NationStates Jolt Archive

So, we often hear from the capitalists that Taxes are theft. But from the other end of the spectrum we also hear that Property is theft.

This is simple. Which do you more closely adhere to? And why?

Neither are theft, but Property in some circumstances can be theft. When a rich child gets sent to a nice expensive school and despite not doing particuarly well gets a good job out of it, along with a massive inheritance from their parents, then their property is in a sense theft - they haven't done anything to earn an excessive amount of luxury and will continue for generations to provide massive advantages to their ancestors - advantages that more deserving people don't have. As a result, lazy and unfitting people get rewarded whereas hard working and intelligent people get nothing because they were unlucky enough to be born to a poor family.

Taxes actually help to stop this theft if they are used effectively by making opportunity more equal - everyone has a chance to succeed even if they come from a poor background if there is nationalised education, healthcare and welfare. Yes it is possible for poor people to achieve, but the more capitalist a country is, the rarer it is. For example, in Sweden it is almost as easy for a poor child to succeed as a rich one, but in America it is a lot tougher.

But how do you measure "success"? Is it realitive to your starting point in life, or must it be measured against the rest of society? Should you have to give up all your money upon death to ensure nothing for your children, inorder that they only succed financially on their own?

Neither are theft. Property is only theft if you take it from somebody else without their permission. Taxes would only be theft if the government didn't give anything back -- although they sure don't give enough back, they give something back.

But how do you measure "success"? Is it realitive to your starting point in life, or must it be measured against the rest of society? Should you have to give up all your money upon death to ensure nothing for your children, inorder that they only succed financially on their own?

The only way to ensure a TRUE meritocracy would to be ensure you had no contact with your parents and no disadvantages/benefits dependant on who you were born to, which is obviously not possible. It pains me when right wingers are convinced that capitalism leads to a meritocracy when it plainly doesn't - can even the most committed Bush supporter honestly say with a straight face that he would be in the position he is now if he was born to some inner city family? Of course not - he is only successful because his ancestors were successful.

Which is why taxes are needed to support the institutions available to anyone in any morally justified society. At the bare minimum you need state education to ensure the real bright sparks who can't afford education of their own can shine out, as well as some form of welfare and healthcare.

Neither are theft. Property is only theft if you take it from somebody else without their permission. Taxes would only be theft if the government didn't give anything back -- although they sure don't give enough back, they give something back.
I'm sure I (and my parents) couldn't afford all the things I've got for free or for reduced price: kindergarten, 16 years of education, health care, transportation, roads, parks, firefighters, police, army etc etc

Neither are theft. Property is only theft if you take it from somebody else without their permission. Taxes would only be theft if the government didn't give anything back -- although they sure don't give enough back, they give something back.
Tell me, would I be arrested if I took your wallet, bought breakfast for a bum, and returned the change? You might not choose to press charges but the State would consider it a criminal act. The fact that they're allowed to do it means that the government is above the rest of us; it's held to a different standards.

I don't happen to think morality has different boundaries for certain people just because they happen to work in the Capitol building.

Tell me, would I be arrested if I took your wallet, bought breakfast for a bum, and returned the change? You might not choose to press charges but the State would consider it a criminal act. The fact that they're allowed to do it means that the government is above the rest of us; it's held to a different standards.

I don't happen to think morality has different boundaries for certain people just because they happen to work in the Capitol building.

The state might say that technically they're a thief, but human morality would agree that the person who stole the wallet acted honorably. It's like Robin Hood - he's looked upon as a hero because he may have stolen, but only from people who could easily afford it, and to benefit the poor hard working peasants.

Unless of course you think Robin Hood is evil because "The sherriff of Nottingham was born to a rich family, and is therefore is intrinsically worth countless sub human peasants and deserves all his masses of gold"

The state might say that technically they're a thief, but human morality would agree that the person who stole the wallet acted honorably. It's like Robin Hood - he's looked upon as a hero because he may have stolen, but only from people who could easily afford it, and to benefit the poor hard working peasants.

Unless of course you think Robin Hood is evil because "The sherriff of Nottingham was born to a rich family, and is therefore is intrinsically worth countless sub human peasants and deserves all his masses of gold"

May I point out that Robin Hood is a myth, and real robbers generally aren't all goody-two shoes. Besides, I don't care if a thief acts "honorably" when he steals from me. It is not honorable to steal in the first place. Lastly, I find it ironic that you seem to be using Robin Hood (who stole from a government official, and from the nobility/government in general) to justify government taxing people (government stealing from the people, what the Sherif is supposed to have basically done).

"Property is theft" is not just false, it is meaningless. Theft is the crime of takeing somebody's property without the owner's consent. If there is no rightful owners of property, or if the taking is not a crime then there is no theft and that's the end of it. When Proudhon used those words he meant in a very special meaning of the word property. If you want to understand it, read his book. That which we usually call property he called possession.

Taxation on the other hand is takeing of property, and thus similar to theft. So if the law is the same for rulers as for subjects, and if there is property rights, then taxation of people who have not consented to it is theft.

Of course for 'pure' anarchists, fascists and adherents of the "social contract" (citizens give up their individuality and free will, the 'souvereign' has the 'right' to use citizens as he sees fit or to dispose of them when he doesn't want them) taxation is no more a crime than moving around one's property.

Tell me, would I be arrested if I took your wallet, bought breakfast for a bum, and returned the change? You might not choose to press charges but the State would consider it a criminal act. The fact that they're allowed to do it means that the government is above the rest of us; it's held to a different standards.

I don't happen to think morality has different boundaries for certain people just because they happen to work in the Capitol building.

Flawed analogy, as the person in that instance wouldn't be a democratically-elected government. If you can do without roads, police, a fire service, a military, schools, hospitals, etc etc, then that's fine. The rest of us quite like living in civilisation.

What would happen if all these things were privatised, though? Well, we can take a look at the American healthcare system for an example of that. I'll keep paying my taxes, thanks.

May I point out that Robin Hood is a myth, and real robbers generally aren't all goody-two shoes. Besides, I don't care if a thief acts "honorably" when he steals from me. It is not honorable to steal in the first place. Lastly, I find it ironic that you seem to be using Robin Hood (who stole from a government official, and from the nobility/government in general) to justify government taxing people (government stealing from the people, what the Sherif is supposed to have basically done).

Of course it's a myth - i'm not actually saying real robbers do that >.>. If a robber did actually steal from a rich person and used it to save the life of a poor person, I would see them as noble - they are putting their freedom on the line to help other people at the expense of people who don't need money.

And yes, because Robin Hood is set in a time of Feudalism when taxes didn't provide social welfare, health care and education for the poor - that is what the monasteries did, which were not supported by government. Taxes were only used to increase nobles personal wealth and for wars. If that was the case today with politicians, then clearly taxes WOULD be theft. But it's not, at least in all civilised countries - taxes are used to benefit the social good, and the majority of them are taken from those who have a large personal wealth, not the poor who cannot afford it.

What would happen if all these things were privatised, though? Well, we can take a look at the American healthcare system for an example of that. I'll keep paying my taxes, thanks.

What about the postal service?

And of course you'll keep paying your taxes... they will imprison you if you don't. This is a similar relationship to muggers using a knife to threaten slicing and dicing if you dont cooperate.

can even the most committed Bush supporter honestly say with a straight face that he would be in the position he is now if he was born to some inner city family? Of course not - he is only successful because his ancestors were successful.

The great Milton Friedman was the son of Jewish immigrants and brought up in a New York ghetto by his mother who worked in a sweat shop. I don't think he is the most commited Bush supporter, but he is certainly of the opinion that market based capitalism gives far more opportunity than any statist welfare system.

I meant "Can any Bush supporter claim BUSH would be where he is today if..."

And on the subject, Engels was the son of a very successful factory owner. What's that got to do with anything?

apologies, misinterpreted

What about the postal service?

And of course you'll keep paying your taxes... they will imprison you if you don't. This is a similar relationship to muggers using a knife to threaten slicing and dicing if you dont cooperate.

The British postal service was privatised and, from what I've experienced at least, is a mess.

And yes, you are punished if you don't pay taxes. Because then you really are a thief -- using things you aren't paying for. Even if you manage to avoid using any roads, or calling the police or the fire department... you're still being protected by the armed forces, you're still being protected by the police and the prison service. You're still taking advantage of services that other people are paying for. That's why taxes are compulsory. And as the vast, vast, vast majority of people actually like being protected from foreign invasion, being protected from serial killers and rapists, and being protected from fire and healed should this protection fail, it's never, ever going to end. And if you're an American, I can see you actually paying higher taxes in the future as you slowly become more and more socialist.

The British postal service was privatised and, from what I've experienced at least, is a mess.

That is because there is little incentive for the Royal Mail to be anything other than a mess because of government restricted competition. Area such as parcel delivery, where there is competition are , in my experience, pretty good, because customers will go else where if the standard drops.

And yes, you are punished if you don't pay taxes. Because then you really are a thief -- using things you aren't paying for.
That is nonsense. If I had agreed to pay for any of the government's "services" you would have a point. But I never signed any such contract, so what the government does with my money is totally irrelevant to their right to take it. If you seriously disagree, and apply the same rules in all contexts I'll come repaint your house tomorrow. My fee is $100/hour, and if you don't pay you're a thief (you got the service, right?)

Originally Posted by Krakatao
That is nonsense. If I had agreed to pay for any of the government's "services" you would have a point. But I never signed any such contract, so what the government does with my money is totally irrelevant to their right to take it. If you seriously disagree, and apply the same rules in all contexts I'll come repaint your house tomorrow. My fee is $100/hour, and if you don't pay you're a thief (you got the service, right?).
What about the grocer, then? He may not force you to hand over your money in the way that the government does, but, by your logic, isn't the grocer extorting us, using goods essential to life itself? If we don’t give him our money, he will quite literally let us starve. For most people, the only two options are compliance or death. So, if the government is a pack of thieves, wouldn’t our farmers, bakers, and chefs constitute the most vile criminal organization the world has ever known?

What about the grocer, then? He may not force you to hand over your money in the way that the government does, but, by your logic, isn't the grocer extorting us, using goods essential to life itself? If we don’t give him our money, he will quite literally let us starve. For most people, the only two options are compliance or death. So, if the government is a pack of thieves, wouldn’t our farmers, bakers, and chefs constitute the most vile criminal organization the world has ever known?

There is more than one grocer (unless you ae in a very small town) and if one is not to your liking you go to another. If one is usurious in prices you may be assured that the other will undersut their price. Neither grocer has the right (which the government assumes) to accost you and force you to pay for their groceries at any rate they demand wether you need them or not. That is the difference.

Of course it's a myth - i'm not actually saying real robbers do that >.>. If a robber did actually steal from a rich person and used it to save the life of a poor person, I would see them as noble - they are putting their freedom on the line to help other people at the expense of people who don't need money.

And yes, because Robin Hood is set in a time of Feudalism when taxes didn't provide social welfare, health care and education for the poor - that is what the monasteries did, which were not supported by government. Taxes were only used to increase nobles personal wealth and for wars. If that was the case today with politicians, then clearly taxes WOULD be theft. But it's not, at least in all civilised countries - taxes are used to benefit the social good, and the majority of them are taken from those who have a large personal wealth, not the poor who cannot afford it.

Church tithes as well werre taken in taxatrion. As a matter of fact 10% of everything the Sherif of Naughtingham took left Prince John's coffers and went to the church who was in charge of education and running orphanages. Whilst the Nobility provided roads and military. By what right? They had the troops and the power to enforce 'the public good'. Sort of like the Politburo. The Poor RobinHood gave to were those who earned their money in private industry. The rich he robbed from was the government that stole from them.

I think that our interpritation of property has to change from ownership to custodenship.

Church tithes as well werre taken in taxatrion. As a matter of fact 10% of everything the Sherif of Naughtingham took left Prince John's coffers and went to the church who was in charge of education and running orphanages. Whilst the Nobility provided roads and military. By what right? They had the troops and the power to enforce 'the public good'. Sort of like the Politburo. The Poor RobinHood gave to were those who earned their money in private industry. The rich he robbed from was the government that stole from them.

Chruch tithes mostly went to pay church members, more churches and other crap no one needed. The majority of taxes to nobility only paid for armies and personal wealth for nobles. The only small good that came out of either were roadways and monasteries.

Don't try to rewrite Robin Hood to spin it into some folktale about how great capitalism is. Right wingers would LOVE feudalism - the rich get richer, the poor get poorer and if you are unlucky unenough to be born poor then you have no chance of being educated and would most likely die at a young age from prevenatable diseases - exaclty what right wingers want. Robin Hood is about ONE GREEDY MAN - the sherriff of Nottingham - who taxed purely for personal benefit. Unless there's a hidden part where Robin Hood actually returns the tax money to the local genry, but not to the peasants because they 'deserve what they get, they are too lazy and stupid to advance in status!'

The British postal service was privatised and, from what I've experienced at least, is a mess.

Half correct: It is a mess, but it is not privatised. Yet.

Tell me, would I be arrested if I took your wallet, bought breakfast for a bum, and returned the change? You might not choose to press charges but the State would consider it a criminal act. The fact that they're allowed to do it means that the government is above the rest of us; it's held to a different standards.

I don't happen to think morality has different boundaries for certain people just because they happen to work in the Capitol building.
Why are you defining morality by legality? The act of stealing to buy breakfast for a bum (and returning the change, no less!) may be illegal, but it would be the right thing to do.

The state might say that technically they're a thief, but human morality would agree that the person who stole the wallet acted honorably.
That ain't no kind of answer! Acted honorably my ass. It'd still be a crime, and rightly so. No one should spend your money but you.

It's like Robin Hood - he's looked upon as a hero because he may have stolen, but only from people who could easily afford it, and to benefit the poor hard working peasants.
I don't happen to have any respect for that concept. Robin Hood can kiss my hairy ass.

Unless of course you think Robin Hood is evil because "The sherriff of Nottingham was born to a rich family, and is therefore is intrinsically worth countless sub human peasants and deserves all his masses of gold"
I don't subscribe to intrinsicism. As a point of fact, theft to aid the poor doesn't make it not theft.

Why are you defining morality by legality? The act of stealing to buy breakfast for a bum (and returning the change, no less!) may be illegal, but it would be the right thing to do.
Oh, look at that, he actually deigned to respond to the entire thing this time. I had honestly expected that you would select one sentence and focus on it exclusively, since that seems to be your favored MO.

My example was meant to point out that rights are inalienable, they're not contingent on the needs of some higher purpose, i.e. God, Society, or whatver else you should care to name. I'm not particularly impressed with this mentality that say's it's OK to steal as long as you do certain things with the money.

I don't happen to think legality defines morality either: a fact to which you should be fairly well acquainted by now, if you'd actually bother to read my posts past the parts that disgust you. The point here is that theft--any theft-- is a breach of property rights and should be treated as such.

Both are theft, but then again, I'm an anarchist, so what would you expect me to say?

The only way to ensure a TRUE meritocracy would to be ensure you had no contact with your parents and no disadvantages/benefits dependant on who you were born to, which is obviously not possible. It pains me when right wingers are convinced that capitalism leads to a meritocracy when it plainly doesn't - can even the most committed Bush supporter honestly say with a straight face that he would be in the position he is now if he was born to some inner city family? Of course not - he is only successful because his ancestors were successful.

Which is why taxes are needed to support the institutions available to anyone in any morally justified society. At the bare minimum you need state education to ensure the real bright sparks who can't afford education of their own can shine out, as well as some form of welfare and healthcare.

In other words, your belief is that nothing is worked for/earned... everything one has is simply obtained by chance?

How very Communist of you!

hehe

My example was meant to point out that rights are inalienable, they're not contingent on the needs of some higher purpose, i.e. God, Society, or whatver else you should care to name.

Except that rights aren't inalienable, and are contingent to a higher purpose, namely the functioning of society.

You have a right to be free, yes? What if you've committed a crime?
You have a right to free speech, yes? What if you yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre?
Rights are only provided by the society we live in. As such, they must bend to that society's needs.

You can claim that according to your ideals, you "should" have a right to something, and would be entirely correct in saying so. But those are your ideals and they may not be shared. What gives the right to impose your ideals on other people is providing the rights and protections that cause people to agree to live within the society that holds them.

There is more than one grocer (unless you ae in a very small town) and if one is not to your liking you go to another. If one is usurious in prices you may be assured that the other will undersut their price. Neither grocer has the right (which the government assumes) to accost you and force you to pay for their groceries at any rate they demand wether you need them or not. That is the difference.

There is no difference. There is more than one society. If one is not to your liking, you go to another. So long as emigration is not restricted, you are not forced to pay any particular societies taxes.

Except that rights aren't inalienable, and are contingent to a higher purpose, namely the functioning of society.
There it is folks, take it or leave it. Straight from the horse's mouth. That means this particular person thinks it's OK to dispense with your rights when it suits some higher purpose, whether doing so actually fulfills the needs of that higher purpose or not.

You have a right to be free, yes? What if you've committed a crime?
Do you really think this is a valid example? Rational freedom does not include the ability to commit crimes against other people. Do you really want to hear my rant about why the initiation of physical force is immoral?

You have a right to free speech, yes? What if you yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre?
This example is slightly better, but fails to realize that rights, like any other aspect of reality, are to be examined within their proper context. Shouting "Fire" as you describe in a theater is an irrational deployment of one's right to speech; and serves no valid purpose to speak of if uttered without good reason.

Rights are only provided by the society we live in. As such, they must bend to that society's needs.
Bullshit. Just because society might happen to think I don't have a right to decide what my hair color should be, for example, doesn't make it so. Our current administration seems to think it's morally justified to spend our tax dollars helping Iraqis rather than the Americans who paid them. Does that automatically make it so?

You can claim that according to your ideals, you "should" have a right to something, and would be entirely correct in saying so. But those are your ideals and they may not be shared.
I don't care if they're 'not shared.' That fact couldn't possibly mean any less to me. Rights exist whether my congressman chooses to acknowledge them or not.

What gives the right to impose your ideals on other people is providing the rights and protections that cause people to agree to live within the society that holds them.
Nothing gives one the right to impose their ideals on other people. I can't believe you're actually serious.

My example was meant to point out that rights are inalienable, they're not contingent on the needs of some higher purpose, i.e. God, Society, or whatver else you should care to name. I'm not particularly impressed with this mentality that say's it's OK to steal as long as you do certain things with the money.
How are rights inalienable? I've never understood this one.

I think that good ends may justify what would normally be bad means. I suspect that this is where we disagree.

(Note that I have returned to my standard modus operandi of only quoting part of your post. ;))

How are rights inalienable? I've never understood this one.
Well, because I like to think that right and wrong don't happen to be dependent on howmuch money someone else has, or how much someone else needs something that I've earned, and I think the claim that it does is an attempt to validate what amounst to a purely subjective view of things.

Rights are inalienable because they follow rationally from our existence. We obviously have the right to life; since every one of us is currently excersising that right. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that my right to stay alive can/should be taken away from me? How about yours?

I think that good ends may justify what would normally be bad means. I suspect that this is where we disagree.
Very vehemently. The ends do not justify the means, and in case you're interested in reading arguments to this effect [that heven't been responded to, I'd like to point out], one merely needs to examine my posting history.

(Note that I have returned to my standard modus operandi of only quoting part of your post. ;))
And your unwillingness or inability to answer to the entirety of my comments speaks volumes. Moreso, probably, than you're ready or willing to admit.

How are rights inalienable? I've never understood this one.

I think that good ends may justify what would normally be bad means. I suspect that this is where we disagree.

(Note that I have returned to my standard modus operandi of only quoting part of your post. ;))

So... to make an Omelet, it's okay to break a few heads?
I mean Eggs.

Very Stalinist of you. Nice one.

The Ends do NOT justify the Means, if (as usually occurs) dirty means corrupts or pollutes the ends.

Government is a necessary evil, and Taxation IS theft. Like other extensive rackets, though, you can't eliminate either one entirely. That said, the Democratic Process-based system is the best 'Control" mechanism on how much, how often, and who benefits from that racket, (and to what extent.)

Like your local Mob-Bosses, Government's primary product is force and intimidation. In this, Taxes aren't so much theft, as Extortion. The shopowner paying the local thugs to not break his windows or torch his place, for instance.

I don't care if they're 'not shared.' That fact couldn't possibly mean any less to me. Rights exist whether my congressman chooses to acknowledge them or not.
I'll ignore the baiting, though it seems to be your specialty, and we'll see if you can actually be rational in discourse as well.

I think it's this point here where we disagree. I'm of the opinion that there is no effect without cause. This includes the notion of "rights". My beliefs and experience tell me that no matter how much we want them to simply exist, they don't. The reasoning for that is because the notion of what people have "rights" to has changed over time, and will continue to do so. If rights change, they do not exist absent anything else.

As an example:
Ownership of people was once a right. It no longer is. I think we'd both agree that it was a false right.

Ownership of animals, however, still is a right. Is there a difference in kind between animals and humans? Everything a human can do, there is evidence that at least one species of animal does as well. We are unique in the combination and sophistication, but that's a difference in quality, not kind. Some humans are disadvantaged to the point where they really have no functional difference from animals. Yet they still have the exact same rights as all other humans. In that case, shouldn't animals be entitled to the same rights?

And no, I don't want to get sidetracked on the specific animal vs. human issue, I just want to know if you understand the dichotomy your stance (as I understand it) is presenting.

Except that rights aren't inalienable, and are contingent to a higher purpose, namely the functioning of society.
There it is folks, take it or leave it. Straight from the horse's mouth. That means this particular person thinks it's OK to dispense with your rights when it suits some higher purpose, whether doing so actually fulfills the needs of that higher purpose or not.
I have a feeling that you find what he said more objectionable than I do. Rights are contingent to society. Mind you, he did not say that it's OK to dispense with your rights when it suits some higher purpose even if it does not fulfil the needs of that higher purpose. You made up that part.

I'm sure that you say that any action which doesn't hurt other people should be legal. That's vague. Almost everyone agrees with that statement. People just differ on which actions hurt other people, and tom what extent.

Well, because I like to think that right and wrong don't happen to be dependent on how much money someone else has, or how much someone else needs something that I've earned, and I think the claim that it does is an attempt to validate what amounst to a purely subjective view of things.
I disagree. It is the ultimate in subjectivity to be unable, or unwilling to see beyond your own importance.

Rights are inalienable because they follow rationally from our existence. We obviously have the right to life; since every one of us is currently excersising that right. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that my right to stay alive can/should be taken away from me? How about yours?
Of course it is possible to take away your right to life, or mine. That doesn't mean I think your right to life should be taken away - but it can be.

But since you support the right to life, would you support the upholding of the right to food and water, even for those who cannot obtain it for themselves?

Very vehemently. The ends do not justify the means, and in case you're interested in reading arguments to this effect [that heven't been responded to, I'd like to point out], one merely needs to examine my posting history.

I will do that. I myself think that the ends are generally more important than the means used to acheive them because the end results have the most lasting effect for the majority of people.

And your unwillingness or inability to answer to the entirety of my comments speaks volumes. Moreso, probably, than you're ready or willing to admit.
Chill out. I saw no purpose in quoting the flamebait part of your post.

In other words, your belief is that nothing is worked for/earned... everything one has is simply obtained by chance?

How very Communist of you!

hehe

No, but a lot of what we obtain is by chance - and the more capitalist a country is the more this is so.

No, but a lot of what we obtain is by chance - and the more capitalist a country is the more this is so.

so if i get into a good college by working my arse off in high school, pay for it with federal grants, work hard in college, get the degree with honors, get the good job... it was more luck (that i was born into a white Protestant family) than hard work that got me that job?

Or, let's say I chose not to apply myself at all... sat around, did nothing... didn't work hard in school, didn't try to get into college, didn't try to get a good job... that my poverty is mostly due to bad luck?

You see, I think that attributing success to good luck and failure to bad luck is a cop-out, that the majority of successful people can attribute their success mostly to hard work... and that the majority of unsuccessful people can attribute their plight to soft work (hehe)... errr, not giving it all they had.

sure, luck is involved... but more often than not, we have at our disposal the ability to manufacture our economic status.

when you attribute things to luck, one is led to the conclusion that success is unfair and should be marginalized with the arbitrary re-distribution of wealth... which is one of the main tenets of socialism... that is:

Punish personal maximization and reward personal minimization

Taxes are not theft (but payment for services rendered by the state)

property is not theft if to get it you haven't taken from others to get it (if you've done things for them and are paid for it then thats fine but not just because you own such and such a company (i.e. you have to do something))

Property is not theft. Theft is the elimination of property.

Taxation, however, is a much more difficult topic. I personally feel that taxation used for wealth redistribution is theft, but I also feel that taxes taken by a democratic government is not theft.

Rights are inalienable because they follow rationally from our existence.

Please demonstrate this for me.

And also, while I have your attention, could you please tell me exactly what you mean by a right.

Taxes are the cost of civilization. It sucks having to pay... but would you all rather live in a tribal warfare type of a society?

Taxes are the cost of civilization. It sucks having to pay... but would you all rather live in a tribal warfare type of a society?

Yeah, imagine how much that would suck... constant war, death on a large scale, internecine fighting between 'clans.'''

Oh wait we already have that.

Taxes are the cost of civilization. It sucks having to pay... but would you all rather live in a tribal warfare type of a society?

I think Benito Mussolini once said something similar to that in defense of state control of the economy.

I think Benito Mussolini once said something similar to that in defense of state control of the economy.
What Drzhen said is true, and what Mussolini said is manipulative. Taxes are essential - EEE-SSENTIAL - to the maintenance of organised human society.

Nothing, inherently, is theft. Property is simply owning where you live, while taxes are merely a way to finance an adequete protection. It could almost be seen as a form of rent. However, execessive taxes are rent, as is any land reform attempts.

Assuming the property in question was aquired legitimately it is in no way theft. One can argue about how one defines legitimate, but that is not the issue here. Taxes are always theft. Necessary theft partly, though the US government has gone far, far beyond that currently. All of this derives from a quite simple idea really. It begins with the assumption that one owns oneself. If one owns oneself, then it follows that they own their own time and can do with it what they wish.(Note the person in question is a adult and as such has already acquired some sort of skill set, even if it's only that of competently following directions) In order to aquire the material to survive and perhaps prosper they sell their time in the form of work of one sort or another in return for legal tender accepted by other individuals for either goods they have spent their time making or selling to an end consumer(addendum, if they have some legal tender aquired already they may choose to enhance their current skill set or learn new ones at a place of learning, be it a trade school, a community college, or some sort of apprenticeship.). The end consumer tends to translate the legal tender into various forms of other property(As an aside, in order to repudiate property entirely one must essentially state that a person does not own themselves and is in fact a slave to the state, no better than an ant. Which is why IMHO communism is a bunch of bullshit.) Therefore, whenever a government taxes someone, they are taking away a person's time, equivilent to stealing parts of their life. The necessity of the taxes is another matter which I'm way too tired to get into now.

Melkor, beyond a doubt, is theft!

Perhaps I should elaborate on my opinion.

Taxes in the context of funding the government, and thus, all infrastructure and services rendered for the benefit of the citizens, is not theft.

However, depending on whose perspective, some taxes can be considered theft, such as income tax brackets, or graduated income tax from the perspective of the wealthy.

Taxes in the context of funding the government, and thus, all infrastructure and services rendered for the benefit of the citizens, is not theft.

I disagree, in a democratic form of government it may be, at least in theory, agreed upon theft but it is still theft especially when one cannot opt out even if they do not partake of services provided by said government.

Melkor, beyond a doubt, is theft!

We can all agree on that.

I'll ignore the baiting, though it seems to be your specialty, and we'll see if you can actually be rational in discourse as well.
I'm genuinely confused. That? Baiting? You can't be serious.

I think it's this point here where we disagree. I'm of the opinion that there is no effect without cause. This includes the notion of "rights". My beliefs and experience tell me that no matter how much we want them to simply exist, they don't. The reasoning for that is because the notion of what people have "rights" to has changed over time, and will continue to do so. If rights change, they do not exist absent anything else.
Rights don't change; they never have and I daresay they never will. They've just been doing a good job of actually recognizing them since the Renaissance.

But honestly, if you think that rights "don't exist" no matter how hard we want them to, we should probably nip this in the bud and head our own seperate ways right now. If you honestly hold this belief, you're everything I'm fighting to get rid of in this world.

As an example:
Ownership of people was once a right. It no longer is. I think we'd both agree that it was a false right.
I understand what you mean, but this example is flawed. A right is something you're born with, something that the government is obligated to defend. Slaves weren't passed out for free because people had a 'right' to them.

But yeah, I get your meaning; but the Government can call anything it wants a "right." It can, for example, say that it has the right to terminate my existence for no reason. Does this actually make it a right? No. The suggestion that it does is tantamount to a completely subjective view of morality, it basically allows the moralist in question to ordain anything s/he chooses as a "right."

Also, this logic can be deployed against you a little too easily. If Rights only exist because society tells us they do, then technically the "Right" to own slaves would all of a sudden become morally acceptable again provided Congress decided to vote to allow it tomorrow morning. Rights are moral principoles that sanction man's actions within a social context; they're not laws. They're not appropriations bills or tax codes or affadavits or referendums any more than they are book reports or science projects or any other written discourse.

Ownership of animals, however, still is a right. Is there a difference in kind between animals and humans? Everything a human can do, there is evidence that at least one species of animal does as well.
Ummm... except reason. Try again.

We are unique in the combination and sophistication, but that's a difference in quality, not kind. Some humans are disadvantaged to the point where they really have no functional difference from animals. Yet they still have the exact same rights as all other humans. In that case, shouldn't animals be entitled to the same rights?
No. See above. When I see a honey badger invent the wheel, we'll talk about this again.

And no, I don't want to get sidetracked on the specific animal vs. human issue, I just want to know if you understand the dichotomy your stance (as I understand it) is presenting.
Dichotomies, when invoked, are generally named. If mine is so easy to identify, the best method of understanding it would be to name it using the pertinent concepts. In order for a dichotomy to exist, the concept of "Rights" has to be at war with another concept or idea.

I have a feeling that you find what he said more objectionable than I do. Rights are contingent to society. Mind you, he did not say that it's OK to dispense with your rights when it suits some higher purpose even if it does not fulfil the needs of that higher purpose. You made up that part.
You've just contradicted yourself wonderfully. Let's examine this statement more closely, shall we?

"Rights are contingent to society," you claim. This means that Rights, as a concept, should take a backseat to certain ideals under certain circumstances, at the very least. This is how socialists and other looters get away with justifying theft to further their political agendas: they say things like "The ends justify the means" and so on and so forth.

Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=contingent) defines "Contingent" as: Dependent on conditions or occurrences not yet established; conditional. The obvious synonym here is "dependent."

A short while later, you claim that I "made up" the part about rights being contingent on the needs of some higher purpose. When your rights are dependent on the needs of society, that means they sometimes need to be compromised to suit the needs of said society. In short, your viewpoint holds that whenever one's rights and society's 'Rights' [as if the concept can even be applied to anything other than the individual. We'll assume for the time being that it can] come into conflict, society's wins out. Hence, 'contingent' on the needs of a higher purpose.

I'm sure that you say that any action which doesn't hurt other people should be legal. That's vague. Almost everyone agrees with that statement. People just differ on which actions hurt other people, and tom what extent.
Yes, and the reason we're arguing about it right now is because some people hold the wholly inscrutable belief that my putting money in a savings account is tantamount to the application of force on the lower class.

Also, it's not really that vague if you're prepared to think about it for a few moments. Then again, we could outlaw all interaction if we were interested in keeping people from impinging on others altogether. For example, it would technically 'hurt' someone else by pushing them out of business on virtue of their own incompetence, but that doesn't mean we should shut down all private industry because someone might lose his savings on a gamble.

I disagree. It is the ultimate in subjectivity to be unable, or unwilling to see beyond your own importance.
A surprisingly weak outing. Care to explain why, or would that be too much work?

Of course it is possible to take away your right to life, or mine. That doesn't mean I think your right to life should be taken away - but it can be.
OK, but you see, when you violate a Right, that doesn't mean that the Right doesn't exist anymore, and it damn sure doesn't mean it never did. It just means that some force-wielder somewhere has no respect for them. Completely invalid.

But since you support the right to life, would you support the upholding of the right to food and water, even for those who cannot obtain it for themselves?
Glad to see you caught this one. I've ranted on for ages about the right to life before and none of your comrades bothered to take advantage of what appears to me a major epistemic flaw in my thinking.

The right to life does not mean the right to the tools of life. Man, alone of all the creatures on the planet, survives by the process of manipulating his environment. Animals, for the most part, must subsist themselves with the metaphysically given; humans have to adapt their environments to create food, shelter, and so on. This means that the right to life entails the right to undergo the volitional, goal-oriented process that life entails; it is a right to the motion of life and wherever that motion should carry you.

It does not mean that people by default have a right to the products and technologies of other men, because to suggest this is to say that a man has the right to live as an animal; with everything given to him he must adjust to [and live off of] the products of others. The notion that all people have a right to certain man made things is a somewhat wishy-washy one.

Besides, food and water can be found in nature, they are not always contingent on the labors of others. Technically speaking, you have a right to food and water in the sense that it wouldn't be wrong for you to kill a deer and eat it, or to drink from a spring or a river. We have these rights you speak of, but they shouldn't come at the expense of someone else's labor. That is, if that someone else doen't want it to.

I will do that. I myself think that the ends are generally more important than the means used to acheive them because the end results have the most lasting effect for the majority of people.
It never ceases to amaze me that, after all the atrocities justified by this terrible and morally unwieldly phrase, so many people continue to espouse it. If the ends justify the means, then why don't we kill all the black people in this country? It would certainly lower our crime rate. But which is the bigger evil? What allows you to make the decision? Just because you think you have a social conscience, that means you're the arbiter of just which means are justified and which aren't?


Chill out. I saw no purpose in quoting the flamebait part of your post.
Bullshit. I know what flamebaiting is, and I've never done it anywhere near this forum. If you would be so kind as to humor me by providing said quote now, I'll be more than happy to take it to the other mods so you can get their assertation that I don't do that shit, since obviously you're not prepared to trust my assessment.

I don't flame, and I don't bait. I'm extremely confrontational and very contentious, but that doesn't mean I sling crude insults at people or invite them in the manner in which you describe. If you can't answer my questions, then don't answer them [as you have been doing]. Don't accuse me of this nonsense just to exonerate yourself.

I'm going to say property because I have discovered that being a commie is better than being a Libertarian. I get to be even more selfish, by demanding that everyone else support any heroin habits I may want to develop, but without all that demanding stuff about working for what you want. Then I get to bitch that I never succeed in life, blame capitalists for everyone's problem, and still think that I'm a great person!
WHEE!!
*Steals from his neighbors, and donates 50% to a local charity, gotta keep some money so that I'll be able to survive till tommorow so as to steal again*
BURN, you capatalist infidels, BURN!!!!!!!

What about the grocer, then? He may not force you to hand over your money in the way that the government does, but, by your logic, isn't the grocer extorting us, using goods essential to life itself? If we don’t give him our money, he will quite literally let us starve. For most people, the only two options are compliance or death. So, if the government is a pack of thieves, wouldn’t our farmers, bakers, and chefs constitute the most vile criminal organization the world has ever known?
Ahhh! Am I the only one who see a difference between a threat and an offer? The grocer offers you stuff that you wouldn't have if he didn't exist. IF you CHOOSE to pay him he gives you something, if you don't pay him he leaves you alone to fend for yourself. You can still grow food in your garden, or buy it from somebody else or whatever you want. The grocer never hurts you.

Ahhh! Am I the only one who see a difference between a threat and an offer? The grocer offers you stuff that you wouldn't have if he didn't exist. IF you CHOOSE to pay him he gives you something, if you don't pay him he leaves you alone to fend for yourself. You can still grow food in your garden, or buy it from somebody else or whatever you want. The grocer never hurts you.
But he does force you, because Obviously there is only one grocer in the entire world.
Also, people can't grow food, that would require them to actually do something for the betterment of themselves, and if they start doing that, they might reach a point where they don't need government aid, and we all know where that leads. Reduction of bureacracy, more money (and thus power) for the people, fewer government handouts, self-reliance, death of socialist whinings, verification of objectivism, abolute Hell, I tell you!

Bullshit. I know what flamebaiting is, and I've never done it anywhere near this forum.

Glad to see you caught this one. I've ranted on for ages about the right to life before and none of your comrades bothered to take advantage of what appears to me a major epistemic flaw in my thinking.

Well, the above certainly seems to be insulting and condescending. But, whatever, it's not my fight.

The right to life does not mean the right to the tools of life. Man, alone of all the creatures on the planet, survives by the process of manipulating his environment. Animals, for the most part, must subsist themselves with the metaphysically given; humans have to adapt their environments to create food, shelter, and so on. This means that the right to life entails the right to undergo the volitional, goal-oriented process that life entails; it is a right to the motion of life and wherever that motion should carry you.

This is what I'm really interested in.

Now suppose that someone were to lock up another person against his/her will, preventing him/her from following the process of life you described. Certainly, assuming the confinement were quite serious, this could be treated as essentially killing a person, depriving him/her of life.

In the above case no 'tools' were provided and the process of life was stiffled. Clearly this is killing to a certain degree.

What if the imprisonment occured in a vast but barren desert. 'Tools' are denied, but the prisoner has a freedom to move about and manipulate his/her enviroment. According to your definition, there is no killing in this case. It's up to the prisoner to turn sand into wine and bread.

What if the imprisonment occured in a palace where the prisoner had all the 'tools' of life but very limited freedom? That person could speak, study, dance, sing, etc but couldn't work for him/herself or manipulate his/her enviroment? The person is clearly alive with some freedom, but not the critical freedom you argued for above. Is this person dead? Wouldn't he/she respond negatively to someone stabbing him/her to death? I mean, if the prisoner is dead why does he/she care if someone would?

Now I expect you to respond that in the third case that the process still exists, it's just that the goals are differant. That is acceptable I suppose. Still though, you would then seem to be suggesting that any goal (except for one that is "immoral" of course) would be sufficient regardless if physical life is threatened or not and if effort can be translated into some form of tangible property.

Bascially, your distinction of 'tools' and 'motion' or process is meaningless. People are certainly alive, and you say they have a right to it, and we know that there are certain things you need to live. Food, water, shelter and so on. Living only requires these things, it doesn't require you to make them yourself. Depriving someone of such things is a direct, in a certain sense of the word, attempt to kill someone. Depriving someone of the freedom(or right) to fend for themselves doesn't necessarily lead to that person's death. Depriving someone of the freedom of self-determination does't lead to death, just a sad life.

Oh, and you haven't answered my previous question. Please demonstrate the rationality that leads to inalienable rights or at least reference the person that told you there is such a rationality.

Blargh, it ate up my post; it was a good length too. I'll take another stab at it later, but don't think I'm bowin' out just yet ;)

At any rate, I'll describe my logic, but I can almost assure you you won't care for it at all. Most of the rest of you probably won't either.

Well with regards to asking you about the rationality behind the rights you puport, I'm not convinced either way I'm just truly curious. I haven't read much in the way of objectivism or liberalism as they relate to matters of moral philosophy and so I'm looking forward to your reply.

I'm genuinely confused. That? Baiting? You can't be serious.You have a habit of selectively mis-quoting people in order to set up a straw-man that you can then righteously take down. I had a choice, either you do it purposefully and it's baiting, or you honestly don't see it and you're simply obtuse. I don't think you're obtuse.

But honestly, if you think that rights "don't exist" no matter how hard we want them to, we should probably nip this in the bud and head our own seperate ways right now. If you honestly hold this belief, you're everything I'm fighting to get rid of in this world.Fortunately here is an example of what I just pointed out. I never said rights "don't exist", I said I don't think that "rights simply exist." Perhaps I shouldn't have removed the "a priori" that I had when I first wrote it, but I thought the meaning was obvious and the wording pretentious with it in. However, since there's some difficulty with interpretation going on here, I'll strive to be more clear in the future.

So, to clarify, my beliefs are that rights do not simply exist a priori, or in other words, that rights have a cause.

I understand what you mean, but this example is flawed. A right is something you're born with, something that the government is obligated to defend. Slaves weren't passed out for free because people had a 'right' to them.

But yeah, I get your meaning; but the Government can call anything it wants a "right." It can, for example, say that it has the right to terminate my existence for no reason. Does this actually make it a right? No. The suggestion that it does is tantamount to a completely subjective view of morality, it basically allows the moralist in question to ordain anything s/he chooses as a "right."
Actually, you don't quite get my meaning. The government has nothing to say about it. Society does. As I'm sure you're aware, the two are nowhere near synonomous. For the same reason, your example of the moralist also fails, as a moralist is not society. Rights are conferred by the society that a person is in.

Also, this logic can be deployed against you a little too easily. If Rights only exist because society tells us they do, then technically the "Right" to own slaves would all of a sudden become morally acceptable again provided Congress decided to vote to allow it tomorrow morning.Except you're still basing this on the false assumption that the government is what confers rights. The government is only what enforces the rights that society chooses.

Rights are moral principoles that sanction man's actions within a social context; they're not laws. They're not appropriations bills or tax codes or affadavits or referendums any more than they are book reports or science projects or any other written discourse.
Absolutely agreed. My point is that the rights can change if that social context changes, because there is nothing inalienable about them. Do I think it would be great if certain rights were inalienable? Sure. But they're simply not.

Ummm... except reason. Try again.
Here we're speaking about animals. Unfortunately, you're wrong. Chimpanzee's have shown the ability to reason in figuring out puzzles. Apes have shown tool-making abilities when they strip the leaves off a branch in order to get ants or termites out of their nests. When the handlers of dolphins decided to reward the animals extra whenever new behaviors were shown, the dolphins quickly learned to be creative with their performances.

And of course you still missed my other example, when a human is developmentally handicapped to the point where they do not have the capacity to reason, do they lose their rights at that point? Can we use them as we would a cow in good conscience?

No. See above. When I see a honey badger invent the wheel, we'll talk about this again.Obviously it won't happen. Just as a whale will never see us swim unaided to the depths of the ocean that they reach. However, you're using another straw-man argument here. I never said all animals, or even any particular one, will show the sophistication of man, I merely said that the differences are of degree, not kind.

Dichotomies, when invoked, are generally named. If mine is so easy to identify, the best method of understanding it would be to name it using the pertinent concepts. In order for a dichotomy to exist, the concept of "Rights" has to be at war with another concept or idea.No, the dichotomy is that your concept of "inalienable" is at war with the concept of "social context", and you've somehow managed to position "Rights" at the center.

Perhaps another thought experiment will help clarify.
If man has always had rights, than we can assume his ancestors did.
Unless you subscribe to creationism and Adam and Eve, we must then also conclude that neanderthal man also had the same rights, for a neanderthal man was the ancestor of a modern man.
Yet if a neanderthal man did, then obviously a great ape did as well, for at some point, an ape was an ancestor to a neanderthal.
But if an ape did, then we go back to even earlier mammals, and so on down the line until we get to the origins of life.

Now, if everything from the origins of life has the same rights man does, and one of the rights man has is the right to not have violence used upon them, what, exactly, do you eat?

Neither is theft.

Property isn't theft, provided you didn't steal it.

Taxes aren't theft, provided they go to your benefit. For instance:
Funding a military to protect you from threats outside the border benefits everyone. Not theft.
Funding police to protect your rights and property from threats within benefits everyone. Not theft.
Welfare checks benefit some at the expense of others. Theft.

You have a habit of selectively mis-quoting people in order to set up a straw-man that you can then righteously take down. I had a choice, either you do it purposefully and it's baiting, or you honestly don't see it and you're simply obtuse. I don't think you're obtuse.
Just thought I'd answer to this first before I head out to work: You're out of your mind. I always quote every post in its entirety, and I never leave anything out or take anything out of context. Go ahead; look me up sometime. You'll notice I have a propensity for rebutting ceaselessly.

"Straw man" is a term that gets thrown around on this site, and nine times out of ten I'm not particularly impressed with peoples' attempts to identify them. This is certainly not an exception.

Also, if I'm baiting, go ahead and complain to the other mods or an admin. Short of that, please get out of my face with this bullshit.

Neither of these are theft. As people have said above, taxes are essential to maintain civilisation. We aren't a bunch of self-sufficient anarchists tending seperate fields and relying entirely on our own work. You can delude yourself all you like, but you only have the ability to provide for yourself in the manner you do because you are part of society. As an intrinsic part of society is inequality, there's nothing morally wrong with supporting those at the bottom.

And as for the grocer example, the problem is you aren't forced to pay tax. No-one is forcing you to stay in the country you live in, or to earn any income. You can live off the land or leave, and that's the equivalent of not buying food from the grocer.

I didn't speak to the animal v. human issue in my responce mostly because I don't see the significance of distinguishing man and animal, perhaps it is only relevant in the context of a debate on the morality of imprisoning, killing and eating animals.

But Waterkeep raises an interesting question or set of questions:

If man has always had rights, than we can assume his ancestors did.
Unless you subscribe to creationism and Adam and Eve, we must then also conclude that neanderthal man also had the same rights, for a neanderthal man was the ancestor of a modern man.
Yet if a neanderthal man did, then obviously a great ape did as well, for at some point, an ape was an ancestor to a neanderthal.
But if an ape did, then we go back to even earlier mammals, and so on down the line until we get to the origins of life.

If rights are traceable upwards does that suggest, in looking from another point of view thereby not changing any signficant aspect of this experiment, that rights are inherited by new species. And if that is so does that mean that every living thing today has such rights?

That "interesting question" about animals and evolutionary theory is mediocre at best. Rights cannot exist without the faculty to perceive and understand them, i.e. reason. Primates don't have rights because they only have a sensory awareness of the world around them and cannot reason or grasp complex concepts like we can. We have rights because we can understand our relationship with the world on a conceptual level.

I am prepared to say that my ancestors had the same rights I do, insofar as modern man has always had these rights. You talk about me throwing around straw men, then turn around and in your next breath endorse gross distortions like these. Primates are not Man. Man may be a primate, but it's utterly ridiculous to try and make that connote in any meaningful way to the concept of 'rights.'

If you're asking when they developed, I honestly can't answer that since I'm not an antrhopologist. Apparently, the best working guess in the scientific community claims that modern man has been in existence for 10,000 years or so.