quote: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?
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.
If you and I are walking down the street, and we see Blayne walking by, and a homeless guy on the corner, do you think it would be moral for the two of us to force Blayne to cough up some cash for the homeless guy? I mean, there's two of us, and only one of Blayne. Majority rules, right?
If you and I and 98 other people are walking down the street, and we see Achilles and 19 of his friends walking by, and a homeless guy on the corner, would it be moral for the 100 of us to force the 20 of them to rent the guy a room? Hell, that's 120 people altogether. We could get the guy a really nice hotel room for a buck a day per person. And if the 20 other folks don't feel like paying... well, who are they to defy a majority, right? We just take it from them. We outnumber them, after all.
What's the magic number, Threads, at which a group of people can declare themselves a government and claim that they have powers and perogatives that none of the people who compose it have on their own? If 100 people can't force 20 people to pay for a good deed (good deed according to the 100 people, but maybe not a priority for the 20), why is it okay for a larger group to do the same exact thing?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
Actually, I did miss that part of the sentence, and for that I apologize.
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.
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.
How should we, then, fund the common good?
Posts: 496 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Your analogy is not exact, Lisa.
Isn't that a defining quality of analogy?
Maybe next time she should say, "being forced to pay taxes for something I don't want to support is sort of like being forced to pay taxes for something I don't want to support." Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: You force Blayne to give him money, but you also cough up some money yourselves.
Are you saying armed robbery is legal and ethical as long as the robber chips in a bit and gives the pot to charity?
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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...
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: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?
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.
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).
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, I believe you're against taxes supporting firefighters as well.
So an analogy could be Blayne's house is on fire, and he pulls a gun on you and forces you to help him put it out after you refuse to help him. Most people would agree that's wrong. (I thought of elaborating on with the homeless guy, but that's just wrong. Better a house fire.)
But towns and cities across the country (and the world) have tax-payer supported firefighters, and also volunteer firefighters if the towns are too small. In many locales in America, if you refused to pay taxes because of fundamental philosophical differences with firefighting (or any government service you disagree with), they'd politely force you to leave by seizing your property for non-payment of taxes.
And most people would agree that that's alright. There are ways to fight taxes you disagree politically.
So I guess for most people, the magic number exists, and is somewhere between one and the population of a large town or county.
For you, the magic number approaches infinity if it even exists.
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: KoM: Right of exit?
To WHERE? The world is nothing but a buffet of thieves.
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I could move on to the ice cap or something. No place nice. Those places are already crawling with people.
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.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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.
And... really? If I accosted you and told you that there was a guy who couldn't afford a movie ticket, and that I'd pay for part of the ticket if you'd pick up the rest, and that if you didn't pay for the rest, I'd take it from you in any case? You'd be okay with that? Let's up the ante a bit and say that the movie is that thing with Ben Stein, about intelligent design. So your money would not only be taken against your will, but used for something that you consider as having no (or negative) value. That's fine, right? Because after all, you can run away.
I do not believe you.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
Well, that's your problem.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Because after all, you can run away.
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
"My share"? That implies a debt on my part. But I don't recognize any imposed debts.
The government doesn't "need" to run arts programs. It doesn't "need" to provide social programs. It doesn't "need" to do any of that. Furthermore, the government operated without an income tax for well over a century. You can't pretend that it's some sort of basic part of government to essentially fine people for being productive.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Originally posted by Achilles: How should we, then, fund the common good?
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.
Do you even understand that helping someone because you choose to is always morally superior to helping them because you're forced to? Do you understand what it's done to the people of our nation to have that choice taken out of their hands? That it's not only immoral to force people in that way, but that it's a moral corrosion to essentially prevent individuals from choosing to help others?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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.
Nor is this war in any way defensive. Offensive wars are not one of the things that are a valid role for the government.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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...
You honestly want to claim that taxes are a user fee on exchange of money?
In the first place, that's clearly not the case. If I don't spend a penny of my earnings, I still have to pay taxes on them. Contrarily, if I get paid nothing, but buy things with money I already have saved, I owe the federal government zilch.
Even as analogies go, that's a bad one.
Furthermore, you forgot a very major part of your analogy. I'd have to forbid the use of any currency but mine. Basically enforce a monopoly under threat of punishment. You do realize that while it was once permissible for anyone to create currency, the government has granted monopoly power in that area to the Federal Reserve, right?
And not only would I forbid the issuance or use of competing currency, I'd also force everyone, again, under threat of punishment, to accept my currency as payment for debts. Even if they don't trust it and don't want it. Even if someone wants to be paid in chickens, they'd be forced, under threat of punishment, to accept my currency.
And again, I'd have the right to simply print more of my currency whenever the spirit moved me, thereby reducing the actual value of every piece of currency I'd already put into circulation. In other words, I'd be able to take back part of the value of the currency I issued with no recompense whatsoever. That's what the Fed does. Did you ever wonder where that extra value gets to when it escapes from the dollar bills in your wallet?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: For you, the magic number approaches infinity if it even exists.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
Well, that's your problem.
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.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote: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.
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.
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?
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Because after all, you can run away.
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.
So I have to leave my home and go elsewhere if I don't want to accept your bullying and theft. Why?
quote: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.
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.
Suppose I said you can get away without paying for the guy's movie tickets, but you had to pay a fine for the privilege. Because that's what you're talking about. My having to move would carry a hefty financial penalty.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So I have to leave my home and go elsewhere if I don't want to accept your bullying and theft. Why?
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.
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me rephrase that. I am in fact making an essentially libertarian argument: The first guy to claim (and work, and suchlike) land owns it, right? He can set up a Libertopia, or dig a strip mine, or do whatever he likes with it. Now as it happens, by historical accident, all (or nearly all) land in the world has been claimed by men who set up states, with laws and all. They have then sold or otherwise passed on that land, with the clause "But you have to obey these laws" in the contracts. That's why you're going to have to go elsewhere: First come makes the rules, and you are disagreeing with the rules of the men who were here first.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You honestly want to claim that taxes are a user fee on exchange of money?
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.
quote:If I don't spend a penny of my earnings, I still have to pay taxes on them.
Earning money is an exchange. Once you have the money, you are entitled to bury it in your backyard and pay no further taxes.
quote:Even if someone wants to be paid in chickens, they'd be forced, under threat of punishment, to accept my currency.
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.
quote:Even as analogies go, that's a bad one.
It's a helluva lot better than yours.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you saying barter is illegal in the U.S.?
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!"
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
Your qualifications as a human being are in question in my view.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 369 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:So I have to leave my home and go elsewhere if I don't want to accept your bullying and theft. Why?
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You honestly want to claim that taxes are a user fee on exchange of money?
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.
Don't be an ass. That crack was unnecessary.
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:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:If I don't spend a penny of my earnings, I still have to pay taxes on them.
Earning money is an exchange. Once you have the money, you are entitled to bury it in your backyard and pay no further taxes.
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.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Even if someone wants to be paid in chickens, they'd be forced, under threat of punishment, to accept my currency.
Are you saying barter is illegal in the U.S.?
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: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.
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.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Even as analogies go, that's a bad one.
It's a helluva lot better than yours.
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?"
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
Your qualifications as a human being are in question in my view.
Your intelligence is in question in mine. So?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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!"
quote: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:You honestly want to claim that taxes are a user fee on exchange of money?
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.
Don't be an ass. That crack was unnecessary.
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.
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.
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:If I don't spend a penny of my earnings, I still have to pay taxes on them.
Earning money is an exchange. Once you have the money, you are entitled to bury it in your backyard and pay no further taxes.
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.
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:
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Even if someone wants to be paid in chickens, they'd be forced, under threat of punishment, to accept my currency.
Are you saying barter is illegal in the U.S.?
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.
Point taken.
quote:
quote: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.
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.
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:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold:
quote:Even as analogies go, that's a bad one.
It's a helluva lot better than yours.
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]
My analogy is actually based on the system in place, while your analogy is based on your general paranoia.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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?
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." Now, if only you had a time machine and could go back and convince him of the superior merits of anarchy... but you don't. 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.
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.
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: So because you're not convinced that private funding would work, we shouldn't aim for that goal?
How about "I don't think private funding would work."
quote: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!"
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.
EDIT: IIRC, Libertarianism predicts that the power of the masses provides the balancing force to big corporations. Ironically, the power of the masses in our country decided to support regulation.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
It is hard to see what the difference is between the state and a really large private group, at times. That there is nowhere on earth to leave one without entering another (or being in a desolate wasteland) is not a particularly good argument against; the same thing could (and probably would) happen in an ideal libertarian state, though things would likely be more fragmented.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there is an aspect of taxes that you are ignoring here. There always were and always would be taxes; city and town taxes, township taxes, county taxes, and state taxes. They existed before the amendment that allowed the Federal Government to incorporate income tax. Plus there were likely other federal taxes for import and export duties, and similar things.
The power of taxation originally, and still does, lie within the State. But as our country grew and became a force on the international stage, it became clear that acting as a collection of states was not enough. The USA had to be able to act as a collective nation, as a single cohesive entity, and to do that, they needed money to take those collective actions.
So, I have no problem with federal income tax. It supports our federal government which in turn acts as our internal national face, and our external international face.
What I do have a problem with is Congress wasting the money on poor management and backdoor off-the-books pork. I have no doubt we could trim 20% off our budget, and still have all the services that the government normally supplies. If Congress, the Military, and government agencies were not squandering the resources we give them, we could do a whole lot more with a whole lot less.
So, taxes always did and always were going to exist. Federal income tax merely gave the Federal government the resources to do things that would be difficult for the individual states to accomplish on their own.
posted
An internet petition. Guarding us against the terrible myth of the North American Union / Amero and fighting back under the mistaken assumption that the income tax is illegal.
quote: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.
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?
quote: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.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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?
I have no problem with what you're describing, provided that it's voluntary. "The best lifestyle" -- whether you like it or not -- is not a good thing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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?
I guess the only reason that we aren't subject to a Native American government is because we didn't sign any contracts when we booted the Indians off their lands? Sweet... that's the last time I ever pay for a house.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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?
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."
It's the same thing here. Slavery is slavery. What defines it is the involuntary ownership of a person's life and the product of that life. It has nothing to do with the actual amount that the person is permitted (by the capricious kindness of his masters) to keep.
quote: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."
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.
quote: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.
"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.
Again, you want there to be such an obligation, because the alternative means that you have no excuse for this sort of tyranny. So you make one up. Pardon me if I wonder a little at the irony of someone who is so vociferiously atheist and adamant that there must be explicit knowledge of things for them to be valid coming at me with such an a-rational (to be charitable) theory.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
And I want to go back again to the irony thing. It seems you aren't an atheist after all. You've simply replaced God with Society, but left the de facto slavery of the individual in place.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
