Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Under my system, all taxes are voluntary. Therefore, if you did not want to pay for defense, you wouldn't have to. You would be freeloading off the other citizens, but you would be free to that if you decided you did not want to pay. Once a tax is voluntary, and compulsion and coercion are removed, all citizens may rationally judge for themselves what taxes they should pay, and what they taxes they will pay. Individuals in a free society are good enough to make that decision.
And what would they decide? And what would I decide? I would decide to pay to keep my country safe from foreign invaders. How much? Maybe 20%, it depends on how strong I decide we need to be. The military budget would be a summation of that judgment made by all the citizens acting in their own individual rational self-interest. I am sure that it would be huge, especially in view of the madness that has spread through the base and primitive theocracies of the Middle East.
Don't be afraid W'sG! Don't be a social engineer, it's a debauched and disgusting avocation. And a much worse vocation.
I think you would run into a tragedy of the commons sorts of problem -- in a country of 300 million people, a single person's tax probably doesn't determine the outcome of military funding capabilities. Therefore, for any given person, it could be reasoned that their tax dollars aren't consequential, and they have some incentive to not pay the tax. However, when the entire group takes that approach, there is insufficient funding. Voluntary taxes are a terrible idea.
You didn't address the main problem with your society: It would leave far more people destitute, and many important functions in our society wouldn't be performed. Wealth would skew even more extremely in the direction of a small few, and power imbalances would grow.
Here's some real moral reasoning for you: We should seek to do some form of reducing suffering and increasing happiness. Your society would have much more suffering, and likely much less happiness, thus it is a far worse society. The concept of rights is important only insofar as it reduces suffering and increases happiness.
This isn't justification. It is just further restatement of your position. Part of the deal a person makes when living in this country is compliance and acceptance of taxes in return for representation in government. One is not born with a right to not be taxed, and there is no implication that those taxes cant' be used for things like schools.
Wrong, there is no deal. A deal implies agreement between 2 parties arrived at freely and without compulsion. I don't accept involuntary servitude as a pre-condition to living in my supposedly free country. I reject the deal.
And one IS BORN with a right not to be stolen from. It's a fundamental characteristic of a rational animal that all associations with other rational animals take place in a venue of Reason, not Violence.
You are trying to start with some sort of "origins of primitive man" type argument, but Locke and Hobbes have already gone through such reasoning, and guess what? None of them agree with you.
I am starting with the basic metaphysical nature of our species, and what it requires to survive in an optimal fashion. And that mode of survival is Reason. And when living together and exercising Reason as social beings, it requires cooperation and trade, not violent coercion. And that is where Capitalism comes from. An economic system, designed around our very nature as beings of Reason.
Taxing and spending is not primitive animal violence. I disagree that individual rights are the primary expression of our advancement away from primitive life forms. In fact, acting toward the benefit of a group rather than one's self is a relatively modern evolutionary advancement.
No, incorrect and horrifically savage. The suppression of the individual to the needs of a group is NOT an advancement or an evolution. It is a regression to the quagmire of primitive herds. Collectivism is a savage tyranny and a step back to the Dark Ages.
And what is the key difference if I want to implement my philosophy and you want to implement yours? VIOLENCE! My philosophy emphasizes and stipulates cooperation and trade. To make yours run, you need to pick up a gun. Because if someone decides they don't want a benefit that you are going shove down their throat, the only way to make it happen is through violent threat. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS TO PICK UP A GUN TO IMPLEMENT YOUR PHILOSOPHY. I offer cooperation and trade, and if it is turned down, I walk away and look for someone else to agree with. You implement taxation and steal what you cannot trade for. YOUR SYSTEM is the BACKWARD AND SAVAGE ONE. Mine is the way forward. Mine is fit for Men. Yours is fit for Beasts.
Societies are formed to get away from a situation in which individuality is all that matters. We form societies for the very purpose of reaping collective benefits. Otherwise, there is no purpose in forming societies. If man was only interested in maximizing his personal liberties, he wouldn't be a part of society. Society is, by nature, a tradeoff between personal liberty and collective benefits.
Philosophical bankruptcy! Societies are formed so that men may live together for their MUTUAL BENEFIT and so they can exercise their primary means of survival, Reason, in a social context. Individual rights are the key component of an advanced society. Collectivistic coercion is the key component of a primitive totalitarian society.
Why you are so afraid of freedom? Because it might require the best within you?
This is terrible reasoning. You work in the United States, and you live in the United States. That constitutes tacit agreement to conditions of living in the United States which include paying taxes and having some of that tax money redistributed.
Absolutely not. Birth into a jurisdiction carries no obligation or duties to he who is born into that jurisdiction. Rules of compulsion and coercion are artificially created by certain men to enable them to take what they cannot trade for or earn. I do not accept being born into duty or slavery in any form. I was not born to serve any master. Whether 1, 10, 1000, or 1 billion. The only way for you to carry out such implied slavery is to pick up a gun. Which, through the police power of the state, is exactly what the leftists and collectivists have done. But it's still wrong, and it's still immoral, by definition, by Reason, by intellectual honesty, by Reality.
That is not analogous to a single person stealing from his neighbor by force in order to make a personal gain. Your continuing to live here is an agreement to these conditions, and such taxes are not theft because they are part of the agreement you make when you decide to work in this country.
I reject the agreement, and I am free, so I may reject the agreement. Now what? Who needs violence to proceed? Not me. That, my dear, would be you. And it is.
I think you would run into a tragedy of the commons sorts of problem -- in a country of 300 million people, a single person's tax probably doesn't determine the outcome of military funding capabilities. Therefore, for any given person, it could be reasoned that their tax dollars aren't consequential, and they have some incentive to not pay the tax. However, when the entire group takes that approach, there is insufficient funding. Voluntary taxes are a terrible idea.
You didn't address the main problem with your society: It would leave far more people destitute, and many important functions in our society wouldn't be performed. Wealth would skew even more extremely in the direction of a small few, and power imbalances would grow.
Here's some real moral reasoning for you: We should seek to do some form of reducing suffering and increasing happiness. Your society would have much more suffering, and likely much less happiness, thus it is a far worse society. The concept of rights is important only insofar as it reduces suffering and increases happiness.
Aha! You are a classic Utilitarianist! I love it! That's what you are. A University trained Utilitarianist. It's no wonder, I took that course too. You've swallowed the hook, the bait, the line, and the sinker, and now you are sunk.
America is a First World Country with third world metrics for about every metric measuring human achievement, satisfaction and mental and physical health. Thanks to Conservatives. Good job guys.
No government except for national defense... the founders took care of that by putting America right between the two biggest oceans on the planet. How much of a military does it take to defend that? Give me a break. Please. The SWAT team of a good size city could defend this country. Why we need the size military we do is to defend the entire free world! And to reduce the number of young people needing good paying jobs...
Aha! You are a classic Utilitarianist! I love it! That's what you are. A University trained Utilitarianist. It's no wonder, I took that course too. You've swallowed the hook, the bait, the line, and the sinker, and now you are sunk.
I'm trying to decide what bothers me the most about your posts. Is it the condescension when you act like you know more than everyone else because you've read a couple of bad Ayn Rand novels and call yourself a libertarian? Is it your inability to distinguish between someone robbing me with a gun and taxes imposed by a government in free elections in which everyone has a vote? Is it your belief in ideas that are rejected by the vast majority of the American people? Maybe its all of the above.
Allow me to educate you just a bit. Our system isn't about every single person getting to do exactly what they want. Its about a Constitution and a Bill of Rights which attempts to strike a balance between individual liberty and the common good. Coercion and force were contemplated in the founding document of our country. Congress is given the power to lay and collect taxes. Its given the power to regulate interstate commerce. By amendment, its given the right to impose an income tax. States enjoyed "police powers" to regulate the health, welfare, and safety of their citizens long before there was a U.S. Constitution.
Every state in this country has a public school system. Every state in this country has a public university system. If these are "heresy" as you suggest than they are heresies which are, in fact, accepted everywhere.
In my conservative state of Utah, the legislature tried to enact one of your alleged reforms. They enacted a general voucher law which would have allowed people a tax credit for educating their kids in private schools. The result? Citizens organized a referendum and repealed the law by a 2/3's majority.
Your ideas have the distinction of being both bad and unpopular. If they were more popular, Rand Paul would be the GOP's preferred candidate for the presidency right now. You will recall, Rand dropped out of the presidential race long ago after he was dropped from the debates because he had trouble mustering 1% support.
The rest of us aren't stupid as you think. We just have enough imagination to realize what a world run according to libertarian nut philosophy would like. There'd be a lot of people starving in the streets, a lot of kids not learning to read and write, roads not getting any maintenance, and we'd have a country that would be the laughingstock of the world. Paradise not.
I'm trying to decide what bothers me the most about your posts. Is it the condescension when you act like you know more than everyone else because you've read a couple of bad Ayn Rand novels and call yourself a libertarian? Is it your inability to distinguish between someone robbing me with a gun and taxes imposed by a government in free elections in which everyone has a vote? Is it your belief in ideas that are rejected by the vast majority of the American people? Maybe its all of the above.
Allow me to educate you just a bit. Our system isn't about every single person getting to do exactly what they want. Its about a Constitution and a Bill of Rights which attempts to strike a balance between individual liberty and the common good. Coercion and force were contemplated in the founding document of our country. Congress is given the power to lay and collect taxes. Its given the power to regulate interstate commerce. By amendment, its given the right to impose an income tax. States enjoyed "police powers" to regulate the health, welfare, and safety of their citizens long before there was a U.S. Constitution.
Every state in this country has a public school system. Every state in this country has a public university system. If these are "heresy" as you suggest than they are heresies which are, in fact, accepted everywhere.
In my conservative state of Utah, the legislature tried to enact one of your alleged reforms. They enacted a general voucher law which would have allowed people a tax credit for educating their kids in private schools. The result? Citizens organized a referendum and repealed the law by a 2/3's majority.
Your ideas have the distinction of being both bad and unpopular. If they were more popular, Rand Paul would be the GOP's preferred candidate for the presidency right now. You will recall, Rand dropped out of the presidential race long ago after he was dropped from the debates because he had trouble mustering 1% support.
The rest of us aren't stupid as you think. We just have enough imagination to realize what a world run according to libertarian nut philosophy would like. There'd be a lot of people starving in the streets, a lot of kids not learning to read and write, roads not getting any maintenance, and we'd have a country that would be the laughingstock of the world. Paradise not.
So basically the appeal to convention and the appeal to authority. I generally don't want to take the time to unpack these two, mostly from boredom from repetition. Can you do better?
By the way, don't treat the Constitution as a Bible. Both documents are completely flawed, although I would take the Constitution over the Bible any day of the week. Nonetheless, we are better than either of them, and we need to proceed accordingly.
Wrong, there is no deal. A deal implies agreement between 2 parties arrived at freely and without compulsion. I don't accept involuntary servitude as a pre-condition to living in my supposedly free country. I reject the deal.
The only way to reject the deal is to leave the country or face the consequences of not paying taxes. That is simply the way the world works. You might actually be saying that you should be able to reject the deal without consequence, but I disagree. I don't think a society can function like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
And one IS BORN with a right not to be stolen from. It's a fundamental characteristic of a rational animal that all associations with other rational animals take place in a venue of Reason, not Violence.
Where did the right to not be taxed come from? What is the basis of that right? Nature?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
I am starting with the basic metaphysical nature of our species, and what it requires to survive in an optimal fashion. And that mode of survival is Reason. And when living together and exercising Reason as social beings, it requires cooperation and trade, not violent coercion. And that is where Capitalism comes from. An economic system, designed around our very nature as beings of Reason.
Society, which includes forgoing some individual liberties in favor of collective benefits, has been the most effective tool for human survival ever devised. Look at global population figures. I'm not arguing that we shouldn't use reason. I'm arguing that reason doesn't lead us to "taxes equal stealing."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
No, incorrect and horrifically savage. The suppression of the individual to the needs of a group is NOT an advancement or an evolution. It is a regression to the quagmire of primitive herds. Collectivism is a savage tyranny and a step back to the Dark Ages.
Look at the complexity of inter-organism bonds exhibited by frogs, lions, non-human Homo primates and modern humans. You really believe that evolution didn't select for organisms that exhibited collectivism? The history of evolution is a story of increasingly complex societal commitments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
And what is the key difference if I want to implement my philosophy and you want to implement yours? VIOLENCE! My philosophy emphasizes and stipulates cooperation and trade. To make yours run, you need to pick up a gun. Because if someone decides they don't want a benefit that you are going shove down their throat, the only way to make it happen is through violent threat. YOU ARE THE ONE WHO HAS TO PICK UP A GUN TO IMPLEMENT YOUR PHILOSOPHY. I offer cooperation and trade, and if it is turned down, I walk away and look for someone else to agree with. You implement taxation and steal what you cannot trade for. YOUR SYSTEM is the BACKWARD AND SAVAGE ONE. Mine is the way forward. Mine is fit for Men. Yours is fit for Beasts.
So if no one wants to fund the military in your society, and terrorists are threatening your very existence, being killed by all of the terrorists is preferable to forcing people to pay for their own preservation? Get real. As an American citizen, you have benefited from social services your entire life. You drive on roads paid for by the public, you have benefited from military protection, etc. That comes with the stipulation that you will partake in the system, which includes taxes.
Marc, someone who holds such bad ideas should hold them a bit more loosely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
Philosophical bankruptcy! Societies are formed so that men may live together for their MUTUAL BENEFIT and so they can exercise their primary means of survival, Reason, in a social context. Individual rights are the key component of an advanced society. Collectivistic coercion is the key component of a primitive totalitarian society.
As I said, modern society has been the best tool ever devised to promote survival. Reason leads us to the conclusion that laws that produce good societies are better than laws that produce bad societies. Your suggestions would lead to widespread poverty and tremendous social ills. That is a bad society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
Why you are so afraid of freedom? Because it might require the best within you?
I don't even know what this means. Here is our chief difference: I believe that what a person can do in life is, to a large extent, determined by factors set at birth and by their upbringing. Not all people have an equal lot. The "philosophical" argument that people in a modern society who make a lot of money -- within the context of a modern society -- have a fundamental right to keep all of their money makes no sense to me.
Read John Rawls' Justice as Fairness. If you had no clue what your lot was going to be in life, nor what your skills and abilities would be, you would choose a society that gave you the greatest chance to have basic necessities met. Every single time. Without a doubt, our current society does that better than your society would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
Absolutely not. Birth into a jurisdiction carries no obligation or duties to he who is born into that jurisdiction. Rules of compulsion and coercion are artificially created by certain men to enable them to take what they cannot trade for or earn. I do not accept being born into duty or slavery in any form. I was not born to serve any master. Whether 1, 10, 1000, or 1 billion. The only way for you to carry out such implied slavery is to pick up a gun. Which, through the police power of the state, is exactly what the leftists and collectivists have done. But it's still wrong, and it's still immoral, by definition, by Reason, by intellectual honesty, by Reality.
All rules are artificially created by men. You can "reject" the deal all you want, but that doesn't mean you have an opportunity to actually opt out.
Why is it immoral? You have yet to actually articulate why it is immoral. I think it is very moral because it produces more good than harm. Fewer people suffer and more people are happy in our society than they would be in yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc Paolella
I reject the agreement, and I am free, so I may reject the agreement. Now what? Who needs violence to proceed? Not me. That, my dear, would be you. And it is.
Yes, so? If I get enough other citizens to agree with me, we can create a jail and throw you in it for taking the benefits of our society without paying into it. That isn't immoral. You keep dancing around the moral claim, yet you haven't actually articulated by it is immoral. Modern society reduces suffering while increasing happiness. What happens if 70% of people in your society decide not to pay for a military, and the military isn't funded sufficiently? Everyone, including the 30% of reasonable people, dies? You think that is a better society?
There is no such thing as a natural right. It doesn't exist. You are not born with a right to not be thrown in jail for not paying taxes.
America is a First World Country with third world metrics for about every metric measuring human achievement, satisfaction and mental and physical health. Thanks to Conservatives. Good job guys.
No government except for national defense... the founders took care of that by putting America right between the two biggest oceans on the planet. How much of a military does it take to defend that? Give me a break. Please. The SWAT team of a good size city could defend this country. Why we need the size military we do is to defend the entire free world! And to reduce the number of young people needing good paying jobs...
OK, so can we spot the mistake here, ladies and gentlemen? Answer: The implication that there is any distinction whatsoever between the Conservatives and the Liberals in this country. That a Democrat is different in any meaningful way, than a Republican. They are both the same steaming pile of crap. Both represent statism, collectivism, tyranny, taxation, and incoherent and irrational foreign policy. And bringing it back to Bernie Sanders, both support the failed and bankrupt educational system that now victimizes us with brainless automatons that sweep the country after graduating and attend Bernie Sanders conventions. Demanding that they don't have to pay their student loans because they simply don't want to!
Which is the wrong argument. They should be demanding freedom from student loans due to being forced to sit through 4 years of leftist-statist-altruist-collectivist University indoctrination. Basically for having their brains destroyed. Their position is basically one of product liability, but instead they deploy the entitlement mentality usually reserved for the welfare class. How unfortunate and ironic that they don't even know what to complain about!
In fact, the preposterous and ludicrous happenstance that most of Bernie Sanders support comes from a huge conglomeration of recent college graduates from the Leftist-Collectivist system of mostly public Universities, is proof that the education system in this country is most definitely NOT WORKING AT ALL!
You seem to think that mankind is born with a right to essentially do as he pleases, at least so long as it doesn't hurt others. As a result, society imposing requirements on him that he hasn't accepted is a violation of his rights. This concept of natural rights is silly. There is nothing like a right that exists in nature. Nature contains many things, but rights aren't among them. The only way I can make sense of rights is within a legal framework, such as the bill of rights. We can point to the first amendment and say "I have a right to free speech," but this is essentially nothing more than pointing to a guarantee granted by society. Society didn't grant you a right to be outside of society. Where did your right to do so come from? I'm going to anticipate that you will say "reason," so let me preempt you and ask you to actually outline that reasoning. I think there are much stronger arguments in favor of non-deontological moral systems.
Aha! You are a classic Utilitarianist! I love it! That's what you are. A University trained Utilitarianist. It's no wonder, I took that course too. You've swallowed the hook, the bait, the line, and the sinker, and now you are sunk.
I am a classical utilitarian. And I took a lot more than one philosophy course. You are positing a ridiculous notion of natural rights that can't be defended. It is much easier to explain why we should seek to reduce suffering and increase happiness than to explain how it is that a person is born with the right to not be taxed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
