NationStates Jolt Archive

Because initiating force upon other citizens is not excersizing "freedom," it's using brute force to get what you want. The police exist because my fist's rights end where your nose begins, and thats the way it should be in any country that wants to call itself "free."

Again, more wanton strawmanning from the left. You guys are really good at that. That said, police can take away our freedoms if it's poorly handled, such as the Gestapo in Nazi Germany or the KGB in Soviet Russia.

Sorry, I don't see why you get to decide (or society on my behalf) when MY (that's me as an individual) right to be left alone by the state ends.

Surely that's just the same as what you've been arguing against?

The same goes for parking tickets etc etc

Sorry, I don't see why you get to decide (or society on my behalf) when MY (that's me as an individual) right to be left alone by the state ends.
Ummm...what? Are you saying you want the state to hassle you for every little thing? I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here.

And, by the way, I don't make that decision, reality does. Entities are not the ultimate arbiters of ethics, existence is.

Nice, avoid the question & try to change the subject.

Mate, you've been completely called on this one, you've admitted society (or a group of people) CAN make a decision to go over the persons rights, for a greater good. Arrest is to kidnap what tax is to stealing, your argument that it is morally wrong is thus swept away by this as you can now only argue degrees, which doesn't lend itself well to moral right/wrongs.

I presume you'll continue to argue your point, make sure you get a large spade, that's a hell of a hole you'll be trying to dig yourself out of

Nice, avoid the question & try to change the subject.
Bull-fucking-SHIT

To recap, since you've obviouslt already forgotten:

You: "I don't see why you get to decide (or society on my behalf) when MY (that's me as an individual) right to be left alone by the state ends."

Me: "I don't make that decision, reality does. Entities are not the ultimate arbiters of ethics, existence is."

I quite obviously answered your goddamn question. Put a fucking sock in it.

Mate, you've been completely called on this one, you've admitted society (or a group of people) CAN make a decision to go over the persons rights, for a greater good.
Then why didn't you copy/paste where I said this? Generally thats what people do, you know, in order to prove themselves.

That said, Society can do it [and has, and continues to do so today], my point is that doesn't make it right.

Arrest is to kidnap what tax is to stealing, your argument that it is morally wrong is thus swept away by this as you can now only argue degrees, which doesn't lend itself well to moral right/wrongs.
This is a straw man of Wizard of Oz like proportions. Arrest only happens when someone breaks the law, i.e. when someone violates the rights of another. Tax happens no matter what, whether the citizen is law abiding or not. Kidnapping and apprehending a criminal are certainly not congruent concepts in any conceivable sense, and if you think they are, then the vacuity of your intellect is far more pronounced than I could have ever imagined.

I presume you'll continue to argue your point, make sure you get a large spade, that's a hell of a hole you'll be trying to dig yourself out of
Har-de fucking har. I've not seen an attack on my ethics from you that wasn't entirely dependent on bad epistemology [go look it up] or constant deployment of sophistry and straw men.

Over here in the Netherlands, we used to have a welfare state. Then for the last two decades consecutive cabinets decided to follow the American example. Competition would lower prices, raise income, privatisation, etc. Everything had to be cost-efffective. The results: poverty has returned, homeless people are begging in the streets again, crime rates are through the roof, unemployment is going up, and meanwhile managers are claiming raises that have reached a staggering 150% in a single year! So, no, it's not the Welfare state that causes poverty and idleness - it's the damn conservatives who are trying to get the country back to the pre-WWII years when the rich were rich and the poor knew their place and if they forgot the police was their to remind them.

Anyway, I always find it amusing when Americans complain about the Welfare state, since they've never had one. By European standards, the USA has never emerged from the pre-WWII period. And when they claim the American peopel are getting lazy and unwilling to work because of Welfare, I can't help but laugh out loud. From a European point of view, all those 'lazy' Americans are workoholics with a guilt complex over relaxation.

You make less than $19K as a teacher?


I'm not even going to bother with this thread.

I am a school teacher. I have a job.

We'll start this rant with that.

I love my job, but there's something missing.

I live in a country that pays the First String QB more than me. Fine.

I also live in a country that pays a 1st term Corporal more than me.

Yeah .. that's right, kids .... a new enlistee to the United States Miilitary makes more than a Teacher.

Priiorities, eh?

Fuck teachers ..... only patriotic poor people matter.*

*Patriot Pooor People = ALL poor people.

Starting salaries for teachers in Fairfax County are around 55,000 per year.

I strongly oppose welfare. IMO, welfare is to charity what rape is to sex. Charity should be voluntary. I myself personally give money to homeless folks, donate to charities, etc. I condemn greed, but I also condemn telling people how to spend their money. I don't know, that's just how I am.

There is a difficulty with saying that taxation is equal to theft and therefore morally wrong. This difficulty is that the statement is unequivocal. If taxation is theft, then any taxation is theft, and no government can morally provide any services that rely upon taxation.

Vittos does not seem to recognize the contradiction when he claims that taxation is only justifiable for universally applied programs. As an example, I will take the military. It is entirely possible for an individual to decide that he does not want any sort of national military defending him, and that he will rather take up the expense of doing it himself. Given this persons existance, what moral right does a government have to say, "No, we will take some of your labour to pay for national defence, because you surely can't do it yourself," but not "we will take some of your labour to pay for a national health care system, because you surely can't do it yourself"

Melkor seems to recognize this contradiction and steers away from it.

However, this leaves us in a state where a national government must rely on voluntary contributions in order to provide services. I'm not sure anybody truly believes it feasible for a national defence force, in this day and age, to be effectively built on voluntary contributions.

So what is taxation then?
I'll agree with the first part of the definition typically given by Tax=Theft proponents, that it is the taking of a portion of a man's labour, backed up with the threat of force.

However, I would add to this "in exchange for certain rights and benefits within the society."

This is, in essence, like a landlord's contract. In exchange for the right to live in a building and have working plumbing, etc, you agree to give up a portion of your labour. If you do not, you can be forcibly evicted from the premises, and your goods on the premises taken to pay what is due.

In the case of government, in exchange for the right to vote, become involved in the leadership, rely on a national defence force and monetary system, you agree to give up a portion of your labour. If you do not, you can be forcibly evicted from the society, by means of taking you to jail. I'm not arguing that the amounts they take may be disproportionate to the benefits received. It could be a very bad deal, just as it could be a very bad landlord. But the underlying point remains.

Often the proponents of tax=theft turn to argue that they had no choice in being born in this society. I point out that this is paralleled by the argument that people have no choice in being born into poverty. There is no functional difference between the two, so by asserting one, you assert the other.

So far as I can see, this leaves the sole position that people who believe taxation equals theft must also believe that being born into a position of poverty is inescapable, or are living in a contradiction.

After all, if you can leave the society that imposes the taxation, then we know taxation is not theft, because you are not forced to pay, you simply haven't taken advantage of the opportunities to leave the society requiring it, just like the poor haven't taken advantage fo the opportunities to leave poverty behind. If you can escape from being born into a position of poverty, you can escape from being born into a society that imposes taxation.

This brings us back to the original topic.
If taxation equalling theft means poverty is inescapable, then the only moral option for aiding the poor is private charity or letting them starve. Since people will commit crimes before starving, and the amount of violence committed during a crime is uncontrolled (unlike government violence during taxation), it stands to reason that non-poor individuals will either have to invest in private security forces or increased charity.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, if the society relies on personal charity to make up for the poor, the society is, in essence, economically disadvantaging those who care, while providing advantage for those who don't. This sets up a vicious downward cycle where those who do not care have greater opportunities to advance through society and those who care are eventually reduced to poverty or forced to not care about others in the interests of personal survival. This means that charity simply won't work, and instead the society will eventually have to rely on personal security forces.

But if the society instead relies on personal security to avoid dealing with the impoverished, we are right back in the original situation: individuals must provide a portion of their labour, under threat of force, in order to live in security in the society. The differences are that the force in this instance has no checks, balances, or controls placed on it, that the individual has no way of influencing what that force may be, and that even paying the security company is no guaruntee that this force may not be applied to him regardless (as no security company can be 100% effective in crime prevention).

There is a difficulty with saying that taxation is equal to theft and therefore morally wrong. This difficulty is that the statement is unequivocal. If taxation is theft, then any taxation is theft, and no government can morally provide any services that rely upon taxation.

Vittos does not seem to recognize the contradiction when he claims that taxation is only justifiable for universally applied programs. As an example, I will take the military. It is entirely possible for an individual to decide that he does not want any sort of national military defending him, and that he will rather take up the expense of doing it himself. Given this persons existance, what moral right does a government have to say, "No, we will take some of your labour to pay for national defence, because you surely can't do it yourself," but not "we will take some of your labour to pay for a national health care system, because you surely can't do it yourself"

Melkor seems to recognize this contradiction and steers away from it.

However, this leaves us in a state where a national government must rely on voluntary contributions in order to provide services. I'm not sure anybody truly believes it feasible for a national defence force, in this day and age, to be effectively built on voluntary contributions.

So what is taxation then?
I'll agree with the first part of the definition typically given by Tax=Theft proponents, that it is the taking of a portion of a man's labour, backed up with the threat of force.

However, I would add to this "in exchange for certain rights and benefits within the society."

This is, in essence, like a landlord's contract. In exchange for the right to live in a building and have working plumbing, etc, you agree to give up a portion of your labour. If you do not, you can be forcibly evicted from the premises, and your goods on the premises taken to pay what is due.

In the case of government, in exchange for the right to vote, become involved in the leadership, rely on a national defence force and monetary system, you agree to give up a portion of your labour. If you do not, you can be forcibly evicted from the society, by means of taking you to jail. I'm not arguing that the amounts they take may be disproportionate to the benefits received. It could be a very bad deal, just as it could be a very bad landlord. But the underlying point remains.

Often the proponents of tax=theft turn to argue that they had no choice in being born in this society. I point out that this is paralleled by the argument that people have no choice in being born into poverty. There is no functional difference between the two, so by asserting one, you assert the other.

So far as I can see, this leaves the sole position that people who believe taxation equals theft must also believe that being born into a position of poverty is inescapable, or are living in a contradiction.

After all, if you can leave the society that imposes the taxation, then we know taxation is not theft, because you are not forced to pay, you simply haven't taken advantage of the opportunities to leave the society requiring it, just like the poor haven't taken advantage fo the opportunities to leave poverty behind. If you can escape from being born into a position of poverty, you can escape from being born into a society that imposes taxation.

This brings us back to the original topic.
If taxation equalling theft means poverty is inescapable, then the only moral option for aiding the poor is private charity or letting them starve. Since people will commit crimes before starving, and the amount of violence committed during a crime is uncontrolled (unlike government violence during taxation), it stands to reason that non-poor individuals will either have to invest in private security forces or increased charity.

As I've pointed out elsewhere, if the society relies on personal charity to make up for the poor, the society is, in essence, economically disadvantaging those who care, while providing advantage for those who don't. This sets up a vicious downward cycle where those who do not care have greater opportunities to advance through society and those who care are eventually reduced to poverty or forced to not care about others in the interests of personal survival. This means that charity simply won't work, and instead the society will eventually have to rely on personal security forces.

But if the society instead relies on personal security to avoid dealing with the impoverished, we are right back in the original situation: individuals must provide a portion of their labour, under threat of force, in order to live in security in the society. The differences are that the force in this instance has no checks, balances, or controls placed on it, that the individual has no way of influencing what that force may be, and that even paying the security company is no guaruntee that this force may not be applied to him regardless (as no security company can be 100% effective in crime prevention).

I support sales taxes, but not personal income taxes. Then again, I believe government should be as tiny, de-centralized, and non-interventionist as possible, so there wouldn't need to be an income tax if the government were to spend as little as I wanted it to.

Nice post Waterkeep: I've got a few problems with it as you might guess, but I've already got my hands full over here :eek:

I think one more line of debate would push my already heavily taxed mind into the abyss of insanity, but I like what you have to say since it shows some modicum of intelligence, which isn't a luxury I've had the pleasure of enjoying in my discussions here. You've obviously read and understand what's being said here, and I jsut want you to know it didn't go unnoticed, even if I don't have the mental resources to challenge the few disagreements I have.

I strongly oppose welfare. IMO, welfare is to charity what rape is to sex. Charity should be voluntary. I myself personally give money to homeless folks, donate to charities, etc. I condemn greed, but I also condemn telling people how to spend their money. I don't know, that's just how I am.

You forget, your Tax pounds dont just go to welfare.

"Arrest only happens when someone breaks the law, i.e. when someone violates the rights of another. Tax happens no matter what, whether the citizen is law abiding or not. Kidnapping and apprehending a criminal are certainly not congruent concepts in any conceivable sense, and if you think they are, then the vacuity of your intellect is far more pronounced than I could have ever imagined."

I'd argue that your intelligence is being shown up far more here, you have failed to grasp the concept that the law is part of the state or general populance making decisions on behalf of the individual. You've decided that 'kidnap' by government is acceptable if certain conditions are meant, if you state this, you can not dismiss taxation as a concrete moral wrong, you are arguing degrees which is a very different argument from 'concrete moral wrongs'.

If it is wrong for a government to tax (because tax=theft) an unwilling individual because of the demand of the general populance, it is wrong for a government to imprison (because imprisonment=kidnap) an unwilling individual because of the demands of the general populance. That's just the application of your argument, arguing that the latter is untrue invalidates the former. You can either admit you are wrong, argue that we should just have anarchy or (and I suspect this is the option you'll follow) argue that it isn't a logical step and try and get around the basics of logic by being ignorant of the umbrella issue and failing to see, through tunnel vision, that two specifics are connected - you just need to take a step back.

There is a difficulty with saying that taxation is equal to theft and therefore morally wrong. This difficulty is that the statement is unequivocal. If taxation is theft, then any taxation is theft, and no government can morally provide any services that rely upon taxation.

Taxation that is a revocation of property rights is theft, taxation that is an exchange of property rights is not theft. If we pay the government to provide roads, that is an exchange of our wages for the use of roadways. If we pay government to give welfare to a select few at the bottom of the economic rungs, there is no exchange of property, and so we are stolen from.

Vittos does not seem to recognize the contradiction when he claims that taxation is only justifiable for universally applied programs. As an example, I will take the military. It is entirely possible for an individual to decide that he does not want any sort of national military defending him, and that he will rather take up the expense of doing it himself. Given this persons existance, what moral right does a government have to say, "No, we will take some of your labour to pay for national defence, because you surely can't do it yourself," but not "we will take some of your labour to pay for a national health care system, because you surely can't do it yourself"

That is an incredibly bad example because the single individual couldn't possibly defend all of his legal interest from outside forces, and I do, in fact, support universal healthcare. But I do understand what you are saying, that all taxation is a removal of the economic choice of the individual. The way I address that is saying that I feel any necessary service that cannot be provided freely by the market should be taken care of by the government.

For military, firstly government must have a monopoly on violence. We cannot have private individuals deciding and executing justice. Secondly, the military is most effective when unified under a central command. So the most beneficial and efficient form of military would be one that is monopolized under government. So I assume the necessity of a military force to defend our rights, and for these reasons above, I think that the market naturally monopolizes itself leading to an unfree market.

For healthcare, there is absolute necessity to it, you cannot refuse all healthcare and have a good hope of living. I also think that, due to nature of healthcare technology and access, that it is a market that tends to limit the choices of the consumer. Therefore it is a necessary but unfree market.

I will take on the rest later.

Taxation that is a revocation of property rights is theft, taxation that is an exchange of property rights is not theft. If we pay the government to provide roads, that is an exchange of our wages for the use of roadways. If we pay government to give welfare to a select few at the bottom of the economic rungs, there is no exchange of property, and so we are stolen from.



That is an incredibly bad example because the single individual couldn't possibly defend all of his legal interest from outside forces, and I do, in fact, support universal healthcare. But I do understand what you are saying, that all taxation is a removal of the economic choice of the individual. The way I address that is saying that I feel any necessary service that cannot be provided freely by the market should be taken care of by the government.

For military, firstly government must have a monopoly on violence. We cannot have private individuals deciding and executing justice. Secondly, the military is most effective when unified under a central command. So the most beneficial and efficient form of military would be one that is monopolized under government. So I assume the necessity of a military force to defend our rights, and for these reasons above, I think that the market naturally monopolizes itself leading to an unfree market.

For healthcare, there is absolute necessity to it, you cannot refuse all healthcare and have a good hope of living. I also think that, due to nature of healthcare technology and access, that it is a market that tends to limit the choices of the consumer. Therefore it is a necessary but unfree market.

I will take on the rest later.


It's a great example actually, because if the individual doesn't want a military (read: welfare) why should he have to pay for it? You say, "If we pay government to give welfare to a select few at the bottom of the economic rungs, there is no exchange of property, and so we are stolen from.", but say it's okay to 'steal' from the individual who doesn't want the military but not if he doesn't want welfare?

That said, this reiteration proves that you're not listening, which I can't say is too surprising. By allowing poor people to pay less, you are conferring economic privilege on them by allowing them a greater share of their life's work. This should not happen. Period.

The rich already have the economic privilage of them getting more money in the first place, and in many cases they get it because they were born into it and not because they worked for it. The poor are getting less money often through no fault of their own again often because they were born with it. Thus we have to make the system work so that we do not allow social factors over which people have no control to unfairly influence peoples incomes. In any case, the system does not make it so the rich and the poor have anything close to the same ammount of money by the end.


Care to name some of thse factors or am I just supposed to take your word for it? Intelligent people, when they debate, back up their points by offering validation of their statements. Name some of these factors and I'll be happy to discuss them with you, but short of that what have we got to talk about?


Because we all know that the solution to any problem is to create more bureaucracy and to steal more money. I'll say this one more time: If you'd like to form an orginization with the attributes you've described, more power to you. Don't take from me to do it.

There is neither the time or the space in this box to explain properly the concepts of things like social capital and zones of transision or the socio-economic history of Britian as I am aware of it but I will do a brief explaination of the cycle of poverty. A child is born into a poor family, who may often either be on benefits or in low paid manual work. When they go to school they will be learning about such things (into secondary school) as algebra, chemistry, poetry, shakespere etc, very little of which will have any practical aplication in their own lives. Thus either they themselves will not engage in their studies or they will try to but be discouraged by a lack of interest that their parents take or show because they see the childs ability to work in more practial skills as more valuable. Thus they will be discuoraged from achieving highly in this area either by the work itself, their parents or their peers who may be in simmilar situations. When they leave they are underqualified and get a low paid, manual job, later get married, have children who go to school (etc etc). There is a great deal more to this but I cannot explain it all now. I suggest you read into the work of Anthony Giddens


Ridiculous. I might, through some extensive degree of brainwashing, find that cutting off both my legs for no apparent reason is 'fair,' but that don't fucking make it so, now does it? One could conceivably convince their population that labor camps are 'fair,' but that don't make it so either.

Besides, I didn't say it wasn't fair, I said it wasn't legitimate or moral. If you're going to challenge someone's ideas, it's a good idea to use the correct terminology.

It is moral in so far as everyone is paying for it and everyone can use it. Your being charged arguably much less than you would be if you were charged every single time you used the hospital. Plus the money you dont use will be saving many other lives, so consider yourself proud.


But what about your precious lower tax bracket that isn't taxed at all? Aren't they getting something for nothing?

In fairness, if your earning less than £5000 you obviously desprately need the welfare state so yes they are getting something for nothing. But their is nothing wrong about that, as the welfare state does offer the facilitys to better themselves, so once they use those faclities, they will be paying back to Britain.


But I digress. In this country, I don't forsee me taking advantage of Educational-oriented property tax funds, since I'm out of High School. I also don't see myself collecting Social Security [or it existing by the time I'm 65], Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, subsidized housing, farm subsidies or just about any other tax funded program you care to name. So no, not everyone can use it; just the few who happen to be eligible. Right now, Congress is using my money to do things like regulate Wool and Mohair prices, it's paying them to regulate the price of honey [since we can all remember when the American economy was brought to great peril by wild fluctuations in the price of honey] and it's funding a war in the Middle East that will cause ten problems for us for every one it solved. So no, I'm not receiving anything for my income tax money most of the time

Your not using it NOW but you did use it and you were not paying for it yourself when you were, so in your extremly selfish logic, you should be paying for it now. Of course in my idea you are paying to help other people, which is far more important and to keep your government aloft so they can keep the country working, which in Britian they do very well.


Bullshit.
steal
v. stole, (stl) sto·len, (stln) steal·ing, steals
v. tr.
1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

I don't remember being asked. Therefore, it's theft. The "right" conferred upon the government to do this by the populace doesn't quite count as far as I'm concerned.If I'm going to give permission for something of mine to be taken, that's an action that can only be undertaken personally. Society can't just come along and say "It's OK for you to steal this guy's money because we say so," because that's not my permission now is it?


You give permission by becoming a citizen of that country. Being a citizen has rights and responabliltys


And that changes..... what? Oh yeah: nothing. Try again.

Ok now your just being stupid. Cutting off benefits when people are not looking for work changes everything. What it does is create a situation where benefits are only there as a support to get you back into work, insted of turning povery into a carrer option. This way people who are on benefits actually deserve to be on benefits since they need work and are looking for it


Ummm... both of us? Our unemployment is fairly low at present, if what I've been reading is true, which it might not be. If solving unemployment and encouraging economic growth were so simple as sending letters to your citizens, somehow I think we'd have seen economic trends develop very differently in the last 50 or so years. It's not that simple, and you know it..

It is not just the letters, its the reorganisation of Britians entire welfare state. We have one and you dont. At present, as far as jobs and growth are going we are doing better since New Labour came to power. We have experinced the longest continuous period of economic growth ever in our history. Your country has been driven into a record trade defict and a record upsurge in unemployment (accoding to the indepenent, which is very reliable)


I never said that all of my tax dollars go to these things, and I must admit I'm finding your comments increasingly exasperating. I'm trying to focus mainly on tax funded wealth distribution programs [since its sort of....you know... the topic], leaving aside for now the other fucntions of tax where I can help it. Context man, context.

I am sorry but a great deal of your arguement was based on the fact that you seemed to be of the belief that tax is evil because it supports people unfairly, thus it seemed that you were thinking that all your tax went to welfare. It doesnt.


More tax means less money in your pocket on payday. Do I need to draw you a picture? Any tax system makes the people slightly 'poorer,' in aggregate..

Only in the short term and on a person by person basis. A well organised tax system within a well organised welfare state can make a country as a whole very much rich, which is what we are seeing in Britain


Straw man [surprise, surprise]. Wages, unless they're a result of new laws enacted by the government [which may or may not be the case in Britain at the moment] are generally functions of the market, not necessarily of regulation. Wages in America have been going up [though not as high as cost of living in many places], but increasing wages doesn't always go hand in hand with more wealth, as other factors need to be taken into account as well: things like spending habits and cost of living

It's funny to see you accuse me of being too simplistic and then turn around and claim higher wages = more money. There are many more factors at work than you appear to be aware of.
.

Do you remember what I said. I said higher wages ABOVE THE RATE OF INFLATION. In that case higher wages do mean more money.


You have got to be fucking kidding me.

Foot, meet mouth. (http://www.redcross.org/news/ds/hurricanes/katrina_facts.html) Again..

Katrina was an indivdual natural disaster, there is no charity that could function in the same way as the welfare state does. Which is deal with an entire countries benefit system ALL THE TIME not just when there is a disaster


Society is nothing more than a collection of individuals, and society can't think or formulate policy because this race does not possess what one might call a 'hive mind.' You cannot think for another man any more than you can digest his food for him. She was right to a point, although the term "society" is a necessary one in today's linguistic chaos.

Special rights should not be granted to people solely on virtue of membership in a certain group: society should not have the power to take my money because it wants to anymore than it should be able to take my home or my life.

As usual, someone else has already said this better than me. Observe:

" Any group or "collective," large or small, is only a number of individuals. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members. In a free society, the "rights" of any group are derived from the rights of its members through their voluntary, individual choice and contractual agreement, and are merely the application these individual rights to a specific undertaking. Every legitimate group undertaking is based on the participants' right of free associationand free trade. (By "legitimate," I mean: noncriminal and freely joined, that is, a group which no one was forced to join.)
For instance, the right of an industrial concern to engage in business is derived from the right of its owners to invest their money in a productive venture--from their right to hire employees--from the right of the employees to sell their services--from the right of all those involved to produce and to sell their products--from the right of the customers to buy (ornot to buy) these products. Every link of the complex chain of contractual relationships rests on individual rights , individual choices, individual agreements. Every agreement is delimited, specified and subject to certain conditions, that is, dependent upon mutual trade to mutual benefit.
This is true of all legitimate groups or associations in a free society: partnerships, business concerns, professional associations, labor unions (volunatry ones), political parties, etc. It also applies to all agency agreements: the right of one man to act for or represent another or others is derived from the rights of those he representsand is delegated to him by their voluntary choice, for a specific, delimited purpose--in the case of a lawyer, a business representative, a labor union delegate, etc.
A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations.
Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob.
The notion of "collective rights" (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that "rights" belong to some men, but not to others--that some men have the "right" to dispose of others in any manner they please--and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority.
Nothing can ever justify or validate such a doctrine--and no one ever has. Like the altruist morality from which it is derived, this doctrine lies on mysticism: either on the old-fashioned mysticism of faith in supernatural edicts, like "The Divine Right of Kings"--or in the social mystique of modern collectivists who see society as a super-organism, as some supernatural entity apart fom and superior to the sum of its individual members."
--Ayn Rand, 'Collectivized "Rights"', June 1963

Go read a sociology textbook and then tell me that society is just "other people"

A bunch of misinformed BS
Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, you go and repeat yourself again.


taxation

n 1: charge against a citizen's person or property or activity for the support of government [syn: tax, revenue enhancement] 2: government income due to taxation [syn: tax income, tax revenue, revenue] 3: the imposition of taxes; the practice of the government in levying taxes on the subjects of a state

Versus


steal
v. stole, (stl) sto·len, (stln) steal·ing, steals
v. tr.
To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

Compare those similarities to the following:


ar·rest
v. ar·rest·ed, ar·rest·ing, ar·rests
v. tr.
...
To seize and hold under the authority of law.
Versus

kid·nap
tr.v. kid·napped, or kid·naped kid·nap·ping, or kid·nap·ing kid·naps or kid·naps
To seize and detain unlawfully and usually for ransom.

This is the last time I will attempt to discuss this with you, as you seem determined to prop up your straw man with a bunch of nonsensical bullshit. An arrest is retribution for a criminal act. A kidnapping is taking someone either for the hell of it, to kill them or for money. There's a world of difference.

EDIT: in simpler terms, a kidnapping is the initiation of force, an arrest is [hopefully] an appropriate punishment for the application of force.

Oh dear, missing the point SPECTACULARLY.

Notice: Law is just an example of a group deciding for an individual - IT HAS NO EXEMPTION FROM YOUR LOGIC.

You can't take that step back and see that TWO SPECIFICS CAN BE CONNECTED THROUGH A BROADER APPLICATION OF LOGIC.

I won't go on, I might end up getting banned the way this is going. You have no regard whatsoever for basic logic.

It's a great example actually, because if the individual doesn't want a military (read: welfare) why should he have to pay for it? You say, "If we pay government to give welfare to a select few at the bottom of the economic rungs, there is no exchange of property, and so we are stolen from.", but say it's okay to 'steal' from the individual who doesn't want the military but not if he doesn't want welfare?

The protection of rights as we interact within society is the key need we have for government. It is the reason we enter into the social contract.

The military is a necessary function of government if it is going to protect the rights of the people. No one can reasonably say that I want to take part in this society, but I don't want to take part in the defense of it. Either withdraw completely from the benefits of society, meaning no reportable income, or pay your taxes to assure that said society is defended.

Wealth redistribution is not a protection of rights, it is a providing of benefits. It is not a necessary function of government to maintain society.

If left to the mercy of " charity " instead of direct government intervention both at the state /local and federal level you will end up with the same conditions you have now with the homeless population. Those who do not qualify for state and federal aid and are left to the mercy of "charity " .
if " charity " is the solution , why do these people exist in this state ?

There is a difficulty with saying that taxation is equal to theft and therefore morally wrong. This difficulty is that the statement is unequivocal. If taxation is theft, then any taxation is theft, and no government can morally provide any services that rely upon taxation.

Waterkeep, then let's qualify it:

Taxation may be thought of as "theft" when money is taken from someone and not used for his benefit. EG, when money is taken from me and given to someone else, I surely may refer to it as a matter of theft.

On the other hand, tax money used to protect me, or build my roads, or make sure that the food and drugs i buy are safe, or maintain a fire department in case i set my place on fire, etc... such things are not theft, imo.

Wealth redistribution is not a protection of rights, it is a providing of benefits. It is not a necessary function of government to maintain society.
We disagree on this point. As I've argued above, wealth redistribution *is* a protection of rights. It is the protection of the rights of those not in poverty to live with a reasonable amount of security. It is also the protection of the rights of those in poverty to ..well.. survive.

However, this doesn't address the fundamental issue. If taxation is theft then what difference does it make what it is used for? If the landlord in your apartment complex steals from you so that he can hire a private security firm to protect the complex from gangs isn't that theft? If so, how is it different if the landlord is the tax-man, the apartment complex is the nation, and the gangs are foreign countries?

But if the landlord can steal from you to hire a security firm, why can't he steal from you to fix the furnace? After all, you're smart, you've already gone out and purchased your own electric heater, so really, you've got no need of the furnace being fixed.

But the guy down the hall bought himself a gun instead of a furnace. He doesn't need the security firm. He does need the furnace.

What makes you right and him wrong?

There is a difficulty with saying that taxation is equal to theft and therefore morally wrong. This difficulty is that the statement is unequivocal. If taxation is theft, then any taxation is theft, and no government can morally provide any services that rely upon taxation.

Waterkeep, then let's qualify it:

Taxation may be thought of as "theft" when money is taken from someone and not used for his benefit. EG, when money is taken from me and given to someone else, I surely may refer to it as a matter of theft.

On the other hand, tax money used to protect me, or build my roads, or make sure that the food and drugs i buy are safe, or maintain a fire department in case i set my place on fire, etc... such things are not theft, imo.

What about tax money used to ensure you don't starve if you happen to lose your job? You can find one, you say? Well you can put out your own fire too. So why should other people be forced to pay because you don't have the foresight and ability to stock your home with proper fire extinguishers? After all, I'm smart and work to make sure I don't have a fire. Why should the government take my money to pay for your carelessness?

Similarly, why should other people be forced to pay because you don't have the foresight to purchase your own gun and see to your own safety?

The truth is, just because you're not using a particular service doesn't make the taxation for that service any more theft than for anything else. It just happens that you're not using the service at the present time. Good for you. The less government services we all use, presumably the less tax that will have to be charged to pay for those. But what gives you the right to pick and choose over anybody else?

Wouldn't taxation be something that is agreed upon in the social contract? People all agree that they will give up some of their earnings/winnings/etc to the government so that it may be able to have money to fund programs and protect rights?

I peronally believe that taxes are too high. The progressive tax rates punish those who, thru hard work, natural ability, and a good work ethic, wish to rise above where they came from.

The progressive tax rates and "redistribution of wealth" is nothing more than an attempt to make sure that as many few of people as possible get ahead. Mostly by politictions who have made thier careers out of fostering class envy.

Wouldn't taxation be something that is agreed upon in the social contract? People all agree that they will give up some of their earnings/winnings/etc to the government so that it may be able to have money to fund programs and protect rights?

The problem is, the American nation hasn't quite grasped the whole social contract thing, which is odd, because it's the basis of all government ever. They masturbate themselves silly over "Rugged individualism" and all that jazz.

If we pay government to give welfare to a select few at the bottom of the economic rungs, there is no exchange of property, and so we are stolen from.
One can argue about the extent of the positive externalities you are likely to see, but it most certainly is more than zero!

Having rotting corpses, or plague-ridden beggars hanging around is diminishing your welfare and hurting economic performance - keeping people alive through some sort of subsistence system (ie food, healthcare etc) is in your interest to some extent.

Thus it could be seen as an exchange of your property for a service by the government.

You can have the government as you say " take" your money and get some value for it in social programs or you can let poverty run its course and have poor people with guns take it from you and get no value and get shot in the bargain . In the real world when conditions exist where the have nots feel they are forgotten by government they rebel and take what they want by any means neccessary . This isnt theory this is hard earned and learned experiance . Its cheaper to give a hand up to those who need it than it is to pay police to protect your ass from them . charity is a placebo it doesnt work.

We disagree on this point. As I've argued above, wealth redistribution *is* a protection of rights. It is the protection of the rights of those not in poverty to live with a reasonable amount of security. It is also the protection of the rights of those in poverty to ..well.. survive.

I am positive that you cannot reasonably explain why either of those are rights, but I am listening.

However, this doesn't address the fundamental issue. If taxation is theft then what difference does it make what it is used for? If the landlord in your apartment complex steals from you so that he can hire a private security firm to protect the complex from gangs isn't that theft? If so, how is it different if the landlord is the tax-man, the apartment complex is the nation, and the gangs are foreign countries?

The protection of rights as we interact within society is the key need we have for government. It is the reason we enter into the social contract.

The military is a necessary function of government if it is going to protect the rights of the people. No one can reasonably say that I want to take part in this society, but I don't want to take part in the defense of it. Either withdraw completely from the benefits of society, meaning no reportable income, or pay your taxes to assure that said society is defended.

This was the ignored part in the post you quoted, I think it is adequate in justifying taxation for military defense.

But if the landlord can steal from you to hire a security firm, why can't he steal from you to fix the furnace? After all, you're smart, you've already gone out and purchased your own electric heater, so really, you've got no need of the furnace being fixed.

But the guy down the hall bought himself a gun instead of a furnace. He doesn't need the security firm. He does need the furnace.

What makes you right and him wrong?

First off, it would not be permissible to have an individual tenant buying a gun and determining when its use would be necessary. That cannot be allowed within an apartment building. Likewise, the government must monopolize violence.

As for your landlord analogy, it doesn't work because you are comparing something that has indefeasible rights, the landlord, to something that that has defeasible rights, the government. You are paying the landlord to give you rights, while you are paying government to protect your rights. This means that the landlord, by handing over rights of quiet enjoyment, is legally bound to uphold a standard of living as defined by the contract. The government, by agreeing to protect your rights, is bound to only go as far to make sure you are able to use your rights, and nothing more.

One can argue about the extent of the positive externalities you are likely to see, but it most certainly is more than zero!

Having rotting corpses, or plague-ridden beggars hanging around is diminishing your welfare and hurting economic performance - keeping people alive through some sort of subsistence system (ie food, healthcare etc) is in your interest to some extent.

Thus it could be seen as an exchange of your property for a service by the government.

No, private sectors would be perfectly able to provide charitable acts if the people were willing.

There are three conditions I have been using so far:

1. The policy must be of universal utility. If any policy is inconsistent, then there are rights being taken away from one to give to another.

2. The policy must only have jurisdiction over those issues that the private citizens cannot possibly resolve. If private citizens can resolve the issue, they will resolve it to their liking with no need of government intervention.

(Edit)3. The service must have eminent necessity. The private sector may not resolve issues if it is not of any necessity, so we should not confuse private willful inaction with private inability to resolve issues.

Under welfare, it can be argued tenuously that it passes the first test because anyone can use it if they have the need (even though I don't think it is totally valid).

But it does not pass the second condition, as were society that concerned about the welfare of its citizens, it would not need government enforcing charity upon us.

...But it does not pass the second condition, as were society that concerned about the welfare of its citizens, it would not need government enforcing charity upon us.
That may be true (for you), but that wasn't what I addressed. All I referred to was
Taxation that is a revocation of property rights is theft, taxation that is an exchange of property rights is not theft. If we pay the government to provide roads, that is an exchange of our wages for the use of roadways. If we pay government to give welfare to a select few at the bottom of the economic rungs, there is no exchange of property, and so we are stolen from.
I only said that here you are indeed exchanging money for a service, not whether or not that is a justifiable policy.

That may be true (for you), but that wasn't what I addressed. All I referred to was

I only said that here you are indeed exchanging money for a service, not whether or not that is a justifiable policy.

If the taxation is not justifiable, then there is no exchange, it is forceful collection under duress. When people are perfectly free to make economic decisions, then any government intervention is a revocation of property rights, i.e. theft.

If the taxation is not justifiable, then there is no exchange, it is forceful collection under duress. When people are perfectly free to make economic decisions, then any government intervention is a revocation of property rights, i.e. theft.
See your other thread.

Probably this issue has already been adressed here...if it has, i apologize. Still, do you believe that some american conservatives are right when they claim that Welfare and social security beget a long-term dependency from the poorer classes on State hand-outs? Do social security recipients get acustomed to a life of inactivity and feel entitled to abstain from job-hunting? Did the Great Society end up creating two Americas?

No it does not. I receive survivor's benefits from my late husband and these would have been his SS had he lived but these provide for me and my children. Not all people who go on welfare (( and it is not a lot of money you receive by the way and you MUST be constantly looking for work or be employed to get these type benefits)) are no goodniks, most want decent paying jobs and are trying to get them but they need a way to survive in the meantime..you cant live off welfare I can guarantee that and I am glad we have a system to help the less fortunate out and if anyone thinks IM a freeloader tough toe nails-that was my husbands SS money and it benefits his family.

No, private sectors would be perfectly able to provide charitable acts if the people were willing.

communism would be possible if the people were willing.


but i can't agree with those arbitary rules as they are simply too black-and-white. the private sector can provide charitable redistribution of wealth & income, yes... but the government can forcibly take it further - can take it past the point at which private charitable donations stop to the point at which it needs to be.
and because its people's lives we're messing with, people on the bottom rung who need help, i don't want to take the risk that private redistribution ends up not sufficient. the government makes sure that the redistribution is adequate.

hence the govt must take full responsibility for this redistribution, unfortunatley rendering private charitable redistribution at worst obsolete, at best a nice bonus

communism would be possible if the people were willing.

but i can't agree with those arbitary rules as they are simply too black-and-white. the private sector can provide charitable redistribution of wealth & income, yes... but the government can forcibly take it further - can take it past the point at which private charitable donations stop to the point at which it needs to be.

My point is that, if the people are able to engage freely in behavior, then government is not necessary, as the people will behave in a manner that they prefer. Any government interference in this situation automatically takes the free decision making out of the hands of the people and enforces behavior.

If the government comes in and provides welfare when there is ample opportunity to provide charity, the government is obviously saying "the people are not acting in a way that we feel is morally acceptable, so we must force you to behave in a way that we feel is acceptable."

and because its people's lives we're messing with, people on the bottom rung who need help, i don't want to take the risk that private redistribution ends up not sufficient. the government makes sure that the redistribution is adequate.

And I don't want anyone to have personal moral behavior forced upon them.

My point is that, if the people are able to engage freely in behavior, then government is not necessary, as the people will behave in a manner that they prefer. Any government interference in this situation automatically takes the free decision making out of the hands of the people and enforces behavior.

If the government comes in and provides welfare when there is ample opportunity to provide charity, the government is obviously saying "the people are not acting in a way that we feel is morally acceptable, so we must force you to behave in a way that we feel is acceptable."



And I don't want anyone to have personal moral behavior forced upon them.


So... you seriously believe that people when left completely free, they'll behave in a way that benefits all? That in a world like that, the rich would help out the poor?

I believe such things have been tried before. It's known as 'Might makes right' and 'Survival of the fittest.' If no government existed, it would only be a short while before the strongest and their cronies would set themselves up as a government by imposing their will on the rest. Human nature at its most basic.

So... you seriously believe that people when left completely free, they'll behave in a way that benefits all? That in a world like that, the rich would help out the poor?

No, I am saying that the importance is the freedom of the choice, not the result of the choice.

The benefit of society should be freedom, not a lack of it.

How does the government providing something take away freedom? Admitted taxes take away the freedom to spend some of your money but they will always be there.

Those arguing the government steals are time and time again resisting the application of logic applications of their argument to suit their cause, not the logic. What is specified as the motive for one, is then apparantly different for the other through focusing on specifics that are often irrelevant and fall under the terms of the first, as such the difference is irrelevant.

Put simply, normal-minded people who seek to move foward from ideas dismissed by Europeans almost 200 years ago, you can't win this argument - the goalposts will always move.

I'd also argue that the "tax= immoral" line is indicative of simplistic moral reasoning. More people will be poor under the kind of lassez faire system proposed, more people will be in distress, more crimes will be committed. The government would be indirectly resposible for these problems as they have the power to prevent it. This must be considered a worse action than forcibly taking money.

Also, those supporting this idea seem to have no idea of the obvious consequences of such a system, beyond a generation.

Well, we in the UK have a basic welfare state, although a poorly executed one, and very low unemployment - around 1/2% less than the USA and less than the rest of Europe.

Removing the welfare state would take the UK back to the 19th century of workhouses and disease on every street - we've already got terrible poverty and STI/Tuberculosis pandemics. I simply can't understand why people would oppose it.

Those arguing the government steals are time and time again resisting the application of logic applications of their argument to suit their cause, not the logic. What is specified as the motive for one, is then apparantly different for the other through focusing on specifics that are often irrelevant and fall under the terms of the first, as such the difference is irrelevant.

For theft not to occur, there must be an exchange of property or service, or the forsaking of property rights must be freely agreed upon by the individual. In terms of wealth redistribution, there is no exchange of property or service, and there is not an agreement by the individual. In case of the military or roads, there is an exchange of property for property or service.

Put simply, normal-minded people who seek to move foward from ideas dismissed by Europeans almost 200 years ago, you can't win this argument - the goalposts will always move.

Are you talking about Marxists? Because most Western economists dismissed his ideas only about 125-150 years ago.

For theft not to occur, there must be an exchange of property or service, or the forsaking of property rights must be freely agreed upon by the individual. In terms of wealth redistribution, there is no exchange of property or service, and there is not an agreement by the individual. In case of the military or roads, there is an exchange of property for property or service.
You can afford to take the time off work to educate your kids yourself, or you send them to a private school, then?

You get a healthier, more educated workforce which can only be a good thing for the country.



dammm! Two Great big cookies and a pie for that one ... :D

What can be more capitalistic then taking money and putting it into developing your greatest resourse .......your people ?

What can be more capitalistic then taking money and putting it into developing your greatest resourse .......your people ?

People always associate good business tactics with capitalistic ideas. Business is amoral, while capitalism is very moral.

Nothing would be a more financially sound business plan than investing money into training labor, however, nothing would be less capitalistic than compromising individual property rights to do it.

You can afford to take the time off work to educate your kids yourself, or you send them to a private school, then?

Explain what you mean.

People always associate good business tactics with capitalistic ideas. Business is amoral, while capitalism is very moral.

Nothing would be a more financially sound business plan than investing money into training labor, however, nothing would be less capitalistic than compromising individual property rights to do it.
But if the capitalist invests money to train their workforce then they will profit from it more than if they did not train them - it is in everyones benefit to have a skilled workforce.

Firstly, the communist Manifesto was penned close to 1870, I forget precisely when, so therefoe it would be somewhat difficult for Western economists to defame Marx either 200 or 150 years prior to either his birth or the publication of his works, unless they are supremely prescient and capable.

Furthermore, how many people in this discussion who quote from or allude to Marx have actually read the Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital notwithstanding?

But if the capitalist invests money to train their workforce then they will profit from it more than if they did not train them - it is in everyones benefit to have a skilled workforce.
Except for those who can cut their overheads by shifting their manufacturing base to where wages are lower. (Not that white collar jobs are safe from this approach, of course.)


VO: I thought that was obvious. Aren't schools funded from State taxes over there? I'd assume that educating your children constitutes a service even in whatever Ayn Rand book you've escaped from.

But if the capitalist invests money to train their workforce then they will profit from it more than if they did not train them - it is in everyones benefit to have a skilled workforce.

Then they will know to do it without government interference.

Once again, business deals with the plans for making money and generating wealth, capitalism deals with how property rights are distributed and upheld.

So when you say "Capitalists should be happy with wealth redistribution, as they will have a more educated workforce," I say, "No, a businessman will be happy with a more educated workforce, a capitalist will not be happy until he has the greatest possible property rights."

VO: I thought that was obvious. Aren't schools funded from State taxes over there? I'd assume that educating your children constitutes a service even in whatever Ayn Rand book you've escaped from.

Yes, education is a service, we all pay taxes for education, we all have access to education. That does not conflict with my point, though.

People always associate good business tactics with capitalistic ideas. Business is amoral, while capitalism is very moral.

Nothing would be a more financially sound business plan than investing money into training labor, however, nothing would be less capitalistic than compromising individual property rights to do it.

We pay taxes for our military to protect us. why cant we also pay taxes for protection of our economy and our health and welfare ? If we care about people shooting at us why cant we care about disease and bad social conditions attacking us ? Why does it always have to be one or the other instead of a combination of both ? In the united States we have a social welfare program and have had it for years , with reform and clear thinking it can work better than it does now. Without it..totally... we would be screwed.
at least the way things are set up now at any rate . You cant feed people philosophy but you can train them how to eat for themselves . isnt that how a good capitalist should think ? :D This "dont take my money from me / libertarian" .. stuff.. gets a little old after a while IMO , because it tries to over simplify a complex problem . Some times there actually is a grey .

Firstly, the communist Manifesto was penned close to 1870, I forget precisely when, so therefoe it would be somewhat difficult for Western economists to defame Marx either 200 or 150 years prior to either his birth or the publication of his works, unless they are supremely prescient and capable.

Furthermore, how many people in this discussion who quote from or allude to Marx have actually read the Communist Manifesto, Das Kapital notwithstanding?


I think I may have posted the text from the Communist manifesto in the capitalist vs. socialism vs communism vs Rosseu vs Marx/ Engles vs. Locke etc. etc. threads that seem to spring up every couple of days .

http://www.bibliomania.com/2/1/261/1294/frameset.html
http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html

both give you the text .

I dont care but this is funny... :D
even in whatever Ayn Rand book you've escaped from.

for some crazy reason I imagined I escaped in a train . :D

We pay taxes for our military to protect us. why cant we also pay taxes for protection of our economy and our health and welfare ? If we care about people shooting at us why cant we care about disease and bad social conditions attacking us ? Why does it always have to be one or the other instead of a combination of both ? In the united States we have a social welfare program and have had it for years , with reform and clear thinking it can work better than it does now. Without it..totally... we would be screwed.
at least the way things are set up now at any rate . You cant feed people philosophy but you can train them how to eat for themselves . isnt that how a good capitalist should think ? :D This "dont take my money from me / libertarian" .. stuff.. gets a little old after a while IMO , because it tries to over simplify a complex problem . Some times there actually is a grey .

Like I hav said several times, the people can make their own economic decisions freely, they cannot manage their own self defense freely.

I tend to think that everyone else is overcomplicating things. What government must do is maximize freedom, as any government policy is inherently inconsistent.

The Soviet Union wasn't Socialist, we don't do forced labour.

Teehee, you're kidding, right? I mean, the Soviet Union, if you'll remember, went by the full name Union of SOCIALIST Soviet Republics. So you're either saying the Russians lied, and were warm fuzzy capitalists, or this proves that you are wrong.

And yes, the Russians forced their scientists into submission in the name of Superiority of the Motherland.

For theft not to occur, there must be an exchange of property or service, or the forsaking of property rights must be freely agreed upon by the individual. In terms of wealth redistribution, there is no exchange of property or service, and there is not an agreement by the individual. In case of the military or roads, there is an exchange of property for property or service.



Are you talking about Marxists? Because most Western economists dismissed his ideas only about 125-150 years ago.

I don't think you agree to pay taxes, nor would you if a system where you only paid for military etc. The service provided by wealth re-distribution taxation (national insurance for example) is a form of insurance, if you fall upon hard times you have as much right as anybody else to claim benefits. For the sake of argument, assume that the current form of tax is theft, surely theft is the lesser of the two evils when put up against increased crime, poverty and distress?

I'm clearly not talking about Marxists because they are hardly representive of Europe as a whole. I'm talking about dismissing the concept the government exsists mainly to protect property as the ridiculous and harmful mistake it is.

Teehee, you're kidding, right? I mean, the Soviet Union, if you'll remember, went by the full name Union of SOCIALIST Soviet Republics. So you're either saying the Russians lied, and were warm fuzzy capitalists, or this proves that you are wrong.

And yes, the Russians forced their scientists into submission in the name of Superiority of the Motherland.

They followed a Marxist doctrine ..closer to communist than socialist dont you think ? Even though some apologist will say " Stalinist" and all kinds of "not pure so it dont count " crap .

I don't think you agree to pay taxes, nor would you if a system where you only paid for military etc. The service provided by wealth re-distribution taxation (national insurance for example) is a form of insurance, if you fall upon hard times you have as much right as anybody else to claim benefits. For the sake of argument, assume that the current form of tax is theft, surely theft is the lesser of the two evils when put up against increased crime, poverty and distress?

I'm clearly not talking about Marxists because they are hardly representive of Europe as a whole. I'm talking about dismissing the concept the government exsists mainly to protect property as the ridiculous and harmful mistake it is.

I guess the United States is some kind of mistake ? :rolleyes:

Umm, what? You have a welfare state (to a degree) but Europe has always lead the way in this area, I'm saying the US should follow not go further from it like suggested. The political and social influences in the US are really screwed up imo. Don't get me wrong, there is so much about America I love but when you've got abortion, gay marriage and gas prices as major issues you know somethings not quite right

Umm, what? You have a welfare state (to a degree) but Europe has always lead the way in this area, I'm saying the US should follow not go further from it like suggested. The political and social influences in the US are really screwed up imo. Don't get me wrong, there is so much about America I love but when you've got abortion, gay marriage and gas prices as major issues you know somethings not quite right

They are sideshows to distract from the main issues . You would have to understand our idiot politics . We get the main issues ..after all we do like our cash and nice stuff... ;) Less government and less taxes , keeps comming up a winner , even if its an illusion at times :D But forget screwing with the principles of property rights . The day you see companys getting nationalised is the day you get to see why we have the second ammendment .

I don't think you agree to pay taxes, nor would you if a system where you only paid for military etc. The service provided by wealth re-distribution taxation (national insurance for example) is a form of insurance, if you fall upon hard times you have as much right as anybody else to claim benefits.

I have no problem with filing for bankruptcy and other methods to insure that when a person has a financial disaster, they are not swallowed up by financial pressure, I also support national healthcare. But these forms of wealth redistribution that we see in the US and those espoused by Marxists are not used as insurance, they are used as continuing sustenence. They don't help you recover your standing as an individual who is freely interacting with society, they put up resistence to those who have found themselves in need in regaining their freedom.

For the sake of argument, assume that the current form of tax is theft, surely theft is the lesser of the two evils when put up against increased crime, poverty and distress?

Seeing as I am clearly not concerned with the level of crime when considering wealth redistribution, you could probably guess I am not concerned with tax. To me the greater evil is the idea that government knows what is best for you and can legislate it.

I'm clearly not talking about Marxists because they are hardly representive of Europe as a whole. I'm talking about dismissing the concept the government exsists mainly to protect property as the ridiculous and harmful mistake it is.

You are a little off on that definition.

The government exists ONLY to ensure that individuals can interact without worry of having their rights impinged upon. The human race, throughout civilization, has struggled to find a place where a man can live with freedom to think and act in the way that he sees fit. For millenniums we have toiled in oppression as our ideas have been miles behind our own urges for power, causing governments to consider themselves gods or extensions of gods with unchecked authority over people's lives. Now that we have finally combined the ideas and the tools to make personal freedom actually work, it is threatened immediately by this train of thought that society is something more than the people who comprise it. It threatens to send us right back into a world where governments are once again considered "morally" justified to tell us how we should live our lives.

It threatens to send us right back into a world where governments are once again considered "morally" justified to tell us how we should live our lives.

You just have to keep telling them ..." bite me " .

Umm, what? You have a welfare state (to a degree) but Europe has always lead the way in this area, I'm saying the US should follow not go further from it like suggested. The political and social influences in the US are really screwed up imo. Don't get me wrong, there is so much about America I love but when you've got abortion, gay marriage and gas prices as major issues you know somethings not quite right

Maybe America is so perfect that we can turn our attention to such trivia. You know, 'cause we are in a time of peace and prosperity and equality of all people ;)

Originally Posted by Dictionary.com
steal
v. stole, (stl) sto·len, (stln) steal·ing, steals
v. tr.
To take (the property of another) without right or permission.


Right is kind of an arbitrary term. Rights are a matter of law. In the US, the XVI Amendment to the constitution gave the federal government the right to collect income taxes. That amendment was proposed and enacted according to article V of the constitution. The government's right to collect income taxes is as valid as any right of individuals or states enumerated in the bill of rights. You may have a valid argument with the government's right to collect social security, but income tax is the taking of property with right.

...many companies shied away from improving safety as it visibly cost money up front, dispite th fact it would save them 8 times as much later on.
Indeed, the central weakness of the libertarian system...individuals are still, and always will be, myopic.
And from thereon in the argument proceeds on a purely moral, subjective basis...

Indeed, the central weakness of the libertarian system...individuals are still, and always will be, myopic.
And from thereon in the argument proceeds on a purely moral, subjective basis...

Exactly, I don't know how many times I am going to say it, but:

A capitalist doesn't care what one does with his capital, a capitalist only wants him to be free to do it.

It threatens to send us right back into a world where governments are once again considered "morally" justified to tell us how we should live our lives.
Surely your government is doing that in any case at the moment? Overturning State decisions about gay marriage springs to mind as an example.

So the problem is not welfare. Actual welfare is a fair, effective way of eliminating the threat of extreme poverty.

The problem is the US welfare, that seems to have been designed as a ghettoization program.
ONce again ignorance reigns supreme. Welfare is NOT easy to get you have to be working or looking for work to get it and most likely be a mother not getting child support since it is intended for support of children. It is called aid to dependent children. Stop calling people lazy and bums since you dont know them and have no right to generalize and label people. Catch the deadbeat parents and then you can get some of the money back and get these parents off the ADC system.

Surely your government is doing that in any case at the moment? Overturning State decisions about gay marriage springs to mind as an example.

We have a line of thinking in America, that democracy is enough justification to remove rights. So people think, "well since the majority thinks gay marriage is wrong, we can go ahead and outlaw it." The libertarian (I don't really espouse libertarianism, but it is easier to just generalize my beliefs) wants us to reach a spot where people realize that our rights outrank government, that government exists because of our need to protect our rights, and that no governmental system, even democracy, is justification for government to restrict our rights.

So yes, I despise the idea that government should recognize ANY form of marriage.

We have a line of thinking in America, that democracy is enough justification to remove rights. So people think, "well since the majority thinks gay marriage is wrong, we can go ahead and outlaw it." The libertarian (I don't really espouse libertarianism, but it is easier to just generalize my beliefs) wants us to reach a spot where people realize that our rights outrank government, that government exists because of our need to protect our rights, and that no governmental system, even democracy, is justification for government to restrict our rights.

So yes, I despise the idea that government should recognize ANY form of marriage.
Fair enough. Some of what you've been saying does sound pretty Libertarian, though.

Fair enough. Some of what you've been saying does sound pretty Libertarian, though.

I agree with you there, I just say that I am libertarian so people know where I am coming from. I just have some fundamental disagreements with the libertarian party.

Exactly. Also note that those countries have drastically lower crime rates.
And (most of them) longer average life, fewer % living under the poverty line, less corruption, less crime of several kinds, higher literacy level et cetera.

On the other hand, higher taxes, fewer millionaires/capita et cetera.

We have a line of thinking in America, that democracy is enough justification to remove rights. So people think, "well since the majority thinks gay marriage is wrong, we can go ahead and outlaw it." The libertarian (I don't really espouse libertarianism, but it is easier to just generalize my beliefs) wants us to reach a spot where people realize that our rights outrank government, that government exists because of our need to protect our rights, and that no governmental system, even democracy, is justification for government to restrict our rights.

So yes, I despise the idea that government should recognize ANY form of marriage.

Thats what democracy does . The majority always thinks its morally and intellecually superior to the minority and attempts to make it conform to its will . Why else is it still illegal to see naked breast in a TV commercial ?
We have to relie on the Supreme court and the bill of rights to protect us from tyranny . Pot being illegal while beer is legal makes no sense but its reality . despite the bill of rights and the suprem court . So we still subject ourselves to some form of tyranny when we decide to live in a society .

Thats what democracy does . The majority always thinks its morally and intellecually superior to the minority and attempts to make it conform to its will . Why else is it still illegal to see naked breast in a TV commercial ?
We have to relie on the Supreme court and the bill of rights to protect us from tyranny . Pot being illegal while beer is legal makes no sense but its reality . despite the bill of rights and the suprem court . So we still subject ourselves to some form of tyranny when we decide to live in a society .

You are exactly right. I don't think government forms can improve much anymore, and the people and society will have to continue to develop until we don't need government anymore. I don't think socialism allows for that, I think socialism does the opposite.