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.
Look, I hate paying taxes. However, I enjoy driving on nice paved roads. I am happy to have schools for our kids. I'm glad the police and fire departments are available to protect my family and property.
All you guys claiming "redistribution" need to take a second look, I honestly do not see it.
The issue here is not that taxation is absolutely wrong; it's that taxation is wrong when it there is no choice. Following the analogy set out in the OP, noting that rape is wrong doesn't imply that consensual sex is wrong.
Many of the services that you listed are paid for by local taxes. My property taxes and my local sales taxes pay for services like roads, schools, police and fire departments. If I didn't want these things, I could move out of the city. Many of my co-workers live outside of the city just for the reason of escaping the high taxes of my city. They are exercising choice by doing this. I enjoy living in the city, so I choose to pay these taxes. I also am active in local politics to ensure that I'm not taxed excessively. Taxation becomes an issue when there is no choice in the matter and when you have little recourse against it.
No it's not a sound argument, you're right. And yes the OP is correct in that just because congress approves an act doesn't make it moral, but likewise, neither does it make something immoral.
So you agree, because the former was his sole contention, the latter was not. I haven't heard anything about anything congress does being immoral simply because congress does it.That would be absurd.
I don't think he's even making the "all taxation is theft" argument, nor do I personally agree with that argument. There should be some semblance of shared responsibility, but that's not a black/white thing. What I think he's saying, and I could be wrong, is that just because the law supports it, doesn't make it moral. Therefore it can not be argued that any and all taxation is moral simply because the government deems it moral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend
We decide morality based on other criteria, and the morality of taxing those with the means in order to help out the impoverished is a moral debate regardless of laws passed.
But the morality lies solely in the action of giving. Someone who calls for heavy taxation is not necessarily more moral, they just believe that others should be coerced into participation in their own idea of morality. You can be a relatively "moral" anarchist or a relatively "moral" communist, but I would venture to say that the anarchist is more moral because while his morality does not necessarily preclude him from being charitable or whatever he deems to be moral, it does preclude him from coercing others to participate in what he deems to be moral.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend
Example: If one of your family members was about to die a painful death and your only option given time constraint was to steal from a wealthy household who would hardly notice, would it be more moral for you to watch the family member die?
For me? If I could save a life it could be argued that the morality of that outweighs the immorality of the theft.
For the millionaire? It depends how you define morality. I think a charitable person is obviously more moral than a non charitable person. But at the same time someone is not necessary amoral simply because they are not particularly charitable. But that's irrelevant anyway, as forced charity does not bestow morality upon the giver, receiver, or tax man.
What if the government determined that rape for the collective good was OK? Say in some form of dystopian society we had only a limited number of men who were able to fight in our battles and to keep those men satisfied and happy, the government gives them women to rape or have their way with? After all, it is for the collective good of society to keep these men happy and in turn, we stay protected.
I think that Dr. Williams is proposing a rational analogy here. And I think it boils down to too much control by the government in determining what is morally right and wrong.
Just food for thought and debate.
No. The fact remains that you only GET to commoditize women's body's as something to "ration out" if you view women or the person as property to begin with.
We don't disallow rape because it is an affront on personal property! We disallow it because it violates rights of the person to THEMSELVES.
Property belongs to the PERSON. The PERSON is of greater concern and value than PROPERTY. It's why you can't shoot someone if you catch them running away with your stuff, because STUFF < PEOPLE.
If you live on an island of three people and two vote to confiscate your property is that moral?
This is a false analogy.
What benefit do I derive from having all of my property confiscated?
Taxes are not per se immoral. The USE of taxes can be immoral. It can also be immoral to use taxes to oppress.
Civilization cannot exist without taxation. Period. Luckily, in a democratic system, the people decide how much personal wealth they are willing to give up to maintain whatever level of government services they like.
Civilization is the only reason why you have "wealth" to "tax" to begin with. A lot of conservatives seem to believe they would be "just as successful" or live just as well if there were no roads, no police, no military, no public schools, no colleges, no federally backed loans, no FAA, etc. etc. etc.
Someone has to pay for the maintenace of civilization. Those who constantly obsess over it sometimes don't realize the alternative proposals are not historically sound, and are without example to show how a "taxless society" would operate.
Dr. Walter Williams explains the immorality of the liberal position:
"Once one accepts the principle of self-ownership, what's moral and immoral becomes self-evident. Murder is immoral because it violates private property. Rape and theft are also immoral -- they also violate private property. Here's an important question: Would rape become morally acceptable if Congress passed a law legalizing it? You say: "What's wrong with you, Williams? Rape is immoral plain and simple, no matter what Congress says or does!" If you take that position, isn't it just as immoral when Congress legalizes the taking of one person's earnings to give to another? Surely if a private person took money from one person and gave it to another, we'd deem it theft and, as such, immoral. Does the same act become moral when Congress takes people's money to give to farmers, airline companies or an impoverished family? No, it's still theft, but with an important difference: It's legal, and participants aren't jailed."
Kudos to you for the "Stupid Post of The Day" award...
The issue here is not that taxation is absolutely wrong; it's that taxation is wrong when it there is no choice. Following the analogy set out in the OP, noting that rape is wrong doesn't imply that consensual sex is wrong.
Many of the services that you listed are paid for by local taxes. My property taxes and my local sales taxes pay for services like roads, schools, police and fire departments. If I didn't want these things, I could move out of the city. Many of my co-workers live outside of the city just for the reason of escaping the high taxes of my city. They are exercising choice by doing this. I enjoy living in the city, so I choose to pay these taxes. I also am active in local politics to ensure that I'm not taxed excessively. Taxation becomes an issue when there is no choice in the matter and when you have little recourse against it.
When do you "never have a choice"? Don't want to pay income taxes? Don't make income. Don't want to pay property taxes? Don't buy property. Don't want to pay sales tax? Don't buy anything.
And I'm sorry, did we wake up in a dictatorship at some point? Find enough like minded people who share your vision for lower taxes (and the subsequent reduction of services that will inevitably accompany), and petition the government for change. Or run for office yourself on such a platform. You can call it the "taxes are too damn high" party.
Even the American Revolution wasn't about NOT wanting to pay taxes. It was about not wanting taxes WITHOUT REPRESENTATION in the setting of those taxes!
You have ultimate recourse: Leave the jurisdiction of the taxing entity.
People who think CA has too high of taxes, leave. People who think the United States has too high of taxes can also leave.
If in 1930 Rip Van Winkle had gone to sleep for forty years he would have woken up and found America was no longer a republic but a tyrannical majority that can take the fruit of a man's labor at the mere whim of that tyrannical majority.
Theft is theft, rape is rape, even when government sanctions it. Pretty easy to understand for all those who do not bury their heads in the sand.
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money,
that will herald the end of the republic.” - Benjamin Franklin
Dr. Walter Williams explains the immorality of the liberal position:
"Once one accepts the principle of self-ownership, what's moral and immoral becomes self-evident. Murder is immoral because it violates private property. Rape and theft are also immoral -- they also violate private property. Here's an important question: Would rape become morally acceptable if Congress passed a law legalizing it? You say: "What's wrong with you, Williams? Rape is immoral plain and simple, no matter what Congress says or does!" If you take that position, isn't it just as immoral when Congress legalizes the taking of one person's earnings to give to another? Surely if a private person took money from one person and gave it to another, we'd deem it theft and, as such, immoral. Does the same act become moral when Congress takes people's money to give to farmers, airline companies or an impoverished family? No, it's still theft, but with an important difference: It's legal, and participants aren't jailed."
Either I am having a dejavu or there is an identical thread already...
I posted the quote when discussing another topic and thought it would make for a good debate.
Williams, Sowell, Friedman on Economics and Buchanan and Paul on foreign policy I tend to quote quite frequently.
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.
