posted
You don't need a passport to leave the country, you only need a passport because most other countries have decided to require one to enter.
And even if it is walking from one place to another that have similar rules (when it isn't; there are places you could go and not be bothered by much of anybody, gov't or not, they're just inconvenient for other reasons), it isn't your right to have a country that agrees with you. You might not like it, but the lack of circumstances you like does not mean that it isn't true people can leave one place and go to another. If there were a place on earth with rules similar to what you like, you could go there from the US (presumably this place would not require a passport to enter).
And yes, I consider governments that prevent their citizens from physically departing immoral.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
1. A person who is held in bondage to another; one who is wholly subject to the will of another; one who is held as a chattel; one who has no freedom of action, but whose person and services are wholly under the control of another.
thou our slave, Our captive, at the public mill our drudge? --Milton.
2. One who has lost the power of resistance; one who surrenders himself to any power whatever; as, a slave to passion, to lust, to strong drink, to ambition.
3. A drudge; one who labors like a slave.
4. An abject person; a wretch. --Shak.
I don't think that anyone can argue that their actions are wholly under the control of the government. When using a term like slave, degrees do matter.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I knew "love it or leave it" would pop up again.
But, once again, there's no where else to go. Every speck of inhabitable land on this globe is already claimed by someone who's either a statist and/or a more obvious murdering tyrant.
And why is that the United States' problem?
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Pure democracy or even a democratic republic as we have is useless without a constitution to keep our laws in line with our principles. And these United States that have been around for longer than I have drifted from the principles of Liberty long ago.
I agree with this sentiment. For this discussion to be productive you need to drop your assumptions that the only reason we support taxation is because we are ignorant and that we have the "You owe the state whatever they demand" mindset. Both of those are false.
This debate over whether taxation is slavery is ultimately meaningless. Suppose that I grant that it is slavery. So what? Nothing has changed. You've succeeded in attributing a negative term to it but that's not much of an argument.
Clearly part of this issue is that we have different assumptions about the role of an individual in a society. You believe that an individual should have little to no legal obligation to anyone else in society. Most of us here believe differently. It's not a matter of ignorance or, as you put it, buying "the message hook, line and sinker". Ultimately, you aren't forced to live here and its not our problem if no other country satisfies your demands. If you could establish taxation as being absolutely immoral then you might have a case but I already know that you can't do that.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is the inability to change masters the most fundamental aspect of being a slave?
The inability to select one's master is implied by the conventional definition of slavery.
Don't get me wrong. I agree. But I still think that if we were shown a clear-cut example of the same sort of slavery we practiced 150 years ago, with the one difference being that slaves could petition to change masters and such petitions were always granted... we would still be repelled. And I think, chances are good, we would still call such a situation slavery.
Personally, though I am a fairly hardcore libertarian, I don't think our government is nearly as bad as all that. And I don't think we're slaves. I think that the federal government is definitely out of control, and could do with a hefty dose of libertarian principles or similar, but ultimately it's still pretty much the best thing there is currently, and there are still lots of great ways we can try to change it for the better.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixiest: If Libertarian system is so great, get a bunch of Libertarians together, buy an island, and make it work. I'm not saying love it or leave it, I'm saying put your money where your mouth is.
As fun as it may be to complain about taxes, I think it's clear that a true Libertarian government is a fantasy - it would be awesome to live in a wonderful world of peace and love where everything is always good, but we don't live in that world, so everybody has to chip in to pay for the stuff we all need.
In a Libertarian world, who pays for the fire trucks? Who pays for the bridges - not the toll, but actually building the bridge?
I think in reality, you'd have a bunch of robber barons, or fiefdoms, where the wealthy would be the only ones who could actually afford things like military (I mean "police"), roads, fire trucks, a court system, and so forth, and all the normal people would have to pay them protection (I call it tax, you call it a "use fee").
How is that any better?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: But I still think that if we were shown a clear-cut example of the same sort of slavery we practiced 150 years ago, with the one difference being that slaves could petition to change masters and such petitions were always granted... we would still be repelled. And I think, chances are good, we would still call such a situation slavery.
Well sure, but that's only one way in which Pixiest compares our current situation with slavery. It's not my only point of disagreement, but I like to take on one argument at a time.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I still think that if we were shown a clear-cut example of the same sort of slavery we practiced 150 years ago, with the one difference being that slaves could petition to change masters and such petitions were always granted... we would still be repelled.
That's far from the only objection, Dan_Frank.
It's not just, "Marse Smith, could I change massas please?" and then you go to a new plantation with a new though presumably equally bad master.
It's, "Marse Smith, me and my other slave friends aren't satisfied with the way you're doing your job. If you don't do it to our satisfaction very soon, you'll be replaced by someone we pick."
That's not slavery. By definition it's not slavery. Slaves don't get to pick their masters, and especially slaves don't get to kick their masters out if they don't like `em.
The 'only escape by suicide or violence' rhetoric is just a big pile of horses@#t.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, it's certainly possible to live "off the grid" and not pay taxes, if you hate them so much.
Yes, you may be arrested if you're caught, and yes, you lose a lot of the rights, protections, and privileges that law-abiding citizens get, but then again, you're not paying for them.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Sure, and Walter Williams is wrong for the same reason you were: slaves don't get to leave, Pix.
Therefore his definition of slavery is invalid.
Fine. Serfs. Is that better? I disagree. I think that saying, "If you stay here, you have to work for me whether you want to or not" slavery. You're adding that there has to be an inability to leave, and I think you're simply inventing that because it suits your argument.
But let that be. You'll keep repeating your unsupported and unsupportable claim that the ability to leave makes it non-slavery, and use that quibble as though it changes the moral issue in any way, and I don't feel like wasting my time with it. So let's say serfs. You think it's okay for the government, which is supposed to be our servant, to make serfs of us?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And of course, the US government has granted itself the right to have a military draft, which fails even your definition of slavery, because it includes the same inability to leave as the least black slave in the south.
The fact that the government hasn't drafted you doesn't mean that it can't. It just chooses not to.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Rakeesh: especially as, as I pointed out in a previous thread or two, a system almost exactly like ours could arise without violating any libertarian ideals: Contracts to obey sets of law^H^H^H^H^H club rules or face the proscribed penalties and include a requirement to put a group membership (including for trespassing) rider on all land sales.
And you were wrong then, and are still wrong.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I knew "love it or leave it" would pop up again.
No one is saying love it or leave it. They are saying that the fact that you are permitted to leave disqualifies the situation you are in as slavery.
But it doesn't. That was Rakeesh's invented reason for claiming it's not slavery. And when someone posted, as a point of fact, that black slaves in the south weren't pinned to one place all the time, the objection was made that this was only because the owners allowed it. They didn't have to.
But the fact is that this government has arrogated to itself the right to force each and every citizen to go where it chooses. The only thing keeping you from being forceably inducted into the military is that the government chooses to let you be. The emergency powers this government has granted itself permit it to literally put you into a train and move you elsewhere against your will, if the government perceives it to be necessary for "national security". Comfort yourself with the fact that they haven't done it yet. That's called the ostrich method.
Your freedom exists at the whim of the government. Your property exists at the whim of the government. You are a slave.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fine. Serfs. Is that better? I disagree. I think that saying, "If you stay here, you have to work for me whether you want to or not" slavery. You're adding that there has to be an inability to leave, and I think you're simply inventing that because it suits your argument.
Ha! Right, I'm 'inventing' the notion that slavery must include the inability of the slave to leave if they want to.
Where do I come up with this stuff? Man, I so crazy!
Let's not let that be, shall we? First of all, it is a supported and supportable claim. I've done so more than once, and so have others. Please for my sanity's sake if nothing else, stop this method of arguing this issue you have, wherein you state opinions as though they were facts and demand that they be treated as such. It's very, very frustrating.
So no, it's not just a quibble. And it does have support, despite whatever fiat Lisa issues.
Anyway. That's not the only reason we're not living as slaves, so don't suggest that's what I'm saying, please?
Here's the definition of 'serf' You'll note that it has a few special requirements. A member of the lowest class. Well, since we all pay taxes that's hardly true. Attached to the land. That's somewhat true given a definition of the entire country as 'the lord's land'.
But it falls apart undeniably on just one very crucial thing: serfs are compelled to work in exchange for legal rights. We citizens are not compelled to work for those legal rights. If you want to live on the streets begging for money, the only taxes you'll ever pay are sales taxes (the kind you support), and you'll still have your rights protected and respected by the government*.
So no, we ain't serfs either. Unless you go by a different definition wherein we're 'in bondage or servitude' which is a lot more vague. I suspect that's probably what you'll go with.
And at least you won't be wrong to call us serfs, the way you are about slaves.
*Of course this doesn't always happen. It's a human system.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: By the way, it's certainly possible to live "off the grid" and not pay taxes, if you hate them so much.
Yes, you may be arrested if you're caught, and yes, you lose a lot of the rights, protections, and privileges that law-abiding citizens get, but then again, you're not paying for them.
You don't have to pay for rights. Government's only justification is to defend already existent rights.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And of course, the US government has granted itself the right to have a military draft, which fails even your definition of slavery, because it includes the same inability to leave as the least black slave in the south.
The fact that the government hasn't drafted you doesn't mean that it can't. It just chooses not to.
My understanding is that you do not support taxes even for military funding, but most libertarians I've spoken to do support such a tax. I realize this argument doesn't work against your position, but it seems that if this is the one case that seals the deal for slavery, that this most clear case of slavery is one that is actually justified according to the logic of most libertarians if a tax on one's income is equivalent to a tax on one's body.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:And of course, the US government has granted itself the right to have a military draft, which fails even your definition of slavery, because it includes the same inability to leave as the least black slave in the south.
The fact that the government hasn't drafted you doesn't mean that it can't. It just chooses not to.
*bzzzzz*! Wrong! The US government gained that right from us, where incidentally the notion still enjoys some popular support. If the people (excuse me, 'slaves') decided they didn't want the government to have that right, we could take it away.
Also, it's not 'my' definition of slavery. The definition that gets scare-quoted is yours, because it's so far removed from the real one.
quote:But it doesn't. That was Rakeesh's invented reason for claiming it's not slavery. And when someone posted, as a point of fact, that black slaves in the south weren't pinned to one place all the time, the objection was made that this was only because the owners allowed it. They didn't have to.
That's not how that particular discussion went.
You don't have to be pinned to one place to be a slave all the time. You have to be unable to leave the system, among other things, to be a slave. Slaves were not permitted to just flee north.
quote:Your freedom exists at the whim of the government. Your property exists at the whim of the government. You are a slave.
No, we're not. Slaves don't get a say in how they are mastered, beyond the violent force of rebellion.
I'm going to pull a Lisa now: what I said just now? That's a fact. It's unsupported and unsupportable for you to claim otherwise.
The only difference is when I said it just now I'm not, you know, just making it up.
Words have meanings. Slavery is one of those words. You don't get to just say, "It means this," when you can clearly look at the definition and say, "No, it doesn't."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: My understanding is that you do not support taxes even for military funding, but most libertarians I've spoken to do support such a tax. I realize this argument doesn't work against your position, but it seems that if this is the one case that seals the deal for slavery, that this most clear case of slavery is one that is actually justified according to the logic of most libertarians if a tax on one's income is equivalent to a tax on one's body.
Absolutely not. Having a military and having a draft are far from the same things.
And I do, at this moment, support taxes for military funding. Not because they're moral, but because you don't get from the mess we're in now to a proper state of affairs overnight. The government is obligated to protect its citizens, and that can require a military.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I do, at this moment, support taxes for military funding. Not because they're moral, but because you don't get from the mess we're in now to a proper state of affairs overnight. The government is obligated to protect its citizens, and that can require a military.
But if the right to property flows from a right to life, and if taxes on income are a tax on one's body, then isn't a military draft merely different in quantity, not quality, from a military tax?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Slavery is alive and well in some parts of the world, so this ridiculous hyperbole is pretty hilariously offensive.
Can the board's prominent megalibertarians free themselves from the shackles of the prejudicial language fallacy, or are they too dependent on abusing terminology that they feel forced to reinvent terminology just to condem systems they dislike? will they dig themselves in deeper, sensibility be damned?
Tune in next week to find out.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Words have meanings. Slavery is one of those words. You don't get to just say, "It means this," when you can clearly look at the definition and say, "No, it doesn't."
I wonder how common this tactic is in certain circles. One of thing this that struck me most when I recently read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand was that she "proved" her point by changing the definition of commonly understood, emotionally laden words. In the case of The Fountainhead, she made up new definitions for "selfishness" (which, according to her, is good) and "altruism" (which is bad).
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
But then, I get the feeling that "just semantics" is a contradiction in terms on this forum. So saying this is by some of you probably regarded as having sex in a confession booth.
Posts: 129 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa: did you once post an argument why I was wrong? I made some fairly detailed posts about the process by which such a thing might arise, so could you show me the fallacious step or steps?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't recall. I remember thinking that you skipped steps and made assumptions, and since everyone else in the thread was actually addressing reality (as opposed to hypothetical things that have never happened), I didn't want to spend time on it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I do, at this moment, support taxes for military funding. Not because they're moral, but because you don't get from the mess we're in now to a proper state of affairs overnight. The government is obligated to protect its citizens, and that can require a military.
But if the right to property flows from a right to life, and if taxes on income are a tax on one's body, then isn't a military draft merely different in quantity, not quality, from a military tax?
No. As I said, forcing people to pay taxes is inherently immoral. It is theft. When I talk about the things that can legitimately be the last to go, when we're transitioning to a free society, and I say that involuntary taxation for the three legitimate functions of government can legitimately be the last thing to go, I'm not saying that it's okay.
Furthermore, don't get me wrong. Murder is worse than enslavement. Enslavement is worse than theft. The fact that all three things devolve from the fundamental right of a person to his own life doesn't mean that they're identical.
My right to free action and my ownership of the book sitting on the table next to me stem from the same source. But there is no question whatsoever that there is a difference between robbing me of one and robbing me of the other. And that the difference is not merely one of degree, but is qualitative.
What bugs me the most here is how people like Rakeesh simply assume that a group of individuals is entitled to take from an individual or other group of individuals. And that this can be a moral thing. They posit government as a primary, without any basis other than "might makes right". People make governments. They do not have the right to imbue a government with perogatives that they themselves do not have. They can't create legitimacy out of thin air simply by claiming it.
I don't have the right to take from you. Nor do I and a friend, even though we are majority of the three of us (me, the friend and you). There is no point at which some magic phase transition takes place and a majority becomes entitled to take from anyone against their will.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you signed a contract that said, "I agree that the following group of people have the right to take my property from me provided a certain set of procedures are followed, and in exchange that group of people must provide the following list of things and I must be able to vote for the members of it" (only in more specific and nuanced language), would they have the right to take from you?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: What was the purpose of that post?
I was reading the stuf about the defenition of slavery. And thought they are taking it far. It realy is just semantics. What's in a name? Can we get to the actual point here?
At the same tome I realised that for the people discussing this it wás the point. Also I like to read the arguments and contra arguments, where the discussions become razorsharp. So it wasn't nice to just dismiss those discussions. That was what I ment by the contradiction in terms. Discussing semantics sometimes isn't "just" a discussion. The reason I like this forum is that everything can be debated. It's fun and keeps me sharp.
I read this thread with interest without taking sides. I think libertariens have good points. I also think they go too far sometimes. So I was trying to point out the relativity of what was said without dismissing it at the same time.
Posts: 129 | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I legally don't pay taxes (too poor). So, does this mean I am not a slave? Which also means that you too could not be a slave.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Threads: You believe that an individual should have little to no legal obligation to anyone else in society.
I don't think that's true, at least for many libertarians. I personally think there should be very strict legal obligations not to directly harm any other member of a shared society. Beyond that, people should be able to help the less fortunate, in whichever way they think best, of their own free will.
Most libertarians I know do not take pleasure in the thought of poor people starving and dying in the street. They just believe that the government has no moral right to take money from the minority, keep some, and distribute the rest in whatever incredibly inefficient way makes them look most attractive to their constituents, lobbyists and special interest groups.
Also, I don't personally believe that taxation is exactly the same as slavery. But they are/were both legislated, enforced, and morally justified in equivalent ways. And although they may differ in specifics and degrees of evil, they are on the same spectrum.
In other words, just because most citizens are okay with it doesn't make it legal or morally justifiable in either case.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Furthermore, don't get me wrong. Murder is worse than enslavement. Enslavement is worse than theft. The fact that all three things devolve from the fundamental right of a person to his own life doesn't mean that they're identical.
This is a good summation of the primary argument against the use of the term "slavery" - that there are differences in quality between a tax of a portion of one's income and the complete ownership, in every sense, of everything that a person is, does, and creates which is how slavery is typically understood.
It seems to me that the goal of framing taxation as slavery is to force people to reconcile their acceptance of tax with their distaste for slavery. Because slavery is nearly universally viewed as morally abhorrent, the hope is that, given the meme "tax=slavery" that tax will be become demonized rather than slavery becoming accepted.
The problem with this approach is that it comes across as dishonest. It's attempting to demean an idea by associating it with another idea which has a strong emotional component. If taxation is an evil equivalent to slavery, then that argument should be made and stand on its own merits. You need to bring people to a place where they say "hey, tax is just like slavery", not just tell them that tax is slavery. That conclusion requires agreement on some premises that many people may disagree with. Convincing them of the merit of those premises should be the first step if you actually want to change minds.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:What bugs me the most here is how people like Rakeesh simply assume that a group of individuals is entitled to take from an individual or other group of individuals. And that this can be a moral thing. They posit government as a primary, without any basis other than "might makes right". People make governments. They do not have the right to imbue a government with perogatives that they themselves do not have. They can't create legitimacy out of thin air simply by claiming it.
I shouldn't be surprised that you're misrepresenting my statements so blatantly after your nonsense about slavery.
I don't believe taxation is moral simply because of a majority support for it. What I believe is that we are a part of a society, and as human beings we have obligations that extend past ourselves should we choose to live amongst other people.
The biggest difference between us is not our disagreement on this particular issue, it's that you completely refuse to regard your own beliefs on this subject as anything other than irrefutable fact. You talk like your reasoning is mathematics or something, with scientific proofs every step of the way.
That's a dangerous way to think. Not that I expect you to entertain that notion for even a moment.
You're not just an individual. You're also a part of a group, if you choose to be. And you're choosing to be, unless you've plugged your computer into a rock or something. If you're a part of a group, you have obligations that extend past your own individual needs.
You don't recognize those obligations? Well, that's really just too bad, isn't it? Calling taxation theft doesn't make it true (though there is a case for that), no more than your rants about taxation equaling slavery. You don't have to recognize those obligations, though. It's easy: just stop profiting by the benefits those obligations provide.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Also, I don't personally believe that taxation is exactly the same as slavery. But they are/were both legislated, enforced, and morally justified in equivalent ways. And although they may differ in specifics and degrees of evil, they are on the same spectrum.
Could you be more specific?
Because in America, slavery was legislated, enforced, and morally justified basically because a) Africans were sub-human and b) slavery was better for them.
You've got a case - it's a major stretch but it's there - for connecting taxation to 'b', but definitely not 'a'.
And of course it doesn't address the real reason for slavery, simple inhumanity coupled with profitability.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I'm on the subject, there's another problem with the current system of tax-and-spend government. It's frequently said that if I don't like something I'm always free to vote the government officials out of office.
Aside from the "this isn't a democracy" dead horse, there's another problem with that argument. I've got 1 vote to use against these people, and they have half my income to bribe people to vote against me. Not much of a contest, really.
One of the things that infuriates me most is when, every campaign season, the candidates always come out with ads describing how they fought for health care for children or tuition assistance for veterans. They talk like they went out and got a second job at Taco Bell to pay these kids' doctor bills.
Politicians didn't do a damn thing to help the underprivelaged. All they did was take the fruits of my hard labor, representing time that I could have spent with my family and money I could have given to worthy causes, and threw it around to buy votes.
Again, I'm not against these people getting this money. I love kids and veterans. I just don't think this is the way it should be done.
And I'm supposed to be able to change the system with my one vote. I don't see it happening.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Because in America, slavery was legislated, enforced, and morally justified basically because a) Africans were sub-human and b) slavery was better for them.
It's not because Africans are sub-human and slavery was better for them. It's because there were more white people than black people, and white people thought Africans are sub-human and slavery was better for them.
The majority ruled, and the human rights of the minority suffered. That's the parallel.
Posts: 563 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: If you signed a contract that said, "I agree that the following group of people have the right to take my property from me provided a certain set of procedures are followed, and in exchange that group of people must provide the following list of things and I must be able to vote for the members of it" (only in more specific and nuanced language), would they have the right to take from you?
That's what I mean by skipping steps. I didn't sign any such contract. Nor would I.
If I enter into a contract in which I agree to pay for services rendered, forcing me to pay isn't taking anything from me that's mine; it's taking something that I've already surrendered. Which is not the case when we talk about taxation.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: By the way, it's certainly possible to live "off the grid" and not pay taxes, if you hate them so much.
Yes, you may be arrested if you're caught, and yes, you lose a lot of the rights, protections, and privileges that law-abiding citizens get, but then again, you're not paying for them.
You don't have to pay for rights. Government's only justification is to defend already existent rights.
You don't pay for rights, but you certainly have to pay for the upkeep of the system if you want to enjoy the benefits which lead to and protect those rights. The right to a fair trial is meaningless if there's no court system or police force.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Aside from the "this isn't a democracy" dead horse, there's another problem with that argument. I've got 1 vote to use against these people, and they have half my income to bribe people to vote against me. Not much of a contest, really.
Or much of an accurate statement, for that matter. First off, unless you're doing very well indeed, your taxes won't amount to close to half your income.
Second, in any given election, the official hardly has access to all of your taxes anyway.
quote:And I'm supposed to be able to change the system with my one vote. I don't see it happening.
This happens when you're not an autocrat: your say is not paramount.
As for slavery and a majority overruling a minority...again (outside things like slavery), that's part of being in a group.
A football team entirely of quarterbacks would suck pretty badly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What bugs me the most here is how people like Rakeesh simply assume that a group of individuals is entitled to take from an individual or other group of individuals. And that this can be a moral thing. They posit government as a primary, without any basis other than "might makes right". People make governments. They do not have the right to imbue a government with perogatives that they themselves do not have. They can't create legitimacy out of thin air simply by claiming it.
I shouldn't be surprised that you're misrepresenting my statements so blatantly after your nonsense about slavery.
I don't believe taxation is moral simply because of a majority support for it. What I believe is that we are a part of a society, and as human beings we have obligations that extend past ourselves should we choose to live amongst other people.
And I'm saying that no one has the right to impose such "obligations" on others. You may feel that such obligations exist. Fine. Then you're entitled to make that argument and try to persuade others to pay for your pet projects. You are not entitled to get a big mob together and say, "Since very many of us agree on this, we're going to take the moral shortcut of forcing the rest of you to pay for it as well."
No one, and no group has the right to determine for another what their obligations are to others short of the simple maxim that my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The biggest difference between us is not our disagreement on this particular issue, it's that you completely refuse to regard your own beliefs on this subject as anything other than irrefutable fact.
No, I'm simply saying that positing some sort of obligation that can be imposed on others requires that a burden of proof be made. You want to say, "No, I can merely assert it, and my opinion is just as good as yours." I say that's lame. Your opinion is not as good as mine if you fail to support that burden of proof.
You know that you aren't entitled to take what's mine. You know that I'm not entitled to take what's yours. You just think that if you have enough people siding with you that you do have the right to take what's mine, and you use the fake idea of an imaginary obligation (that you can't support except by "might makes right") as an excuse for it.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You talk like your reasoning is mathematics or something, with scientific proofs every step of the way.
And you talk like everything is opinion. Like there's no such thing as logic. Like there's no such thing as anything being objectively true. Like whoever can get the bigger mob together can redefine reality.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That's a dangerous way to think. Not that I expect you to entertain that notion for even a moment.
You're not just an individual. You're also a part of a group, if you choose to be.
Yes, I am free to associate as I see fit. So long as I don't hurt anyone in the process.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And you're choosing to be, unless you've plugged your computer into a rock or something. If you're a part of a group, you have obligations that extend past your own individual needs.
Unproven and unprovable. Enforceable, yes, but that's about it. It's an assertion. It's something you want to be true. But it isn't. You're engaging in a kind of magical thinking that introduces some sort of obligation at some undefined point where a group of individuals becomes a power in and of itself, which can serve the desires of some at the expense of others.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: You don't recognize those obligations? Well, that's really just too bad, isn't it?
It's not that I don't recognize them. It's that you can't create them by simply asserting them. And that's what you're doing. "Agree or disagree, but if you disagree and act on it, I'll imprison you or rob you." That's the act of a bully. Your entire position is one of moral bullying. I'm entirely uninterested in forcing you to do anything but leave me alone. You want to impose obligations on me. That's moral thuggery.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Calling taxation theft doesn't make it true (though there is a case for that), no more than your rants about taxation equaling slavery. You don't have to recognize those obligations, though. It's easy: just stop profiting by the benefits those obligations provide.
Being protected from violence is not a benefit. It's the only justification for government in the first place. Without government, I'm entitled to protect myself however I see fit. You wouldn't like that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for slavery and a majority overruling a minority...again (outside things like slavery), that's part of being in a group.
I think that "outside things like slavery" qualifier is important to recognize, though. If one believes there are principles that trump majority rules, how does one determine when the majority should decide and when those principles should override?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: This happens when you're not an autocrat: your say is not paramount.
My say shouldn't be paramount when it comes to other people. It should absolutely be paramount when it comes to my life, my property and my freedom. Up to the fist swinging and nose thing.
My bopping you in the nose takes something away from you that's yours. My not paying for public education does not. That's the fundamental difference. You haven't the right to require me to help out with the "obligations" you think exist. You only have the right to require me not to wallop you with a stick.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: By the way, it's certainly possible to live "off the grid" and not pay taxes, if you hate them so much.
Yes, you may be arrested if you're caught, and yes, you lose a lot of the rights, protections, and privileges that law-abiding citizens get, but then again, you're not paying for them.
You don't have to pay for rights. Government's only justification is to defend already existent rights.
You don't pay for rights, but you certainly have to pay for the upkeep of the system if you want to enjoy the benefits which lead to and protect those rights. The right to a fair trial is meaningless if there's no court system or police force.
Again (and again and again and again) having the government do those things does not in any way suggest that it can fund programs. That it can fund arts and education and any of the other billion dollar boondoggles that the US government uses its ill-gotten gains for.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That question was predicated on the assumption that you had signed such a contract. It was not intended as part of the previous scenarios. Also, I wasn't talking about any specific payment for services rendered, but about a general permissions for future taking.
The previous scenarios envisioned people ending up in such contracts (beyond the initial group) because they were riders on land sale contracts and a law had been passed (entirely imaginably) by the group making the penalty for trespassing on group owned land jailing . . . unless the person jailed signed such a contract. The contract would of course be much more complicated, but you get the gist. As for why anyone would sign such a contract in the first place, starting the cycle, you should have no problem imagining that: most people find such a situation perfectly tenable; that's why people tend to be okay with the way governments work now.
When all the desirable land is bound up like that, it isn't hard to imagine even diehard randian libertarians acquiescing to such a contract.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
