the rules, a silly idea that I'll address if anybody really believes it).
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
rak: Doesn't matter with Twinky and KoM's systems. KoM recognizes no objective Good and Twinky doesn't recognize a right to the fruits of ones own labour. In both systems, they can force #4 to do what they say regardless of her ability and regardless of what she says.
quote:Bad metaphor. A better one would be three individuals wanting a lifeboat and deciding that they, and a fourth person who has no interest in a lifeboat, have to build one. Or buy one.
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Because there are shared interests and responsibilities. If four people are stuck in a life boat and three want to head one direction while the fourth does not, the fourth is welcome to stay behind, but they are going to lose the benefit of the lifeboat.
Since no other individual has the right to own me in such a way, the burden of proof is on you to show why a group of people who lack that right as individuals suddenly gain it as a group.
quote:No. Once again you're inventing something that never happened. No one ever said any such thing.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:You are ignoring the point I am making, which is that it is legitimate to impose rules on buyers of land. You haven't owned that land since the beginning of time, presumably. Trace it back far enough and the ultimate seller is some guy who said "as long as you obey US law", and that constraint still applies.
The United States isn't the landowner, however. In this case, I am.
quote:You can't bind me by something you created out of thin air. Something you merely imagined. You can't just say, "It exists", despite the utter lack of any evidence that it does.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Well, I think it exists, and consider us both bound by it.
You've invented an "implicit agreement" that simply doesn't exist.
quote:I'm not name-calling. And who is initiating that force isn't a matter of opinion. If I smacked you in the head and said that God told me you were thinking bad thoughts at me and that my smacking you was a legitimate retribution, you'd never accept it. Because you'd see it as an invention. You'd say, quite rightly, that you don't have to accept my bald assertion that I had a justification and was therefore only striking back.
Originally posted by King of Men:
If you don't, then that's just the point at which we have to settle our dispute by force. And please note: We will both consider the other to be one initiating that force. So perhaps you could avoid your usual name-calling?
quote:But it is. That's why we have courts to settle such matters.
And who is initiating that force isn't a matter of opinion.
quote:Consider the historical example of Iceland, when it was settled by refugees from Norway. There weren't any natives, so this is really terra nullius stuff, no ambiguity about whether they really had title to the land. What's the first thing they do? They establish a set of rules which everyone on the island has to follow, or be treated as outlaws, that is, having no recourse for crime except personal violence. This is an explicit statement of the principle "Obey these laws or we won't consider them to apply to you".
No. Once again you're inventing something that never happened. No one ever said any such thing.
quote:Okay, here's why. The basic property is that which I create. When I make something where that something wasn't there before, I own it as a creator. It's mine as much as the skin that I grow on my body. It didn't exist until I gave it existence. I exchanged my time -- a piece of my life that I can never get back -- for this new thing, which is a product of my life.
Originally posted by twinky:
quote:Why is property on this list? Your previous response to my post didn't address this question; you simply stated that in order for you to not have the right to keep your property, others would have to have the right to take it. That seems to me to be a tautology; you didn't explain why they don't have that right, or why they shouldn't. I don't see any reason why that would be the default position, and the only reason you've provided is that the right to property is a self-evident moral axiom, which isn't very convincing.
Originally posted by Lisa:
The burden of proof is on you to say why they should be able to ignore that and do what they want with me, with my life, with my property, with my time, and with my freedom.
quote:No. No one here has said anything like that. I don't have a problem with the three people rowing in the direction that they choose. I have a problem with them making me row as well if it isn't the direction I want to go in.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
The problem is not necessarily that the three can force the fourth to do something 4 doesn't want to do. That's potentially a problem, true, but it's not the only problem. The problem is also that the fourth insists that their individual rights exceed in importance and value everything else.
quote:At which point you're contributing nothing except an additional burden to the life raft.
No. No one here has said anything like that. I don't have a problem with the three people rowing in the direction that they choose. I have a problem with them making me row as well if it isn't the direction I want to go in.
quote:Okay. So the right to property flows from the right to life; given that the right to life is axiomatic, the right to property, which you create (directly or indirectly) by spending time (the "currency" of life), is an extension of that right.
Okay, here's why. The basic property is that which I create. When I make something where that something wasn't there before, I own it as a creator. It's mine as much as the skin that I grow on my body. It didn't exist until I gave it existence. I exchanged my time -- a piece of my life that I can never get back -- for this new thing, which is a product of my life.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:While there's nothing intrinsically false about this statement, it's only accurate in the hypothetical. Historically, this could only be said to be true if you're willing to drastically downsize your definition of "robust."
You can HAVE a robust charity system without making it the law of the land. Those who wish to give, CAN!
quote:Look, something Tom and I agree on!
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:While there's nothing intrinsically false about this statement, it's only accurate in the hypothetical. Historically, this could only be said to be true if you're willing to drastically downsize your definition of "robust."
You can HAVE a robust charity system without making it the law of the land. Those who wish to give, CAN!
quote:I don't know- did hell freeze over today?
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Look, something Tom and I agree on!
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:While there's nothing intrinsically false about this statement, it's only accurate in the hypothetical. Historically, this could only be said to be true if you're willing to drastically downsize your definition of "robust."
You can HAVE a robust charity system without making it the law of the land. Those who wish to give, CAN!
Ok, who had June 4 in the pool?
quote:I'm not sure I understand. "I would like to" is a moral reason to take what belongs to someone else? "I would like to" have all my credit card debt paid off. I think everyone here on Hatrack should send me a thousand dollars towards that end.
Originally posted by MightyCow:
Let's forget about the lifeboat for a second.
I want to take a train from California to Texas, then drive from Texas to Florida, and while I'm there, I want to enjoy Everglades National Park. I would like to not have to worry about the country of Mexico invading Texas while I'm there, I would like to be relatively safe from robbery or murder during the entire trip, and I would like to drive on paved roads with stop signals, street signs, and traffic laws which are enforced so that I can do so with a reasonable level of safety.
How is any of that possible without all of us paying taxes?
quote:Well at least you're not insisting that it could be done reliably through private means as though that were anything other than a hopeful guess.
I'm not sure I understand. "I would like to" is a moral reason to take what belongs to someone else? "I would like to" have all my credit card debt paid off. I think everyone here on Hatrack should send me a thousand dollars towards that end.
quote:But you have no problem sitting in the lifeboat, stealing from the other three people for the simple reason that they disagreed with you.
Originally posted by Lisa:
[QUOTE]I'm not sure I understand. "I would like to" is a moral reason to take what belongs to someone else? "I would like to" have all my credit card debt paid off. I think everyone here on Hatrack should send me a thousand dollars towards that end.
quote:Why would I say that? Obviously, it isn't something that can be known one way or the other. But whether it can be or not isn't the point. It's wrong to do it by coercion. If the result is that it doesn't get done in the same way that it is now, then that's the result. And those who don't like it can take steps to ameliorate it.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Well at least you're not insisting that it could be done reliably through private means as though that were anything other than a hopeful guess.
I'm not sure I understand. "I would like to" is a moral reason to take what belongs to someone else? "I would like to" have all my credit card debt paid off. I think everyone here on Hatrack should send me a thousand dollars towards that end.
quote:Your conclusion doesn't follow your premise. I mean, your premise is incorrect, but even if it wasn't, the conclusion that it's moral doesn't follow logically. It's a non sequitur.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Here's what makes it moral: you don't actually have to continue to belong to this horrible system, you derive the same benefits of it as MightyCow does, and you have the same proportional say in changing that system if you'd like to try.
quote:What's that argument? I mean, you say that you'd say that there's an argument for it. What is it? I'm not at all sure that there is one.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Furthermore, I'd say there's an argument for MightyCow having a right to safe, unmolested travel, a right which I am confident would be violated if we turned everything over to private business.
quote:How am I stealing from them? The four of us are in the lifeboat. That's a primary. They don't have to go in the direction they've chosen. They just want to.
Originally posted by scholarette:
quote:But you have no problem sitting in the lifeboat, stealing from the other three people for the simple reason that they disagreed with you.
Originally posted by Lisa:
[QUOTE]I'm not sure I understand. "I would like to" is a moral reason to take what belongs to someone else? "I would like to" have all my credit card debt paid off. I think everyone here on Hatrack should send me a thousand dollars towards that end.
quote:Let me add one other thing. People here have objected to me characterizing as theft the taking from someone something against their will, and without agreement. Yet you're abusing the term "stealing" by using it for a case where I'm taking nothing from anyone. That's more of the bad kind of hypocrisy.
Originally posted by scholarette:
But you have no problem sitting in the lifeboat, stealing from the other three people for the simple reason that they disagreed with you.
quote:Only if you can show where scholarette so objected.
People here have objected to me characterizing as theft the taking from someone something against their will, and without agreement. Yet you're abusing the term "stealing" by using it for a case where I'm taking nothing from anyone. That's more of the bad kind of hypocrisy.
quote:Fair enough. I assumed that since she's clearly on the side of "the group rules", that she would object to my calling taxation theft. I still think that's probably the case, but since she hasn't said so in so many words, you may be right.
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Only if you can show where scholarette so objected.
People here have objected to me characterizing as theft the taking from someone something against their will, and without agreement. Yet you're abusing the term "stealing" by using it for a case where I'm taking nothing from anyone. That's more of the bad kind of hypocrisy.
quote:Other people driving on the highway at the same time I do creates traffic, which costs me money in more gas being burned, because I'm constantly hitting the brakes. Are they stealing from me? I mean, it's easily demonstratable that if they'd all get off the highway while I'm driving (or even if many of them would do so), it would cost me less to drive. They aren't paying me for the money I'm losing due to their driving.
Originally posted by scholarette:
ETA- I did not argue against your definition of stealing. I argued against your definition of what is yours. The fourth person's presence creates more work for the others, work which he is not paying for. And if they are right and find land, he will take part in that, despite putting in no work for it.
quote:How precisely are you being coerced? You're not forced to stay and participate. You're forced to participate if you stay, but that's an entirely different thing now isn't it?
Why would I say that? Obviously, it isn't something that can be known one way or the other. But whether it can be or not isn't the point. It's wrong to do it by coercion. If the result is that it doesn't get done in the same way that it is now, then that's the result. And those who don't like it can take steps to ameliorate it.
If the people insisting on this kind of coercion would put half the energy that they put into forcing such things into law instead into organizing to achieve their goals without coercion, I think a helluva lot would get done. Using government coercion is lazy. And it's immoral.
quote:Oh? Let me ask you this: when you took your first job, did your employer trick you or something? "OK Ms. Lisa, I know you're strongly against the government getting a cut of your wages, so for you, no taxes. I'll let the government know they can't take anything from you."
As to why your premise is false, I never agreed to be part of this system in the first place. You can't supply me with unasked for benefits (and unasked for non-benefits) and then bill me for them. That's the moral equivalent of an urchin running into the intersection while I'm stopped at a red light, washing my windshield, and then demanding payment. I won't pay such a person. Neither will I tolerate him then dirtying my windshield in response to my non-payment. I was doing just fine before he interfered, and his actions can't put an obligation on me that I didn't willingly take upon myself.
quote:Nonsense, unless you somehow believe that your taxes go for services that are as useful as washing your mostly clean windshield on your car. So it's not a moral equivalent at all.
That's the moral equivalent of an urchin running into the intersection while I'm stopped at a red light, washing my windshield, and then demanding payment.
quote:And here's where we'll never meet up. It's not just obnoxious, in my opinion it's criminal, or it should be, for people to refuse to help in certain situations. If I've got a thousand capsules of penicillin in my medicine cabinet and someone comes to me with an infection that will kill them soon if they don't get help? I'll give him the medicine.
If you think that businesses would violate MightyCow's rights in such a situation as you described above, the remedy is for the government to prevent businesses from doing so. But the only violation of a person's rights is by initiating force against them. Declining to aid them is not a violation of their rights. It may be obnoxious, or it may not be, depending upon the circumstance. But there's no issue of "rights" when it comes to one person helping another. No one has the "right" to be helped. They merely have the "right" not to be harmed, and to request aid. Request, Rakeesh. Not demand.
quote:Some people would say that being a grownup is also about recognizing that there are people on the planet besides me, and that I have responsibilities towards them as well. Some would say that your refusal to acknowledge this is selfishly immoral in the extreme. It's not rocket science either.
This isn't rocket surgery, people. This is what being a grownup is about. It's about making your choices within the possible and the moral, and not stamping your foot and holding your breath until your face turns blue. It's certainly not about holding someone else's mouth until their face turns blue.
quote:I think that group breaks down into "tax is not theft" and "tax is theft, but that theft is a justifiable theft because absent that theft we believe more suffering/evil would occur".
Fair enough. I assumed that since she's clearly on the side of "the group rules", that she would object to my calling taxation theft. I still think that's probably the case, but since she hasn't said so in so many words, you may be right.
quote:Roads are paid for by the gas tax, which is a user fee for driving. User Fees are Libertarian Approved.
Originally posted by MightyCow:
Let's forget about the lifeboat for a second.
I want to take a train from California to Texas, then drive from Texas to Florida, and while I'm there, I want to enjoy Everglades National Park. I would like to not have to worry about the country of Mexico invading Texas while I'm there, I would like to be relatively safe from robbery or murder during the entire trip, and I would like to drive on paved roads with stop signals, street signs, and traffic laws which are enforced so that I can do so with a reasonable level of safety.
How is any of that possible without all of us paying taxes?
quote:Point of order: In fact they are paying, through the tax on gas, which goes to maintain the highway. And this is a user fee, you should note: Not stealing, it's fee-for-service. You don't have to use the highway, and you don't have to pay the tax.
Other people driving on the highway at the same time I do creates traffic, which costs me money in more gas being burned, because I'm constantly hitting the brakes. Are they stealing from me? I mean, it's easily demonstratable that if they'd all get off the highway while I'm driving (or even if many of them would do so), it would cost me less to drive. They aren't paying me for the money I'm losing due to their driving.
quote:Hypothetical question: If <Not Libertarian Approved social program X> is shown to decrease crime for less cost than the police/jail funding necessary for the same decrease, is funding that social program acceptable, or is this a matter of principal such that a Libertarian is willing to pay more for the police force than for the social program?
1> Stick to security issues. Courts, Military, Cops, Prisons. Things that fight force and fraud. Everytime you add something to this list, you increase the tax burden. You steal. And I agree with Lisa, you Enslave. Anything other than security issues need to be done privately.
quote:I wasn't sure what to say. Since I don't live in Iceland, I continue to state that your claim is invented.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Incidentally, did you (Lisa and Pixie) miss my post on Iceland? It's near the bottom of the previous page and might have got lost in the heat.
quote:I don't think I am. Let me recap the history: I asserted that "obey US law" is a prior lien on all land in the US, and that this is implicit in all contracts right down to buying chewing gum for fifty cents, because all contracts must make reference to an enforcing authority or they will be worthless. Lisa asserts that no such lien has ever been imposed; I put forth Iceland as a historical example where it was done quite explicitly, within historical times, and we have the records.
KoM: You're confusing Libertarianism with Anarchy. Don't worry. Lots of people do. Government exists to protect us from force and fraud.
quote:Iceland is rather marginally productive; the settlers ran their sheep and goats over all of it, thereby creating value from land that nobody owned and asserting their claim in impeccable libertarian style. Or how else do you want ownership to be established?
Nor am I sure I understand how the initial settlers of that island were able to assert ownership over the entire island and thereby assert their rule over anyone inhabiting it.
quote:Then I think I would refer you to the various English settlements on the western coastline of the US. I chose Iceland as my example because there were no natives, so the ownership of the land was quite un-ambiguous. With the English settlers, there's the issue of whether they really owned the land or not. But setting that aside, the first English settlers were basically private covenants, who set out (before leaving England) certain rules that everyone would obey or be thrown out of the community. They had procedures for changing these laws as required, and everyone agreed to them, or they weren't allowed to join. This then became liens on the land taken by the settlers, which no later generation has a right to remove. And from these sets of rules the entire panoply of modern US law descends in direct line.
I wasn't sure what to say. Since I don't live in Iceland, I continue to state that your claim is invented.
quote:I'm not necessarily talking about entitlement programs like food stamps or welfare. I'm more thinking about programs to provide safe/productive activities for at-risk youth and educational programs used to help people build skills or educate them on the dangers of substance abuse. Even universal public education might be included.
Social programs don't prevent crime. Social programs ARE crime. Further, they create a dependant class that relies on social programs across generations.
quote:I find it fascinating how you've transformed "staying" into a positive action. I'm here. The burden is on anyone wanting to say "Pay or leave". You're assuming that people have the right to say that to me. Stop taxing me for fire protection, and I'll join (or create if need be) a fire protection society. Stop taxing me for education, and I'll smile. I'm not participating in any government services that aren't going to be there whether I participate or not. I'm not choosing to participate in them; they simply do them, in exactly the same way that a kid might wash my windshield at a stoplight, and with exactly the same obligation imposed on me by their provision of said services. Which is to say: none.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:How precisely are you being coerced? You're not forced to stay and participate. You're forced to participate if you stay, but that's an entirely different thing now isn't it?
Why would I say that? Obviously, it isn't something that can be known one way or the other. But whether it can be or not isn't the point. It's wrong to do it by coercion. If the result is that it doesn't get done in the same way that it is now, then that's the result. And those who don't like it can take steps to ameliorate it.
If the people insisting on this kind of coercion would put half the energy that they put into forcing such things into law instead into organizing to achieve their goals without coercion, I think a helluva lot would get done. Using government coercion is lazy. And it's immoral.
quote:Being forced to "pay or leave" isn't a legitimate choice. I'm doing fine right where I am, thanks very much. Making me leave is violence. Making me pay is violence. You can't offer me the choice of two types of violence to be committed against me when I have a third moral choice. Which is "none of the above".
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Maybe it is wrong to do it by coercion-not that I grant you're being coerced, again because as many have said you can leave.
quote:I'll say once more that withholding aid is not the same as causing harm. You want to redefine "not helping people" as "hurting people". But you haven't, and can't, make a case for that redefinition, because they aren't the same thing.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
The power that you claim is coercing you certainly isn't stopping you. But even if it is wrong, it's not always a simple choice between right and wrong.
Sometimes there's a choice between right that hurts a lot of people, and wrong that helps a lot of people. We're not all as comfortable as you are with hurting people just because it's the right thing to do.
quote:No. On the contrary, both I and my employers are forced, by threats of violence and slavery (arrest and jail) to acquiesce to tax being withheld.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Oh? Let me ask you this: when you took your first job, did your employer trick you or something? "OK Ms. Lisa, I know you're strongly against the government getting a cut of your wages, so for you, no taxes. I'll let the government know they can't take anything from you."
As to why your premise is false, I never agreed to be part of this system in the first place. You can't supply me with unasked for benefits (and unasked for non-benefits) and then bill me for them. That's the moral equivalent of an urchin running into the intersection while I'm stopped at a red light, washing my windshield, and then demanding payment. I won't pay such a person. Neither will I tolerate him then dirtying my windshield in response to my non-payment. I was doing just fine before he interfered, and his actions can't put an obligation on me that I didn't willingly take upon myself.
quote:Not in the slightest. An "agreement" under threat of violence? Don't be silly.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Or did you, in fact, know about that and take the job anyway? There's some agreement for you right there.
quote:Except that I'm entitled, by right, to trade what is mine with someone else. If I want to go to my friend's house and trade one of my books for one of her books, I'm entitled to do so without anyone telling me, "Either pay us something for the privilege of having made that exchange, or don't do it." What? Who are they to say that my engaging in a private agreement to trade value for value with another person somehow obligates me to pay them for doing so?
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
You could say, "But all the jobs are like that," which is true. But then again you don't have to take a job, buy a house, raise a family, drive on the roads, here in this country, do you? Of course not. You can leave. The party you claim coerces you does not prevent you from leaving.
quote:No. Once again, making me leave is an act of violence. I'm fine where I am, harming no one. To tell me that I have to pay for the privilege of simply being where I am, or I have to leave, is moral thuggery.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
And here you haven't left. That's certainly an agreement of sorts, when the continued non-departure happens over a long enough span of time.
quote:Utility is subjective. Much of the money taken from me is used for things that not only have less utility -- to me -- than having my windshield washed, but in many cases are things I strongly oppose.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Nonsense, unless you somehow believe that your taxes go for services that are as useful as washing your mostly clean windshield on your car.
That's the moral equivalent of an urchin running into the intersection while I'm stopped at a red light, washing my windshield, and then demanding payment.
quote:Bad premises lead to bad conclusions.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
So it's not a moral equivalent at all.
quote:So would I. But it'd be my choice. I think giving the medicine would be the moral choice in most circumstances. But suppose the sick person came to me wearing a t-shirt with a nice big Nazi swastika on it. Would it be immoral for me to turn him away? I don't think so. Suppose the person who came had just robbed me at gunpoint in an alley three days earlier. Would it be immoral for me to turn him away? Not in the least.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:And here's where we'll never meet up. It's not just obnoxious, in my opinion it's criminal, or it should be, for people to refuse to help in certain situations. If I've got a thousand capsules of penicillin in my medicine cabinet and someone comes to me with an infection that will kill them soon if they don't get help? I'll give him the medicine.
If you think that businesses would violate MightyCow's rights in such a situation as you described above, the remedy is for the government to prevent businesses from doing so. But the only violation of a person's rights is by initiating force against them. Declining to aid them is not a violation of their rights. It may be obnoxious, or it may not be, depending upon the circumstance. But there's no issue of "rights" when it comes to one person helping another. No one has the "right" to be helped. They merely have the "right" not to be harmed, and to request aid. Request, Rakeesh. Not demand.
quote:No, I wouldn't have started it. You can make that excuse to yourself, if it helps you sleep at night, but your act of brutality is not excusable by such platitudes.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
And if you* are going to be 'obnoxious' enough not to accede to that request, well then, guess what? I'll use all the guns I** have and it's not a request anymore. Sure it's immoral. But you started it, by persisting in believing that you were an island unto yourself.
quote:I do. I have a responsibility not to punch you in the nose. I don't have a responsibility to see that you're fed. I might well see to it that you're fed, but only because I choose to do so.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Some people would say that being a grownup is also about recognizing that there are people on the planet besides me, and that I have responsibilities towards them as well.
This isn't rocket surgery, people. This is what being a grownup is about. It's about making your choices within the possible and the moral, and not stamping your foot and holding your breath until your face turns blue. It's certainly not about holding someone else's mouth until their face turns blue.
quote:Some would say that the earth is flat.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Some would say that your refusal to acknowledge this is selfishly immoral in the extreme. It's not rocket science either.
*general 'you'.
**'I' meaning society at large.
quote:So you'll so kindly allow me to risk imprisonment? That's good of you.
Originally posted by scholarette:
I actually have several friends who don't pay taxes on their jobs. So, if you really want to, you can probably find an employer willing to pay you under the table. It may not be doing something you want to do, but it is definetely a possibility.
quote:Right, but in fact your employer has likewise accepted the terms of trade in the US, which include an income tax and withholding and all. Presumably they would not have hired you under the table. If they didn't want to pay the taxes, well, nobody forces them to own that particular business.
Except that I'm entitled, by right, to trade what is mine with someone else.
quote:I'm not a Libertarian. I'm a libertarian.
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
Roads are paid for by the gas tax, which is a user fee for driving. User Fees are Libertarian Approved.
quote:I like these two a lot. I'm not so cool with the use of "retard", but leaving that aside, any taxes paid to the government should absolutely be paid in a lump sum, and should absolutely be due right before elections.
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
4> Destroy the Scam of "Withholding." Make everyone cut one huge check so they know what they're paying. Deducting a little each pay check hides the price and is a form of Fraud. Fraud is something the government is supposed to be protecting us against, not committing themselves. Retards will stop bragging about "how much they got back" and realize "HOLY CRAP I PAID 30K IN TAXES!"
5> Move tax day to the day before the federal elections. So even the retards will have that 30K tax bill firmly in mind when they cast their ballot.
quote:Some of those things might be good. None of them are things that people who don't like them should be forced to pay for.
Originally posted by MattP:
I'm not necessarily talking about entitlement programs like food stamps or welfare. I'm more thinking about programs to provide safe/productive activities for at-risk youth and educational programs used to help people build skills or educate them on the dangers of substance abuse. Even universal public education might be included.
quote:I don't buy the pragmatic argument. It's a pandora's box. If you want direct law enforcement and other programs, that's fine. The government should provide the direct law enforcement, and you're free to start a foundation to provide the programs. And if you come to me and ask for money to improve literacy among teens in bad areas, and you show me that studies have shown this to decrease crime, I suspect I'll pony up for it. But again, it's my choice. And if my next door neighbor won't pay for it, I might try and convince him that he should. But it's his choice.
Originally posted by MattP:
We already provide these programs to people who are serving time under the assumption that doing so will decrease recidivism, thereby increasing the level of public safety in the course of punishing offenders. If these programs are empirically shown to increase public safety, should we fund them? And, if so, should we fund similar programs for individuals who have not yet offended if it can be empirically shown that doing so will increase public safety for less cost than employing the police and building the prisons to handle the criminality that would occur if these programs don't exist?
Hypothetical aside, I'm wondering if there is a pragmatism counter to the idealism of your philosophy. Should we only have an involuntary tax for direct law enforcement costs regardless of whether programs that are not directly related to law enforcement may be more effective at reducing crime?
quote:Buying something like that isn't a contract. You could create a contract that says, "I agree to give you gum and you agree to give me money", but that's not what happens when I buy gum. What happens is that I go and trade value for value, on the spot, without any contract involved.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Let me recap the history: I asserted that "obey US law" is a prior lien on all land in the US, and that this is implicit in all contracts right down to buying chewing gum for fifty cents, because all contracts must make reference to an enforcing authority or they will be worthless.
quote:Actually, I didn't say that no such lien has ever been imposed in the world. Go back and read what I wrote. We were talking about me. No such lien has been imposed upon me. Nor can you imagine one and claim that I'm bound by this imaginary lien.
Originally posted by King of Men:
Lisa asserts that no such lien has ever been imposed; I put forth Iceland as a historical example where it was done quite explicitly, within historical times, and we have the records.
quote:If that's what they did, fine. If they asserted that anyone else coming to the island and proving land that wasn't already in use had to abide by their rules as well or be kicked off, that's not fine.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Iceland is rather marginally productive; the settlers ran their sheep and goats over all of it, thereby creating value from land that nobody owned and asserting their claim in impeccable libertarian style. Or how else do you want ownership to be established?
Nor am I sure I understand how the initial settlers of that island were able to assert ownership over the entire island and thereby assert their rule over anyone inhabiting it.
quote:I live in Chicago. Does that help?
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Then I think I would refer you to the various English settlements on the western coastline of the US.
I wasn't sure what to say. Since I don't live in Iceland, I continue to state that your claim is invented.
quote:You can't use my employer's agreement when it's an agreement under duress. If you take away the duress and the agreement continues (which you must realize it wouldn't), then you can use that.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Right, but in fact your employer has likewise accepted the terms of trade in the US, which include an income tax and withholding and all. Presumably they would not have hired you under the table. If they didn't want to pay the taxes, well, nobody forces them to own that particular business.
Except that I'm entitled, by right, to trade what is mine with someone else.
quote:Certainly it's a contract. Any exchange of value for value is a contract; it's just that some of them have a longer timescale than the five seconds it takes to ring up your purchase, so they get written up into legal documents. But if the cashier tried to take your money and not give you the gum, you would find that you had an enforceable contract.
Originally posted by Lisa:
Buying something like that isn't a contract. You could create a contract that says, "I agree to give you gum and you agree to give me money", but that's not what happens when I buy gum. What happens is that I go and trade value for value, on the spot, without any contract involved.
quote:And Chicago is part of a state created by settlers from the west coast in precisely the same way as I just outlined for the original colonies being settled from England. Private companies, claiming land under certain rules changeable by majority vote, eventual incorporation into the United States by the same majority vote. All nice and legal.
I live in Chicago. Does that help?
quote:But I'm asserting that it's not under duress: Both you and your employer are agreeing to the rules by staying here instead of going elsewhere.
Originally posted by Lisa:
You can't use my employer's agreement when it's an agreement under duress. If you take away the duress and the agreement continues (which you must realize it wouldn't), then you can use that.
quote:Classic. But, in Lisa's defense, not strictly relevant to the argument she is making, which is a purely moral one. She would accept this consequence of bad roads as preferable to forcing anyone to work on the roads, or at least that's how I understand her position.
Originally posted by Dan_raven:
(Tragedy of the Commons story)
quote:So the government should only be responsible for punitive law enforcement and prophylactic law enforcement should be a private affair, regardless of the relative costs?
The government should provide the direct law enforcement, and you're free to start a foundation to provide the programs.
quote:So what? You have some sort of theory of implied restrictive covenants on property. There's no such thing. Either it's part of the contract I signed, or it isn't. And it isn't.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:And Chicago is part of a state created by settlers from the west coast in precisely the same way as I just outlined for the original colonies being settled from England. Private companies, claiming land under certain rules changeable by majority vote, eventual incorporation into the United States by the same majority vote. All nice and legal.
I live in Chicago. Does that help?
quote:Staying is not an action. It's a lack of action. Staying doesn't imply any acceptance, it's simply "not leaving". Since I'm here, as a matter of fact, the burden is on anyone who wants to present me with a choice of leaving or paying. Those aren't my only choices. There's neither leaving nor paying. The problem is that violence will be initiated against me if I choose that. At which point we return to the real underlying theme of your argument, which is nothing more than "might makes right".
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:But I'm asserting that it's not under duress: Both you and your employer are agreeing to the rules by staying here instead of going elsewhere.
Originally posted by Lisa:
You can't use my employer's agreement when it's an agreement under duress. If you take away the duress and the agreement continues (which you must realize it wouldn't), then you can use that.
quote:On the contrary. He was forced to get a business license. Sure, he could have refrained from engaging in business and he wouldn't have needed the license. But again, it's his money, and he's entitled to trade it for my labor without someone coming and saying, "Pay for the privilege, or don't trade."
Originally posted by King of Men:
Edit: In fact, with your employer it's probably even more explicit than that. He probably signed some incorporation papers at some point, giving him certain privileges in exchange for agreeing to certain duties, including withholding.
quote:No. Patroling is prophylactic, too.
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:So the government should only be responsible for punitive law enforcement and prophylactic law enforcement should be a private affair, regardless of the relative costs?
The government should provide the direct law enforcement, and you're free to start a foundation to provide the programs.
quote:I didn't "simply deny" anything. You're insisting that something which only exists in your imagination is real. You can't point to it, but you tell me that "It's really there."
Originally posted by King of Men:
Ah well, back to simple denial again. I guess we'll have to settle the issue by force then; call me a barbarian all you like.
quote:And if we can have less crime for less money by having fewer patrols and more YMCA's, should we do that? Is this a case where the means are so offensive that the ends are unimportant? We can force people to pay for police, but we cannot force people to pay for basketball courts, even if the basketball courts decrease the need for police?
No. Patroling is prophylactic, too.
quote:Well, if it comes to that, you're pointing to an absolute right to property as the foundation of your argument; would you like to point to it? While on the other hand, if you check your local City Hall you're quite likely to find the original incorporation documents of Chicago and perhaps the state of Illinois, making quite explicit references to the various laws of the land.
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:I didn't "simply deny" anything. You're insisting that something which only exists in your imagination is real. You can't point to it, but you tell me that "It's really there."
Originally posted by King of Men:
Ah well, back to simple denial again. I guess we'll have to settle the issue by force then; call me a barbarian all you like.
The irony is so thick you could cut it with a spoon.
quote:The ends never justify the means. Never. They can mitigate them. If I'm starving and I steal food, that's mitigation. It's a reasonable explanation, and there's room to go easy on me in terms of punishment, but it does not make my theft right. It's still appropriate to force me to make recompense, and/or to punish me for having stolen.
Originally posted by MattP:
quote:And if we can have less crime for less money by having fewer patrols and more YMCA's, should we do that? Is this a case where the means are so offensive that the ends are unimportant?
No. Patroling is prophylactic, too.
quote:Right. People make a choice whether to break the law or not. If you want to do something that you think will encourage more people to make the right choice, good for you. Bring me a proposal and I may contribute. I may not. But it's my choice.
Originally posted by MattP:
We can force people to pay for police, but we cannot force people to pay for basketball courts, even if the basketball courts decrease the need for police?
quote:I have already. It's directly derivable from my absolute right to my own life.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Well, if it comes to that, you're pointing to an absolute right to property as the foundation of your argument; would you like to point to it?
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:I didn't "simply deny" anything. You're insisting that something which only exists in your imagination is real. You can't point to it, but you tell me that "It's really there."
Originally posted by King of Men:
Ah well, back to simple denial again. I guess we'll have to settle the issue by force then; call me a barbarian all you like.
The irony is so thick you could cut it with a spoon.
quote:More hand waving. There was nothing in the papers I signed that said any such thing.
Originally posted by King of Men:
While on the other hand, if you check your local City Hall you're quite likely to find the original incorporation documents of Chicago and perhaps the state of Illinois, making quite explicit references to the various laws of the land.
quote:Right, that's the one I mean. Please point to it.
I have already. It's directly derivable from my absolute right to my own life.
quote:Then that contract is not enforceable, because no court has jurisdiction.
There was nothing in the papers I signed that said any such thing.
quote:Wrong. Take your gum example. You call that a contract. I pay for the gum, and the guy refuses to let me have the gum. Now, I'll repeat that that is not a contract, because he can give me my money back, which a contract wouldn't necessarily allow. But never mind that for now.
Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Right, that's the one I mean. Please point to it.
I have already. It's directly derivable from my absolute right to my own life.
quote:Then that contract is not enforceable, because no court has jurisdiction.
There was nothing in the papers I signed that said any such thing.
quote:It's a kind of blindness. Don't make fun of the handicapped.
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
Lisa: I'm sorry for using the word "retard" but, honestly, can you think of a better description of someone who puffs their chest out and happily proclaims they got FIVE HUNDRED dollars back from the federal government instead of looking at the fact the government took enough money from them to buy a couple of cars?
quote:It's not their fault. I forced them into a corner, and their choices basically amounted to (a) concede that I'm right, (b) leave the discussion, (c) pull out the "might makes right" and "love it or leave it" card.
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
All you statists out there: Never thought I'd hear so much "love it or leave it" coming, predominately, from the left.
quote:I actually had the same question so I looked it up before I posted. I quickly found a few articles about cities deciding how much to budget for YMCA. I doubt they are entirely funded by the government, but they are certainly subsidized, at least in some areas.
Is the YMCA funded by the government? I doubt it.
quote:What if I don't choose to support the police? What if *I* think there are better ways to do it? Most libertarians support mandatory taxation for police, but I don't understand why the mechanisms of a police organization for preventing crime by fear of punishment is automatically superior to other mechanisms that may prevent crime through other means.
You keep skipping that basic concept. It's my choice. What if I don't think that basketball courts will decrease the need for police? What if I think there are better ways to do it?
quote:Police departments do this as well. Much of Giuliani's cleaning up of NYC can be traced to accounting games. Any agency that receives funding is going to be motivated to justify their existence. What is necessary is some sort of objective oversight, but that's more government...
The pass mierda to show they are "doing something" and the fact that it doesn't work doesn't matter.
quote:Heh.
It's not their fault. I forced them into a corner, and their choices basically amounted to (a) concede that I'm right, (b) leave the discussion, (c) pull out the "might makes right" and "love it or leave it" card.
.
quote:Do you think that it would follow from there (as KoM apparently thinks) that if you enter into a contract of that sort, it implies a general agreement to accept any and all laws made by the same people?
Originally posted by fugu13:
So unless a contract happens to reference another set of jurisdictions (which they frequently do), it is considered to, by default, be interpretable under the laws the people who it is made between follow. Because otherwise it would not be fully interpretable.
quote:Agreed on both points.
Originally posted by The Pixiest:
fugu: I think Lisa and I Agree far more than we Disagree. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Lisa.)
It's impossible to find someone you agree with 100%.
quote:Also, you don't need to "leave it" as in leaving the country, you can simply refuse to benefit from the system. That's why I brought up Ted Kaczynski. He didn't live in a cabin just in order to hide out from the law, it was part of his personal philosophy that he refused to benefit from the system that he despised. He didn't need to leave the country to do it, though.
Just for the record, I'm not suggesting "love it or leave it."
quote:Originally I accepted this, because it wasn't what I was considering at the time, and it seemed a valid point. In fact it's ridiculous. The government will not punish you for refusing to accept payment in dollars, it will simply fail to offer you the benefit of enforcing your debt. That's part of the deal. If someone owes you a debt, monetary or otherwise, the government will enforce that debt. That's a benefit of the system. But once again, if you want that benefit, you have to play by the rules.
Even if someone wants to be paid in chickens, they'd be forced, under threat of punishment, to accept my currency.
...
It's legal if agreed upon by both sides. The point is that if someone owes me a debt, I'm required to accept Federal Reserve scrip in payment of that debt. I can ask to be paid in something else, but if the other party wants to use Federal Reserve notes, I'm powerless to say no. Even though I don't trust them.
quote:Bad answer. Because it's only been a very short time (less than a century) since the government started forcing us to accept one currency.
Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
Originally I accepted this, because it wasn't what I was considering at the time, and it seemed a valid point. In fact it's ridiculous. The government will not punish you for refusing to accept payment in dollars, it will simply fail to offer you the benefit of enforcing your debt. That's part of the deal. If someone owes you a debt, monetary or otherwise, the government will enforce that debt. That's a benefit of the system. But once again, if you want that benefit, you have to play by the rules.
But if you refuse to accept the debt in dollars, you simply forfeit the benefit. No one is going to punish you for refusing to be paid in dollars.
quote:Once again you create a strawman argument. When did I ever say that the government wouldn't uphold a contract?
You want to say that this new rule trumps the obligation of the government to enforce a contractual obligation. I can't imagine where you got such an idea from.
quote:No you aren't. Just don't expect the government to enforce the debt. If you take the guy to court and he says "I gave her the money but she refused it," what do you expect the court to do?
The point is that if someone owes me a debt, I'm required to accept Federal Reserve scrip in payment of that debt. I can ask to be paid in something else, but if the other party wants to use Federal Reserve notes, I'm powerless to say no.
quote:Just what sort of punishment did you have in mind?
Even if someone wants to be paid in chickens, they'd be forced, under threat of punishment, to accept my currency.
quote:This is why discussing something controversial is often so incredibly frustrating with you, Lisa. The only givens are your givens.
Prior to that, a breach of contract was a breach of contract. Because it is, whether the government chooses to recognize it or not. But the government declared that you have to be willing to accept their bills as payment for all debts.