NationStates Jolt Archive

In a place called Perfect, there are no taxes, but we don't live anywhere new perfect.

Here's the next best thing: The Automated Payment Transaction Tax (http://www.apttax.com/)

Indeed. This is too often ignored by those who prefer to resort to relativism as opposed to arguing something out.Ah, I see what you mean. I, personally, would rather only agree to disagree as a last resort.

How would you get people to accept yours? Even contracts need enforcement, especially ones with such ambiguous bases.

Why should I care about the implicit contract I allegedly enter into as a member of society?Well, the type of anarchic social contract I would like would be enforced by, various forms of cutoff of social contact, should the contract be broken. An egregious breaking of the contract would result in the person being entirely cut off from the society, a minor one would result in some sort of fine.
If the person is entirely cut off, this means that nobody will have anything to do with them, including giving them food, clothing, shelter, etc.
I suppose they could be seen as an outlaw in the ancient Greek sense of the word, but I would rather the social contract have something against the killing of outlaws.

"Subjective" does not imply "minority." I think basic human moral intuitions are very similar; achieving the sort of partial moral consensus necessary for society is not very hard. With such a consensus, repressive imposition is, for the most part, not necessary.

Of course, there will be exceptions - there always are, just as there are immoral people in our society who view the acts they commit as justified. Those must be dealt with if they violate the rules, by force if necessary.Would you have a mechanism in place to clarify ambiguous situations that may or may not go against basic human moral intuitions?

Quite possibly they very much consider their subjects to be human. In fact, they accept their subjects' humanity, and the moral worth of such humanity, to such a degree that they are willing to defend them from people who would seek to abuse them - even if the attackers believe that they are in the right.I would argue that the imposers are themselves the abusers in the very fact of their imposition, and the very fact of their imposition is what strips their subjects of their humanhood.


Social contract theory is exactly the same way. It does not solve this problem at all. You will still have to impose the value system upon which your version of it is based upon those who reject that value system.I believe I could convince most people, because I agree with you that humans, for the most part, have basic moral intutions. The ones that don't don't need to be part of the social contract at all; they can find one that better suits them.

Well, the type of anarchic social contract I would like would be enforced by, various forms of cutoff of social contact, should the contract be broken. An egregious breaking of the contract would result in the person being entirely cut off from the society, a minor one would result in some sort of fine.
If the person is entirely cut off, this means that nobody will have anything to do with them, including giving them food, clothing, shelter, etc.
I suppose they could be seen as an outlaw in the ancient Greek sense of the word, but I would rather the social contract have something against the killing of outlaws.
Out of curiosity, will your idea of an anarchic community have law-courts? Or would it resort to disassociation as a punitive mechanism?

I believe I could convince most people, because I agree with you that humans, for the most part, have basic moral intutions. The ones that don't don't need to be part of the social contract at all; they can find one that better suits them.
This makes me laugh a little. Very few are in favour of the idea of natural laws, but frequently it is mentioned humans have basic moral intuitions in common. Fine. Isn't this natural law? Saying humans will most likely always agree on certain things is tantamount to that. Perhaps I have misunderstood the argument though...

10% on on all monetary spending. Everything. 7 of that goes to the Federal Gov't, the rtemianing 3 to the local government. Corpaorations pay 10% of their profit, you pay on your income, stuff you buy, etc.

I don't care about the local gov't's budget, here's the feds:
35% Defence (Includes police, new equipment, research, etc.)
15% Education
15% Welfare (Social Security, Welfare)
20% Repaying Debts
5% Federal Treasury Depostits

I also think roads should be privatized, and many goes into repaying debt. Every highway has a tollbox, and theirs a GPS thing so road companies can tell how much you've driven on their roads. (BIG $$$$ FOR GOV'T and Economy goes up, though Gov't inspects the roads)

Well, the type of anarchic social contract I would like would be enforced by, various forms of cutoff of social contact, should the contract be broken. An egregious breaking of the contract would result in the person being entirely cut off from the society, a minor one would result in some sort of fine.
If the person is entirely cut off, this means that nobody will have anything to do with them, including giving them food, clothing, shelter, etc.

And is that not imposition? Are you not coercing someone into abiding by your rules? Indeed, isn't that the whole point of this tactic?

I suppose they could be seen as an outlaw in the ancient Greek sense of the word, but I would rather the social contract have something against the killing of outlaws.

And if the outlaws attack your commune and try to kill the inhabitants? Will you do nothing, because you don't want to impose your subjective morality upon them?

Would you have a mechanism in place to clarify ambiguous situations that may or may not go against basic human moral intuitions?

Yes - democratic politics.

I would argue that the imposers are themselves the abusers in the very fact of their imposition, and the very fact of their imposition is what strips their subjects of their humanhood.

The "very fact of the imposition" is that it is done in the defense of and for the welfare of innocent people. There is no basis which more reflects a respect for human dignity.

To insist that we must avoid imposition, lest the perpentrators of atrocities be abused, is to ignore the human dignity of their victims.

The ones that don't don't need to be part of the social contract at all; they can find one that better suits them.

And if they want to garner the benefits, but not obey the rules? What if the capitalists decide to smash your revolution and invade? On what basis can you stop them, if you object to imposing subjective morality?

It is unreasonable to act as though there is an objective set of individual rights until such a thing can be logically proven. Since such a thing has not been logically proven,

Except, it has.

Familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand. She proved just that.

we will be based on need.

How despicable.

How purely, utterly, atrocious.

You are quite possibly the most evil individual on these boards.

Except, it has.

Familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand. She proved just that.

And Marx proved how capitalism would end. :rolleyes:

And Marx proved how capitalism would end. :rolleyes:

Except it didn't work because he didn't expect that the workers would actually eventually get benefits, or more money. He expected for them to revolt and take over. Becauseof that the revolution couldn't happen. We still wait.

Except it didn't work because he didn't expect that the workers would actually eventually get benefits, or more money. He expected for them to revolt and take over. Becauseof that the revolution couldn't happen. We still wait.
He ignored scarcity too and based his economics on the belief that history is bound to happen in a certain pattern. Furthermore, you missed the point the person you quoted made - it was to mock Linus and Lucy's belief in Ayn Rand's infallibility.

Out of curiosity, will your idea of an anarchic community have law-courts? Or would it resort to disassociation as a punitive mechanism? It would be necessary to determine exactly what it is that happened, so yes, there would be law courts.

This makes me laugh a little. Very few are in favour of the idea of natural laws, but frequently it is mentioned humans have basic moral intuitions in common. Fine. Isn't this natural law? Saying humans will most likely always agree on certain things is tantamount to that. Perhaps I have misunderstood the argument though...I'm not certain. I know that humans have natural abilities, but I don't know if this amounts to a natural law anymore than the fact that humans breathe. Perhaps basic human moral intuitions are the same way.

And is that not imposition? Are you not coercing someone into abiding by your rules? Indeed, isn't that the whole point of this tactic?No, I think the opposite would be the case - it would be imposition to force people to associate with people that they did not wish to associate with. And if it's true that either way would be an imposition, if it's damned if you do or if you don't, then I'll choose what I believe to be the lesser of two impositions.

And if the outlaws attack your commune and try to kill the inhabitants? Will you do nothing, because you don't want to impose your subjective morality upon them?No. I believe the social contract should closely reflect the natural abilities of humans as much as possible. Self-defense is a natural ability of humans, and I see no reason why the social contract should take it away.

Yes - democratic politics.What happens if those people whose basic moral intuitions don't agree with most people's, what if they end up in their own community. Wouldn't their politics be vastly different than the politics of most of us?

The "very fact of the imposition" is that it is done in the defense of and for the welfare of innocent people. There is no basis which more reflects a respect for human dignity.

To insist that we must avoid imposition, lest the perpentrators of atrocities be abused, is to ignore the human dignity of their victims.You ignore the fact that the victims are also being imposed upon in this scenario, by not getting to choose, at all, what laws they want to live under. I can understand wanting to impose upon the perpetrators of atrocities, but not the victims thereof.

And if they want to garner the benefits, but not obey the rules? What if the capitalists decide to smash your revolution and invade? On what basis can you stop them, if you object to imposing subjective morality?The first can be disassociated with, in much the same way. The others can be defended against.

Except, it has.

Familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand. She proved just that.No, she didn't. In trying to do so, among other things, her arguments contained the is/ought fallacy.

No, I think the opposite would be the case - it would be imposition to force people to associate with people that they did not wish to associate with. And if it's true that either way would be an imposition, if it's damned if you do or if you don't, then I'll choose what I believe to be the lesser of two impositions.

In order to do so, you must accept the legitimacy of imposing your subjective morality of non-imposition. Once you've made this concession, on what basis would you exclude other important considerations - human welfare, for instance?

No. I believe the social contract should closely reflect the natural abilities of humans as much as possible. Self-defense is a natural ability of humans, and I see no reason why the social contract should take it away.

But this too is an element of your subjective morality. Is not self-defense an imposition upon the attacker? You are using your subjective morality to justify impositions - exactly what you insist others not do.

What happens if those people whose basic moral intuitions don't agree with most people's, what if they end up in their own community. Wouldn't their politics be vastly different than the politics of most of us?

Yes. And if that led them to harm innocent people, it would be justified to stop them.

You ignore the fact that the victims are also being imposed upon in this scenario, by not getting to choose, at all, what laws they want to live under.

Of course they can choose. Who said otherwise? But certainly they do not have perfect freedom; they cannot do whatever they please. Such a freedom would necessarily deny the same to others. Thus, imposition.

I can understand wanting to impose upon the perpetrators of atrocities, but not the victims thereof.

No one's imposing anything on the victims qua victims, except perhaps that they not extract vengeance.

The first can be disassociated with, in much the same way. The others can be defended against.

Both of which are impositions.

Jello Biafra - what kind of moral differences are we talking about here?

It would be necessary to determine exactly what it is that happened, so yes, there would be law courts.
After establishing guilt, would it use methods such as incarceration and punishment to deter certain actions, or would it opt for disassociation (e.g. exile) instead?

I'm not certain. I know that humans have natural abilities, but I don't know if this amounts to a natural law anymore than the fact that humans breathe. Perhaps basic human moral intuitions are the same way.
My point is simply that if it is mantained that humans, by way of agreement, (almost) always come to value certain notions (e.g. murder being a tortious activity) then there would seem to be a system of natural law. Not natural in that it is independent of, and over and above humans, but rather that it is a system of law consonant with human nature and thus stems directly from this nature.

Well, food will, at least in part, be rebated back to you.
Also, if you're rich enough, you could pay somebody to do that for you.

in the end it's going to be cheaper and easier to just go to the store.

you ship in food from another country, you have shipping, time spent waiting, paying someone to order it, customs.........it's a big hassle, I don't know anyone stupid enough to spend so much time and money to get out of paying less in taxes.

In order to do so, you must accept the legitimacy of imposing your subjective morality of non-imposition. Once you've made this concession, on what basis would you exclude other important considerations - human welfare, for instance?I'm not entirely certain I'd be capable of determining when human welfare is needed, however if there are humans who can't defend themselves and need help doing so, I don't object to the idea of helping them.

But this too is an element of your subjective morality. Is not self-defense an imposition upon the attacker? You are using your subjective morality to justify impositions - exactly what you insist others not do.Not at all. I would say it's the consequence of a freely chosen action. The attacker chose to be attacked, with the knowledge that she would probably be defended against. In essence, the attacker chose it. I have no objection to free choice.

Yes. And if that led them to harm innocent people, it would be justified to stop them.Ah, okay, so at least we're not talking about punishing people simply for having different opinions. That's good, at least.

Of course they can choose. Who said otherwise? But certainly they do not have perfect freedom; they cannot do whatever they please. Such a freedom would necessarily deny the same to others. Thus, imposition.If they're having a system of rights imposed upon them (we were talking about such a scenario) then they wouldn't be choosing which rights they have. I see little difference, morally, between imposing slavery and imposing freedom, and would also say that the idea of imposing freedom is an oxymoron.

Both of which are impositions.It seems as though you believe that any human action with another human is an imposition. I'm not sure I agree. Is it an imposition to tell your friend that if she joins a Neo-Nazi rally that you won't be friends with her?

Jello Biafra - what kind of moral differences are we talking about here?I dunno, you brought them up. But there are a few that I can think of. I know that there are some people who believe that people of a certain skin color are less worthy of rights than people of another skin color; certainly that is a moral stance.

After establishing guilt, would it use methods such as incarceration and punishment to deter certain actions, or would it opt for disassociation (e.g. exile) instead?I would argue that the idea of incarcerating someone is indicative of a state, and so that wouldn't happen. Most likely a type of fine would be used, for smaller offenses. There wouldn't be a numerically set fine, I'm thinking something along the lines of an item that the offender wanted suddenly becomes unavailable.

My point is simply that if it is mantained that humans, by way of agreement, (almost) always come to value certain notions (e.g. murder being a tortious activity) then there would seem to be a system of natural law. Not natural in that it is independent of, and over and above humans, but rather that it is a system of law consonant with human nature and thus stems directly from this nature.Well, I'm not certain. I think that the idea of murder being bad stems more from human culture. I mean, humans had to learn to live together and cooperate, and they had to establish certain rules for doing so. This doesn't mean that it's natural, per se, because it's conceivable that there is a culture that might not frown upon murder.

(Oh, by the way, thanks for defending me earlier.)

in the end it's going to be cheaper and easier to just go to the store.

you ship in food from another country, you have shipping, time spent waiting, paying someone to order it, customs.........it's a big hassle, I don't know anyone stupid enough to spend so much time and money to get out of paying less in taxes.True, but we're talking about a tax of 30% of the value of whatever it is you're buying. Especially if a person is planning on buying a lot, it would be a lot cheaper to pay someone an hourly wage for a few hours to import the products. And it's not as though there'd be any tariffs, either.

Not at all. I would say it's the consequence of a freely chosen action. The attacker chose to be attacked, with the knowledge that she would probably be defended against. In essence, the attacker chose it. I have no objection to free choice.

The attacker chose to attack, knowing that she would probably be defended against - but she did not choose this. Indeed, were it her choice, she almost certainly would have chosen not to have her attacks defended against. She merely expected it.

As well say that as long as I am aware of the consequences of violating the law, I am not being coerced if the state decides to imprison or execute people for certain crimes.

Ah, okay, so at least we're not talking about punishing people simply for having different opinions. That's good, at least.

Of course not. I'm talking about punishing people for harmful acts.

If they're having a system of rights imposed upon them (we were talking about such a scenario) then they wouldn't be choosing which rights they have.

Not if the "imposed" right is to be treated as you want to be treated (preference utilitarianism.)

It seems as though you believe that any human action with another human is an imposition. I'm not sure I agree. Is it an imposition to tell your friend that if she joins a Neo-Nazi rally that you won't be friends with her?

Depends. If my friendship to her is valuable to her, then yes, that's an exercise of power over her, and an imposition.

I dunno, you brought them up.

Yes, and I thought the points I made clarified that my meaning concerned moral differences over things like murder and rape. But it occurred to me that you could be talking more about moral differences in terms of simple life preferences - "I want to live in a community where people abide by Christian moral values" or "I want to live in a community that prides itself on hedonism and sloth tempered by compassion." In a society based upon real free association, it might make sense to permit communities organized according to those principles, but not because of any "we can't impose subjective morality" argument - rather because collective freedom is a good.

But there are a few that I can think of. I know that there are some people who believe that people of a certain skin color are less worthy of rights than people of another skin color; certainly that is a moral stance.

Definitely. And you would be against stopping them if those people enslaved and abused people of the "inferior" skin color, because, after all, all morality is subjective anyway, and it violates people's humanity to impose it on them?

The attacker chose to attack, knowing that she would probably be defended against - but she did not choose this. Indeed, were it her choice, she almost certainly would have chosen not to have her attacks defended against. She merely expected it.She didn't choose to be defended against, it was simply the consequence of her choice. In this case, I don't view it as being any different than the consequences of sticking a fork into an electrical outlet.

As well say that as long as I am aware of the consequences of violating the law, I am not being coerced if the state decides to imprison or execute people for certain crimes.The coerciveness of the state naturally depends on the alternatives one has. Since the alternatives to the state are other coercive states, or poor alternatives like living on a deserted island, then, yes, the state is coercive. With that said, I'm assuming that with the community-type of system that allows free association, there will be many more alternatives, and so the coerciveness will be either reduced or eliminated entirely. It's conceivable that a state that springs up in this situation might not be coercive, though I'd oppose it for other reasons.


Of course not. I'm talking about punishing people for harmful acts.Fair enough.

Not if the "imposed" right is to be treated as you want to be treated (preference utilitarianism.)Wouldn't it be easy enough to get people to agree to a social contract of preference utilitarianism?

Depends. If my friendship to her is valuable to her, then yes, that's an exercise of power over her, and an imposition.Oh, I see the problem here. I don't recall ever saying that all exercises of power over somebody were bad. If I did, could you point it out to me?

Yes, and I thought the points I made clarified that my meaning concerned moral differences over things like murder and rape. But it occurred to me that you could be talking more about moral differences in terms of simple life preferences - "I want to live in a community where people abide by Christian moral values" or "I want to live in a community that prides itself on hedonism and sloth tempered by compassion." In a society based upon real free association, it might make sense to permit communities organized according to those principles, but not because of any "we can't impose subjective morality" argument - rather because collective freedom is a good.Collective freedom being a good is another reason to do so.

Definitely. And you would be against stopping them if those people enslaved and abused people of the "inferior" skin color, because, after all, all morality is subjective anyway, and it violates people's humanity to impose it on them?If one of those enslaved and abused people wanted my help, I'd help them. I would consider doing so part of establishing a social contract with them.

Perhaps part of the confusion is that the idea of establishing certain rights and priviledges in a social contract only applies to the people who are in the social contract. Somebody who isn't part of the social contract, as far as I'm concerned, is an outlaw in the ancient Greek sense of the word.
Obviously, of course, the ideal would be to not kill these people, and also to not kill people who I haven't tried to establish a social contract with yet.

Taxes are an important issue in governance, so let me ask: What is your ideal tax structure? As an example, here is mine-

-snip-
There's a word for that: anarchy.

And Marx proved how capitalism would end. :rolleyes:

No, he didn't--he attempted and failed.

This is in contrast to the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand, who attempted and succeeded.

No, she didn't. In trying to do so, among other things, her arguments contained the is/ought fallacy.

Such as?

I have an idea as to what, in particular, you're referring to--and you're not the first to incorrectly assert it to be an is/ought fallacy.

But I'll let you clarify yourself so you don't accuse me of putting words in your mouth.

How despicable.

How purely, utterly, atrocious.

You are quite possibly the most evil individual on these boards.

I'll ignore that comment. Anyone who quotes Rand is a little misguided. I was trying to find this quote:

Lilly: this ship must of cost a lot of money.
Picard: In the future money doesn't mean the same thing.......etc

(if any one can find the quote and post it thanks)

Edit: If your read my post L&L you would understand that basically i'm taxing something that does not exist.

Rand at best was a ugly self hating person. She actually died pennliess and alone. She sleeped with most of her friends husbands. Her economic system would really only benifit the rich and would leave everyone else as slaves. Basically it's the same economic model as the CSA used.

I would argue that the idea of incarcerating someone is indicative of a state, and so that wouldn't happen. Most likely a type of fine would be used, for smaller offenses. There wouldn't be a numerically set fine, I'm thinking something along the lines of an item that the offender wanted suddenly becomes unavailable.
Hmm, but what if the individual in question has no funds or is indifferent to wants? A sociopath of sorts, who is not even affected by disassociation. In this case would the community resort to exile? It'd have good reason to.

Well, I'm not certain. I think that the idea of murder being bad stems more from human culture. I mean, humans had to learn to live together and cooperate, and they had to establish certain rules for doing so. This doesn't mean that it's natural, per se, because it's conceivable that there is a culture that might not frown upon murder.
Indeed. I wonder if humans have not then evolved a certain dislike for certain activities, in their nature as social animal - it's commonly submitted nowadays that nurture influences nature as much as the latter influences the former. It would then be biologically hardwired. To my knowledge though this is still an unresolved debate. It would also make the term 'natural' somewhat more tenuous.

(Oh, by the way, thanks for defending me earlier.)

It was an unwarranted attack.

No, he didn't--he attempted and failed.

This is in contrast to the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand, who attempted and succeeded.

Bullshit. Rand made a philosophical argument. She proved squat.

PS: You're post taken out of context looks like you're claiming Ayn Rand proved how capitalism would end. :p

So we are paying taxes to buy our freedom?
Yes, in a tax-free economy there is no real freedom, but for those who can afford freedom.

You know which things don't have sales tax on them? Some fine examples are real estate, investment interest, stock trading, stock payouts (I forget the exact term for when a corp pays money out to stock holders instead of reinvesting) and home equity. The wealthy pay the gross majority of taxes (at least here in the US), and most of their income is derived from investments, real estate dealings, accrued interest, stock ownership, and inheritance. How on Earth can a sales tax possibly replace all of the many, many taxes upon the rich that we have now?In which case sales taxation could be extended to these items.First, none of those things are covered by sales tax. Adding "sales tax" to any of them besides real estate purchases wouldn't really be a tax on sales.

Second, I'm not coming down on anyone. I am trying to warn you people that Fair Tax (in real life) is just the latest upper class-favoring tax scheme since Forbes pushed his 27.5% Flat Tax. Suggesting alterations is pointless because it's a scam by the wealthy and not genuinely fair.

Such as?

I have an idea as to what, in particular, you're referring to--and you're not the first to incorrectly assert it to be an is/ought fallacy.

But I'll let you clarify yourself so you don't accuse me of putting words in your mouth.How about you summarize one of her arguments in favor of objective human rights, and I or someone else will be happy to point out the logical fallacies. If you need to link to an argument, that would be fine, too.

Hmm, but what if the individual in question has no funds or is indifferent to wants? A sociopath of sorts, who is not even affected by disassociation. In this case would the community resort to exile? It'd have good reason to.Well, if someone commits a lot of small crimes, or a big crime, the disassocation would involve no contact with anyone else in the society - including no food. Since nobody would be feeding this person, they would either have to try to steal some, in which case the other members of the community could use their right to self-defense, or go elsewhere for food, in which case they'd exile themselves.

Indeed. I wonder if humans have not then evolved a certain dislike for certain activities, in their nature as social animal - it's commonly submitted nowadays that nurture influences nature as much as the latter influences the former. It would then be biologically hardwired. To my knowledge though this is still an unresolved debate. It would also make the term 'natural' somewhat more tenuous. Yes, I agree. Perhaps you could still make whatever natural law argument you wanted to make based on these conditions.

First, none of those things are covered by sales tax.
What stops it from being extended to them?

Adding "sales tax" to any of them besides real estate purchases wouldn't really be a tax on sales.
Why wouldn't it?

... are you being serious? How on Earth do any of the following examples I provided constitute "sales?" investment interest
stock payouts
home equity
accrued interest [from savings accounts, outstanding loans, etc]
inheritance

The government gets to tax you because it prints the money. You don't own the money you are merely holding it.