quote:You can HAVE a robust charity system without making it the law of the land. Those who wish to give, CAN!
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."
Look, something Tom and I agree on!
Ok, who had June 4 in the pool?
I don't know- did hell freeze over today?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looking at the lifeboat analogy from another point of view: the other three people would like the non-rowing person to leave them alone. His weight is making it more difficult for them to move the boat. His very presence is preventing the other three from reaping the full benefits of their labor.
What we do affects other people, in almost every case. The fruits of my labor aren't produced in a vacuum. In an earlier era, with no treatment for my condition (something random that happened to me, not my doing nor anyone else's), I would likely be dependent on some form of charity because I would not be able to work. Because society has chosen to fund research, I am able to receive treatment and I can work. Some of that came from freely contributed labor, but some was taxpayer-funded.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"How is any of that possible without all of us paying taxes?"
Private toll roads built and owned by Halliburton. Halliburton creating private military forces to protect paying customers. Halliburton building a civil police force (or better, just using said private military) and adding on extra fees.
It'd probably cost a ton, though.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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?
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
But you have no problem sitting in the lifeboat, stealing from the other three people for the simple reason that they disagreed with you.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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: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.
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.
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: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.
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.
Suppose someone comes to my door and asks to use my bathroom. I'll make an estimation of that person, and then I'll decide whether to allow it. A lot of things might go into my decision. If it's a guy and he looks shady, I'll probably say no. If it's a woman and she's got a 5 year old kid with her jumping up and down, I'll probably say yes. Bottom line, though, is that I get to decide. But I can see someone trying to put a law in place stating that I'm liable either criminally or civilly if I say no, unless I can show a clear and present danger that I'm trying to prevent by saying no.
I'm sure a case could be made for that as well. But it would be a bad case. I think the idea that everyone is entitled to free travel to wherever they might want to go is similarly bad. I most certainly think that requiring others to enable that travel is definitely bad.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
But you have no problem sitting in the lifeboat, stealing from the other three people for the simple reason that they disagreed with you.
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.
When you make a choice in the world, you have to take reality into account. When the people in the boat decide to row in one direction, the elements that comprise that choice include, "There's someone in the boat who doesn't want to, and will not, participate in the rowing." They have to decide, given that reality, do they still want to row in the direction they've chosen?
They have options. Valid, ethical options. They can attempt to persuade me to join them. Maybe one of them is wearing a backpack that contains food, and maybe I don't have any. They could offer me some in exchange for my changing my mind. After all, I have no more claim on someone else's food than someone else has on my labor. I have to make choices as well.
I don't have a right to force them to go the way that I want. They don't have the right to force me to go where they want. So we try and work things out. If we can't, we can't. Then either we sit there until one of us has a change of heart, or they go ahead and row as they like.
I'm actually a little surprised that no one has asked, "What if the three people start rowing in one direction, and you, the one other person, take an unused oar and start rowing in the opposite direction." Because I have the right to do that as well. I don't have a right to wrestle an oar away from the other people and do so, and they don't have the right to take my oar. So when they make their decision, the fact that I'm holding an oar has to be taken into account 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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What are you defining as rights? I would argue that it is immoral for you to row against the group, just as it would be immoral for the group to dump you over. But both options are certainly things which can be done.
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
Only if you can show where scholarette so objected.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Go ahead. I mean, you say, "I would argue that it is immoral for you to row against the group." Can you please do so? Saying that you think it is isn't the same as arguing that it is. Not to get too Pythonesque about it, but an assertion isn't an argument.
Why would my rowing against the group be any more or less moral than the group rowing against me? Because there's more of them?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
Only if you can show where scholarette so objected.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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.
But the reality is that there are other people. And that they don't exist to serve me. And that when I choose to drive, if I choose to drive when there's a lot of traffic, it's going to cost me more. If the three other people in the boat want to wait until I fall asleep, they can probably row without any interference from me.
As for finding land, if my rowing turns out to have prevented us from going over a waterfall, or from making landfall where there turns out to be a group of hungry cannibals, all three of them will have benefited from my actions, despite having put no work into it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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?
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. 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: 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.
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."
Or did you, in fact, know about that and take the job anyway? There's some agreement for you right there.
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.
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: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.
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.
quote: 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.
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.
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.
You're not.
quote: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.
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. *general 'you'. **'I' meaning society at large.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
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".
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: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?
Roads are paid for by the gas tax, which is a user fee for driving. User Fees are Libertarian Approved.
Safety issues are also Libertarian approved as they are the REASON we have government.
As to how to obtain funding for the military, the police/courts/etc... Lisa thinks voluntary taxes would work. I'm not sure I agree with her on that. Unless, to use any civil service you have to prove you've paid for them or cut a check for 3 years worth of taxes on the spot. I think that would make people more reluctant to report crimes... but I digress...
Personally, I think an involuntary tax is required to pay for security issues. However, as taxation IS immoral in all cases, we must do all that is humanly possible to make sure that as little is taken in taxation as possible.
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.
2> When crafting the tax laws, keep in mind that the object of the laws is to get enough revenue to run the government. It is not to Punish wealth, get even with anyone, or do Social Engineering.
3> Make sure everyone who votes pays SOME tax. If everyone knows the pain of taxation, they will be reluctant to raise taxes on others. Assuming they are good people. If we assume they are not good people, a Flat Tax is required. That way you can't raise the tax on someone else without raising it on yourself. This is not in conflict with #2. This is to make sure the government stays true to #2.
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.
6> Require any Bond, municipal, federal, whatever, receive a super majority (2/3s maybe? 3/4s would be better)of the voters before it passes. People are incredibly stupid with credit cards and they vote for people who are just as stupid. Our national, state and local debts reflect the fiscal ineptitude of the voters. Bonds make everything more expensive, not less. If you need to pass a bond to do it, you can't afford it. Save bonds for things that will pay for themselves, like bridges and airports (yay user fees.) The sad thing is, no matter where I have lived, it doesn't matter if it's a liberal or conservative area, Bond measures almost *always* pass. This needs to end.
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.
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.
Edit: Now, maybe they aren't paying enough to really offset the trouble they're causing you. That's easily fixed by congestion charges, though, if only the owner of the road (the government, in this case, but the argument is the same for private owners) would get its act together.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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?
This isn't a gotcha - I don't have any real-life situation in mind. I'm just wondering how the Libertarian/Objectivist philosophy would handle this case.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
I wasn't sure what to say. Since I don't live in Iceland, I continue to state that your claim is invented.
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. Or why you consider that ethically valid.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM: You're confusing Libertarianism with Anarchy. Don't worry. Lots of people do. Government exists to protect us from force and fraud.
Matt: And if we assume the sky is mauve, what colour would water be?
Social programs don't prevent crime. Social programs ARE crime. Further, they create a dependant class that relies on social programs across generations.
Worse, because of social programs, we have to import our labour because "There's some jobs Americans just won't do." If it was work or starve I think that wouldn't be the case.
Tom and Rivka: Our definition of Robust is obviously different. But then again, charities are still doing a lot, even with government muscling in on their turf. Goodwill, The Salavation Army, The Dread Cross.. Imagine the charities that would exist if the government wasn't taking such a huge chunk of everyone's money and spending it on administrators.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't view taxes as a theft because I think of the government as an initial investor. They set up a system where I have a chance to succeed (roads to get to work, police to limit crimes, an educated population to support business, overall financial system). By using these things, I accept them as an investor and therefore, they deserve a share of the profits. While I never formally agreed to this, I took their benefits and used them. Without those benefits, I would not have the successes I have. Soo, like a responsible business, I provide my investors with a share in my success.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:KoM: You're confusing Libertarianism with Anarchy. Don't worry. Lots of people do. Government exists to protect us from force and fraud.
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.
quote: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.
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?
quote:I wasn't sure what to say. Since I don't live in Iceland, I continue to state that your claim is invented.
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Social programs don't prevent crime. Social programs ARE crime. Further, they create a dependant class that relies on social programs across generations.
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.
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?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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?
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.
quote: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.
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".
quote: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.
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.
See, you don't get to decide what's important and what isn't. Not for me. You're entitled to your opinion, but you aren't entitled to set that opinion up as fact, and use it as an excuse to rob me.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: 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.
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."
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.
quote: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.
Not in the slightest. An "agreement" under threat of violence? Don't be silly.
quote: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.
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?
When an employer hires me, it's the same trade. He gives me money, I give him time and labor and my brilliant skills. Who has the right to come and say, "Either pay us for that exchange, or refrain from the exchange"? No one.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: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.
Nonsense, unless you somehow believe that your taxes go for services that are as useful as washing your mostly clean windshield on your car.
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.
Other than police, army and courts, there isn't a single thing that my taxes go for that I am willing to pay for.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: So it's not a moral equivalent at all.
Bad premises lead to bad conclusions.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: 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.
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.
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.
In 99% of the foreseeable circumstances, I'd give the person the penicillin. I'd also bill him for it, but why shouldn't I?
A few years ago, I was living in Santa Cruz, California. One day, I was getting onto Highway 15 going north, and I saw a couple of teenage kids standing on a little traffic island with a sign saying that they wanted money to go to Chicago.
Well, how many people want to go from Santa Cruz to Chicago? I did, but I have family here, and religiously, the facilities are a billion times better. Other than that, it's kind of unusual.
I pulled over and parked, and walked all the way back to the traffic island, and asked them what the deal was. It turns out that the boy (it was a boy and a girl) was from a place called Barrington, in the Chicago area. He was going to college, but he decided to go out to Santa Cruz for the summer and bum around. Which he did. He met this girl there, and they made some bad decisions, and were basically out of money.
The kid wanted to go back to Barrington so that he could go back to college. I asked him how much they needed for train tickets. He told me. I asked him how much he had all together. He told me. The difference was something like $100. I had him walk with me a couple of blocks over to an ATM, and pulled that out. Understand, that was a huge amount for me. Not trivial at all. But the way I saw it, this was a kid who was trying to improve himself. He was doing something that I approved of, and I felt that it was something I wanted to help with.
I also wasn't 100% sure he wasn't scamming me, so I went with him to buy the tickets, which he did.
I never found out what happened to them. Had someone tried to coerce me into giving so much as a dollar to them, I would have objected to the immorality of it. But I shelled out money I couldn't really afford of my own free will.
I'll pay large sums for things I deem important. I won't, except under thread of imprisonment and violence, pay a penny for things I haven't willingly chosen to pay for.
That's the moral difference that you seem to be missing here.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: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.
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.
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.
quote: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.
Some would say that the earth is flat.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
So you'll so kindly allow me to risk imprisonment? That's good of you.
If I choose to trade my skills for something of value, no one has the right to tell me, "Either pay for the privilege, try and avoid paying and go to jail if you get caught, or stop trading your skills for something of value."
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except that I'm entitled, by right, to trade what is mine with someone else.
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
I'm not a Libertarian. I'm a libertarian.
quote: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.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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: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.
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.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote: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.
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?
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.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I wasn't sure what to say. Since I don't live in Iceland, I continue to state that your claim is invented.
Then I think I would refer you to the various English settlements on the western coastline of the US.
I live in Chicago. Does that help?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except that I'm entitled, by right, to trade what is mine with someone else.
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.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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.
quote:I live in Chicago. Does that help?
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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.
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where the libertarian ideal failed in real life.
40 years ago my parents bought some property as part of a sub-division. They chose a end lot with three neighbors. To get to their house they drove on a private road for about a mile.
There was an agreement signed when they bought the lot. Each home owner would pay a set amount into a road fund. Then as needed, the neighbors would gather together and fix, clear, or prepare the road.
Within one year a pattern emerged that exists to this day.
Whether the problem was filling pot holes, clearing ice, or eventually, the paving of the once rock road, the people who lived near the entrance to this road were served first.
Everyone needed to use that part of the road, so everyone helped and made sure that the road was well taken care of.
However, as the road went deeper and deeper into the sub-division, more and more people dropped off of the work crews, fewer and fewer supplies were available to finish the job, and less demand was put into getting the job done.
When the road was bad, payments into the road fund were given. When the road was mostly good, the funds dried up. Getting the last 1/4 mile de-iced, paved, or fixed was never completed.
The road had many branches, and it was the same at every branch. Many who lived at the ends of the road complained and stopped paying into the road fund completely. Why should they? The road in front of their house never got fixed.
Some at the beginning of the road refused to pay. Why should they? They hardly used the whole road, and everyone else needed the part in front of their house. It would get fixed for the others, so they didn't need to bother.
The moral contract to pay was broken when the road wasn't fixed or when the payments weren't made.
Either side could have taken it to court, but the costs of going to court were more than the payments requested.
Eventually, two or three hard working individuals did most of the work, paid most of the costs, and kept the road going. It was inefficient, nobody thought it just, everybody felt robbed either of time or work or money or that a better, less dusty, less potholed road could have been built by others.
Oh, and Lisa--your idea that it is up to us to prove that since you are already here, you have a right to stay here and the Governments taxes need to leave? You do realize that taxes were here long before you.
Or to build yet another analogy. Did you ever have a roommate? One that was supposed to pay their share of the rent? Did they ever decide that one day, the rent was too much? Did they ever just stop paying the rent? They could sit in front of the TV and talk about how the cost of rent was unfair, and that it was wrong to steal their money just to pay rent.
But the other people sharing that apartment have the right, and the responsibility, to tell that person--Pay or Leave.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: (Tragedy of the Commons story)
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My basic argument is that people complaining about taxes, calling them slavery or theft, are making an outright absurd argument, particularly when they're doing so on an internet board.
Move somewhere with no taxes and see how awesome it is. Instead of the government taking your money, you can pay off the courts to make sure they enforce your contracts, pay off the police and fire to make sure they don't let criminals know your house is fair game. Pay off the military to ensure that your city isn't invaded by a neighboring city's militia. Then you can carry a sack of gold and a gun to protect it, because there's no standardized currency and anything you own is only as safe as you're willing to pay someone else to make it, or protect it yourself.
I don't buy your assertion that anything would be better with no taxes - I assert that things would be much worse. There are ample test cases of countries with high taxes and countries where you don't have to pay taxes but you do have to pay protection money.
Say what you like, but it looks to me like you're voting with your feet.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The government should provide the direct law enforcement, and you're free to start a foundation to provide the programs.
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?
It seems that if we are going to force people to pay a tax support an ends (decrease crime) that we should be doing so in the most cost-effective means possible. If preventative programs are more effective than punitive programs, and that can be demonstrated empirically, then shouldn't that where some portion of the money should go? Otherwise we're not only stealing their money, but we're wasting it too.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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.
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".
quote: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.
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."
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The government should provide the direct law enforcement, and you're free to start a foundation to provide the programs.
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?
quote: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.
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."
The irony is so thick you could cut it with a spoon.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Again, I'm only arguing for empirically demonstrable benefit. "Basketball courts" and "YMCA" are just shorthand - I have no idea whether either of those actually provides an such benefit.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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."
The irony is so thick you could cut it with a spoon.
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.
[ June 05, 2008, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
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.
Is the YMCA funded by the government? I doubt it.
quote: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?
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.
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?
This is sort of like the public school/private school thing. Suppose I set up an organization that offers free classes for teens. I raise the money, I get the people to work there, and I start it up. And I think that these will be much more effective than basketball courts. Why do you get to force me to pay for basketball courts when I'm already spending my money and my time on something for that same purpose?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
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."
The irony is so thick you could cut it with a spoon.
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?
I have already. It's directly derivable from my absolute right to my own life.
quote: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.
More hand waving. There was nothing in the papers I signed that said any such thing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
